NationStates Jolt Archive

I was in Italy this summer, I liked it a lot, it was fun, but expensive, I just like the way America runs better, Hell I like Capitalism! Capitalism has been with America for 170 years, and before 1905 monopolys and trusts were legal, now they're not, our system has worked very good, it produces a lot of stuff for cheap prices, think, without corporations we wouldnt have cars, medicine, tvs, computers, and a whole bunch of other stuff, where would we be in life without any of the stuff that corporations make? Ill tell you, 250 years in the past. Riding coaches, horses.

With capitalism you can make all the stuff you need to make to fulfill the needs of the people in your country and other countries. Just because there are a few gready people that own corporations doesnt make it bad.

I hate to tell the creater of the other thread, Capitalism is NOT new, (see above) Its a great system that has worked for the US, and a whole bunch of other countrys.

Apparently you have no idea whatsoever what the hell socialism entails. Or even is. By the by, it typically results in lower prices but lower quality, from the lack of a profit motive. Capitalism typically results in higher proces but higher quality.

Apparently you have no idea whatsoever what the hell socialism entails. Or even is. By the by, it typically results in lower prices but lower quality, from the lack of a profit motive. Capitalism typically results in higher proces but higher quality.

Capitalism reults in lower costs, higher quality, mainly because of competition, and the Free Enterprise System.

Apparently you have no idea whatsoever what the hell socialism entails. Or even is. By the by, it typically results in lower prices but lower quality, from the lack of a profit motive. Capitalism typically results in higher proces but higher quality.


*Stands a claps hands off*


but not to get into communism or socialism lets just say NOTHING LAST FOREVER, NOTHING!!!!! Rome fell, the US will fall (hopefully i would be here to see it) and Capitilism will fall too. Nothings prefect and nothing is forever so yea pretty plain and simple.

Capitalism works if you're rich.

Capitalism works if you're rich.
Let's rephrase that, capitalism works if you're: rich, talented, smart, creative or hard working.

Let's rephrase that, capitalism works if you're: rich, talented, smart, creative or hard working.
But thats not fair to the idiots, drunken, or just plain lazy!
WE MUST REFORM!

But thats not fair to the idiots, drunken, or just plain lazy!
WE MUST REFORM!
And give them free housing, food and medical! (in the pen)

And give them free housing, food and medical! (in the pen)
Well, I can see allowing people with mental disabilities some aide (Particularly those who CANNOT earn their own living), but the drunken and lazy are on their own.
See? IM not a omniphobic republican pig :P

I was in Italy this summer, I liked it a lot, it was fun, but expensive, I just like the way America runs better, Hell I like Capitalism! .

Are you seriously suggesting that Italy is not a capitalist country?

If so, how would you classify it, and why.

Well, I can see allowing people with mental disabilities some aide (Particularly those who CANNOT earn their own living), but the drunken and lazy are on their own.
See? IM not a omniphobic republican pig :P
take note of the "in the pen[itentiary]" at the end...it will reveal I might possibly be an omniphobic republican pig as well.

take note of the "in the pen[itentiary]" at the end...it will reveal I might possibly be an omniphobic republican pig as well.
I saw that, I just figured I would ignore it so nobody comes in and freaks out at us. I dont want another flame war. There are too many.
^HA! More proof!

Capitalism reults in lower costs, higher quality, mainly because of competition, and the Free Enterprise System.

This has long been an argument for the free market but unfortunately has no basis in reality. Businesses are only out to make as large a profit as possible and competition is really a myth. Capitalism creates huge corporations which dominate the market and can charge as much as they want and when there are several companies they are often involved in price fixing.

Whenever state services have been sold off the prices have gone through the roof and for example, in some third world countries after the IMF forced water services to be privatised the prices rose by more than 10 times the previous price. Even in wealthy countries like the UK water and gas service prices rose significantly as did public transport after they were privatised.

Capitalism is a system which is based on the exploitation of one group by another for the personal gain of the few while the majority of people suffer. Capitalism is failing the world and driving millions of people into poverty and misery.

Let's rephrase that, capitalism works if you're: rich, talented, smart, creative or hard working.

Let's re-rephrase that.

Capitalism works if you're:
Rich, talented, smart, creative, or hard-wroking, but mostly only if you're rich.
Oh yeah, and it doesn't work if you are part of any minority. Otherwise, you're set.

Capitalism is fantastic if your white (on the whole although that is obviously not a gurantee nor a condition), middle class or higher, and live in the Western World. The problem is that so much money concentrated in the hands of so few obviously results in victims somewhere. But thankfully those people are so infrequently seen on our TV sets that we can pretend that out little box of worlds are the only thing that exists and as we don;t know any poor people that obviously means they are not there.
We like to point to Africa and say poor people, and not remember that mostly they are so fu**ed up because of the Capitalist rape that took away everything they had, and now they've taken all they could are charging African nations for that honour.
Not only that but we also like to pretend that all those people struggling beneath the poverty line, and those who have to work hard in professions most people couldn't handle except in the direst need, have had EVERY advantage we have had and therefore we say that thy are lazy, and it is their fault that they are destitute.
So yeah, for those few in the middle class and higher, Capitalism is great. For the over few billion people in this world...........



please excuse my rant, i'm sorry but i get all confused when i do this so that was pretty messed up, but true.

Let's re-rephrase that.

Capitalism works if you're:
Rich, talented, smart, creative, or hard-wroking, but mostly only if you're rich.

Really?
Tell that to Bill Clinton or Ross Perot. Tell that to my grandfather. Tell that to all the people who have rags to riches stories. Tell them that they really didn't earn their money.



Oh yeah, and it doesn't work if you are part of any minority. Otherwise, you're set.
Tell that to Neal, or Skeet, or Amy. They're all minorities and they're people I know who are doing better than I.

Tell that to Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice. Tell that to the growing number of successful minorities out there.

Really?
Tell that to Bill Clinton or Ross Perot. Tell that to my grandfather. Tell that to all the people who have rags to riches stories. Tell them that they really didn't earn their money.



Tell that to Neal, or Skeet, or Amy. They're all minorities and they're people I know who are doing better than I.

Tell that to Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice. Tell that to the growing number of successful minorities out there.

You know, this is the most ridiculous argument of all...

Hey, what are you talking about?! I can name eight people that don't fit your general description of the world. Consider yourself refuted!!

"Rags to riches" stories have an important place in our society precisely because they run against the norm.

Apparently you are all missing a few points.

Businesses, if they could, would produce LOADS of lousy products with no safety or environmental consideration is not for government (read: socialist) groups like the FDA to regulate businesses and product standards. As a result 'free market' doesn't fully exist since government institutions regulate it and keep you safe from inferior products (thank you Ralph Nader).

Capitalism is great but you need a certain degree of socialism to keep it honest and protect the consumer. Protecting the people is sorta the goal of socialism: public schools, healthcare, etc.

Apparently you are all missing a few points.

Businesses, if they could, would produce LOADS of lousy products with no safety or environmental consideration is not for government (read: socialist) groups like the FDA to regulate businesses and product standards. As a result 'free market' doesn't fully exist since government institutions regulate it and keep you safe from inferior products (thank you Ralph Nader).

Capitalism is great but you need a certain degree of socialism to keep it honest and protect the consumer. Protecting the people is sorta the goal of socialism: public schools, healthcare, etc.

Public Schools are not a very good example of socialism...

My prediction is that within 20 years the US Public School system will collapse, along with most of US society...

My extremely liberal friend who is a teacher in the public school system, considered my estimate extremely liberal... She thinks it will happen in less time.

It will collapse for several reasons:
1. Discipline is lacking, as well as enforcement of true forms of standards in conduct...
2. A reliance on Standardized Testing as a educational form: Such tests should be used as guages, not to educate.
3. The lack of functional parenting; which has been degrading exponentially over the last 30 years.(Which is partly in connection to Point 1).

This has long been an argument for the free market but unfortunately has no basis in reality. Businesses are only out to make as large a profit as possible and competition is really a myth. Capitalism creates huge corporations which dominate the market and can charge as much as they want and when there are several companies they are often involved in price fixing.

You might want to check up on that, seeing as you're wrong.

Whenever state services have been sold off the prices have gone through the roof and for example, in some third world countries after the IMF forced water services to be privatised the prices rose by more than 10 times the previous price. Even in wealthy countries like the UK water and gas service prices rose significantly as did public transport after they were privatised.

You might want to check up on that one again as well. Seeing as you are also wrong there.

Capitalism is a system which is based on the exploitation of one group by another for the personal gain of the few while the majority of people suffer. Capitalism is failing the world and driving millions of people into poverty and misery.

Which is exactly why the general standard of living of the world has increased quite a bit? And the only experimentations in communism resulted in the poorest countries in the world?

Capitalism is an economic theory that started around the 1770s with Adam Smiths "The Wealth of Nations." It was not really asking for a completely new economic system as it was an argument against the current form of economics at that time. Capitalism, by far, is a superior system, when balanced. The governments role in a capitalist society is to ensure that sellers and buyers play by certain rules that ensure a smooth buisness transaction. It largely leaves production and ownership in the hands of individuals, as in enshrined in the United States constitution with the protection of private property.

Socialism, on the other hand (which I used to believe in the "scientific" form, communism) is more of a political/economic entity. Capitalism is a centralist ideology while socialism is more of a "workers paradise." As can be seen from European economic progress, socialism is sort of....stupid. It gives labor unions absurd powers (they actually have holidays in Italy for various strikes that rock the country) over many things while reducing a firms ability to react to markets.

As for socialist countries products being well built and inexpensive, I disagree. French citizens have around 50-56% tax rate (including income, sales, corporate, etc.) Passat builds some of the crapiest civilian cars on the planet. Japan on the other hand, besides their crappy banking system, produces probably the best cars on the planet, and tehy are far from socialists. In fact, they are very capitalistic. Why is that? Well, labor laws are nice, but you shouldn't tell a company to only fire a employee with the states permission of the labor unions permission. The courts are there to protect citizens, as are reasonable laws. And look at employment! The united states is suffering, what, a 5-6% unemployment rate at the moment? Germany is suffering 10.4% unemployment, and France around 8-9%!!! And both are extremly socialist countries! Is that economic progress? No! In the end, a capitalist system with regulations that encourage buisness, but punishes stupidity, ensures top quality development. That, and not taxeing consumer spending, as the europeans are encouraged to do.

Are you seriously suggesting that Italy is not a capitalist country?

If so, how would you classify it, and why.

That's what I was thinking.

Let's not let this out to the traders on the floor of the Italian Stock Exchange.

Let's rephrase that, capitalism works if you're: rich, talented, smart, creative or hard working.

No, not necessarily.

What about the fat, lazy asshole who inherits the business from his father? Did he do anything to get where he is? No.

I was talking about this person the other day, Ashlee Simpson. She's not talented, hardworking, creative, or smart. Because her sister is a multi-millionaire popstar, she has gotten to where she is now.

What about a school teacher? Teachers are some of the most hard working people in the world, yet they are not paid well, many of them are suffering.

Immigrants who face racism and discrimination, it is difficult for them to find work. They suffer because of capitalism.

I could think of MANY more situations where your statement has been proved wrong. Next time please think before you post something. Thanks.

I think you may have paid more in Italy because of the ludicrous levels of tax that are forced upon us here in Europe.

Passat builds some of the crapiest civilian cars on the planet.

Do you mean Volkswagen? I've never heard of a company called Passat, unless it's an obscure East European company. I've heard of a Volkswagen Passat though. And Volkswagen makes some of the best civilian cars on the planet. They're high quality, typically efficient and powerful. The Volkswagen Golf is frequently voted 'Car of the Month', or 'Car of the Year', or 'Car of the Aliens' or whatever in various publications.

French cars are some of the crappiest on the planet thanks mainly to their reliability troubles, along with Italy (ever tried to drive an Alfa Romeo off the forecourt? Ever been inside a Fiat?), Russia (Lada just brought a car out designed to compete with European cars that are no longer manufactured... looking good, Lada), America (simplistic engineering brings reliability and cheap maintenance [sometimes], but lacks the power or efficiency of European rivals. Don't corner too well either) and places like N. Korea or China (Kia, for example).

Capitalism and Socialism both have good and bad parts. Pure Socialism can cause inherent lazyness and the collapse of the economic system, where as pure Capitalism leaves the poor behind in it's wake and makes them suffer. A combination of the two, combinging the best aspects of both, is what the best economic system would truly be. It's what I've always advocated.

Capitalism works because it creates an autonomous populous and a limited government. It is the base of democracy.

Apparently you have no idea whatsoever what the hell socialism entails. Or even is. By the by, it typically results in lower prices but lower quality, from the lack of a profit motive. Capitalism typically results in higher proces but higher quality.

Capitalism results in the price and quality that the market is willing to bear. The _market_ not the government.

No, not necessarily.

What about the fat, lazy asshole who inherits the business from his father? Did he do anything to get where he is? No.

I was talking about this person the other day, Ashlee Simpson. She's not talented, hardworking, creative, or smart. Because her sister is a multi-millionaire popstar, she has gotten to where she is now.

What about a school teacher? Teachers are some of the most hard working people in the world, yet they are not paid well, many of them are suffering.

Immigrants who face racism and discrimination, it is difficult for them to find work. They suffer because of capitalism.

I could think of MANY more situations where your statement has been proved wrong. Next time please think before you post something. Thanks.


Ah, the age old argument of socialists. Capitalism does not work because...because look at Paris Hilton!! It's not fair!!

Quit whining; their success does not inhibit your ability to succeed.

And what does racism and discrimination have to do with capitalism?

It works for the few by exploiting the many. This is how capitalism always has, and always will operate.

It works for the few by exploiting the many. This is how capitalism always has, and always will operate.

The few? Do you honestly believe that? Do you not count yourself as a benefactor? Why are the countries that embraced capitalism long ago the most well-off?

It works for the few by exploiting the many. This is how capitalism always has, and always will operate.

Incredibly simplistic view of capitalism.

In a simplistic view, capitalism is actually more of a group of people exploiting a system. The poor are more or less those that are unable to adapt to the system for some reason or other. There are exceptions, of course, but there are exceptions to almost everything.

Let's rephrase that, capitalism works if you're: rich, talented, smart, creative or hard working.
Let's rephrase that: capitalism works if you're rich, heartless, and have the money to stamp out your competetiton by any means possible.

It just makes you miserable if you're not in the image of clinical perfection, because you'll be forced to burn your lifeblood on trying to get healthy again, and half the time you're not even sick.

As for being talented, smart, creative, or hard working, you'll have a nice, pointless life fueling the greed juggernaut.

Let's rephrase that: capitalism works if you're rich, heartless, and have the money to stamp out your competetiton by any means possible.

It just makes you miserable if you're not in the image of clinical perfection, because you'll be forced to burn your lifeblood on trying to get healthy again, and half the time you're not even sick.

As for being talented, smart, creative, or hard working, you'll have a nice, pointless life fueling the greed juggernaut.

Way to ruin your first post.

Ragnarok Addicts. I will remember that name.

Well judging by America capitalism doesn't work very well. Your country's debt's are too big for your government to pay, leaving a third of your country in poverty and you need government protection, subsidies and import tariffs to keep your companies (eg Steel) working.

By contrast the Roman Empire successfully used socialist economic principles to control the world for over 500 years !!!!!

Stop waving a flag and start reading books....

I was in Italy this summer, I liked it a lot, it was fun, but expensive, I just like the way America runs better, Hell I like Capitalism!

Italy IS capitalist. You, on the other hand, are possibly just not very bright. Perhaps once you've learned how capitalism treats those who re not very birght, you won't like it so much.

Capitalism has been with America for 170 years, and before 1905 monopolys and trusts were legal, now they're not, our system has worked very good, it produces a lot of stuff for cheap prices, think, without corporations we wouldnt have cars, medicine, tvs, computers, and a whole bunch of other stuff, where would we be in life without any of the stuff that corporations make? Ill tell you, 250 years in the past. Riding coaches, horses.

Russia, under the semi-communist Stalinist system, went from a backward pre-industrial rural nation to one of the only two superpowers in a little under twenty years. That doesn't entirely back up your quote. You may be mistaking Capitalism for science.

Also note that capitalism is the reason we don't all have solar powered cars yet. Corporations, terrified of loosing oil revenue, buy the patents and then never produce them. That's KEEPING us in the past.

And capitalism is also what is keeping Africa as a hopeless mess.

With capitalism you can make all the stuff you need to make to fulfill the needs of the people in your country and other countries. Just because there are a few gready people that own corporations doesnt make it bad.

Ye-es. But you can do that with any economic system, really. What you are talking about is industry. May I refer you to Russia, once again.

I hate to tell the creater of the other thread, Capitalism is NOT new, (see above) Its a great system that has worked for the US, and a whole bunch of other countrys.

It's people like you that make everyone assume Americans are all halfwits, you know that?

Did any of you on either side read my post? No. I'll repost it for you all to see:
Capitalism and Socialism both have good and bad parts. Pure Socialism can cause inherent lazyness and the collapse of the economic system, where as pure Capitalism leaves the poor behind in it's wake and makes them suffer. A combination of the two, combinging the best aspects of both, is what the best economic system would truly be. It's what I've always advocated.

Socialism is a defeatist concept:

The people are stupid; let the government control everything.

The people do not deserve to control their pocketbooks; let the government tax them heavily.

Rich people must die; take their money and give it to the poor.

The poor cannot rise ON THEIR OWN; the government must lift them up.
---
There is no hope in this, no inspiration to succeed.. there is very little chance for upward mobility. And if you do succeed and make it to the top, how are you treated? You are treated like a pig, taxed like a Swede, hated by all who don't have what you have (the government takes most of what you've worked so hard to earn anyway).

People are not equal. Some are simply more talented, more driven than others.

Socialism takes away the opportunity to excel and replaces it with forced equality. Your potential greatness is held in check for the sake of others who are less talented or driven et al.

Now... we need to help those who cannot help themselves, and obviously we need government for other reasons as well.

But government, imho, should more or less keep its hands off ingenuity and resolve. People should have a right to excel, to be successful; they should not be punished for it.

[With this freedom, of course, comes a great deal of responsibility for the entrepreneur in the capitalist system. And should he rip people off knowingly (eg, the Enron case), he should be punished. Government must have at least some regulative power.]

If you have a great business concept and make it happen, you'll probably end up offering jobs to many people. In which case.. you have done a great good for the working man. (so long as you treat/pay him fairly)

Capitalism is scorned by the poor because they see the rich person and think, "I don't have what he's got... and I want what he's got."

At least in a Capitalist country, the poor person -- with great drive and determination, maybe a little luck -- CAN live the rich life.

Socialism tells him to hate the rich. But in socialism he has no chance of becoming rich or of doing all the great (well, some are great) things required to become that rich person. In capitalism, he has a chance.

You might want to check up on that, seeing as you're wrong.

You might want to cite examples for that, seeing as you're wrong.

You might want to check up on that one again as well. Seeing as you are also wrong there.

Once again, examples are more useful here than sweeping incorrect statements. You idiot.

Which is exactly why the general standard of living of the world has increased quite a bit? And the only experimentations in communism resulted in the poorest countries in the world?

Yes, Russia, that well known house of poverty. Only it's not, is it? Not compared to, oooh, Harlem?
Or China. The US gives China $170 BILLION dollars a year. That's the largest trade deficeit the world has ever known. And it's going to the Commie country. Hmm.

I think, perhaps, you should find out some facts BEFORE you reply to people next time.

Well judging by America capitalism doesn't work very well. Your country's debt's are too big for your government to pay, leaving a third of your country in poverty and you need government protection, subsidies and import tariffs to keep your companies (eg Steel) working.

By contrast the Roman Empire successfully used socialist economic principles to control the world for over 500 years !!!!!

Stop waving a flag and start reading books....

Our debt has nothing to do with capitalism, it has more to do with the irresponsibility of our government. The protectionism provide by our government is a tactic to help employers keep American wages high.

Since all I am a Finance major with a economics minor, I haven't taken any Roman History courses, so maybe you could explain these socialist economic principles that the Roman Empire employed, and how they strengthened the empire.

Well judging by America capitalism doesn't work very well. Your country's debt's are too big for your government to pay, leaving a third of your country in poverty and you need government protection, subsidies and import tariffs to keep your companies (eg Steel) working.

By contrast the Roman Empire successfully used socialist economic principles to control the world for over 500 years !!!!!

Stop waving a flag and start reading books....

You forgot to mention that, at the current rate, anyone who doesn't own a massive corporation in the US will be in a prison there by 2024.
Also forgot to mention that rich people don't seem to go to prison in a capitalist country. Some things should work regardless of money, and the law really is one of them.

Oh, and the massively increasing rate of unemployment, forgot that, too.

Or China. The US gives China $170 BILLION dollars a year. That's the largest trade deficeit the world has ever known. And it's going to the Commie country. Hmm.

I think, perhaps, you should find out some facts BEFORE you reply to people next time.

The US is much stronger economically, and it has a much higher standard of living.

Tell me, do you know which currency the Chinese peg their currency against?

Our debt has nothing to do with capitalism, it has more to do with the irresponsibility of our government. The protectionism provide by our government is a tactic to help employers keep American wages high.

Perhpas it's a bit of a shit tactic, then, since you exported most of your primary industry. And also since it doesn't keep ALL US wages high, does it?

*Stands a claps hands off*


but not to get into communism or socialism lets just say NOTHING LAST FOREVER, NOTHING!!!!! Rome fell, the US will fall (hopefully i would be here to see it) and Capitilism will fall too. Nothings prefect and nothing is forever so yea pretty plain and simple.

hopefully I'll be there to see it fall....






on you

Let's rephrase that: capitalism works if you're rich, heartless, and have the money to stamp out your competetiton by any means possible.

odd, capitalism works for me, and i am a poor academic who volunteers at a local clinic and youth program because i want to encourage more people to become doctors (and thus increase the number of people "competing" with me).

It just makes you miserable if you're not in the image of clinical perfection, because you'll be forced to burn your lifeblood on trying to get healthy again, and half the time you're not even sick.

i actually am sick (i have a chronic anemic condition) but it's never really made me miserable. sad, sometimes, but never miserable, and capitalism certainly hasn't had anything to do with my sadness...i mostly was just sad that my life is going to be shorter than it would have been otherwise, and communism wouldn't have extended that span at all.

As for being talented, smart, creative, or hard working, you'll have a nice, pointless life fueling the greed juggernaut.
really? i would like to think i have those qualities in at least some small degree, and i find my life quite full of meaning so far.

what is the source of your bitterness, if i might ask? why do you seek to blame personal failures on capitalism?

The US is much stronger economically, and it has a much higher standard of living.

The Chinese economy is only so bad because of Maoist ideas that SOE's should cover every aspect of their workers lives. So Chinese car companies also make toothpaste for their workers. And the US economy is in such a state because they are irresponsible capitalist. Don't get me wrong; I'm well aware that communism doesn't work either. But capitalism isn't such a bed of roses as everyone paints. It needs to be sternly controlled with leftist ideas, such as a hefty inheritence tax.

Tell me, do you know which currency the Chinese peg their currency against?

The Japanese Yen, if I recall. Not the almighty dollar any more, since it's not as almighty as it likes to believe.

Perhpas it's a bit of a shit tactic, then, since you exported most of your primary industry. And also since it doesn't keep ALL US wages high, does it?

Our minimum wage is over six dollars an hour. I would wager most of the world's average wages are substantially lower than that.

Capitalism is fantastic if your white (on the whole although that is obviously not a gurantee nor a condition), middle class or higher, and live in the Western World. The problem is that so much money concentrated in the hands of so few obviously results in victims somewhere. But thankfully those people are so infrequently seen on our TV sets that we can pretend that out little box of worlds are the only thing that exists and as we don;t know any poor people that obviously means they are not there.
We like to point to Africa and say poor people, and not remember that mostly they are so fu**ed up because of the Capitalist rape that took away everything they had, and now they've taken all they could are charging African nations for that honour.
Not only that but we also like to pretend that all those people struggling beneath the poverty line, and those who have to work hard in professions most people couldn't handle except in the direst need, have had EVERY advantage we have had and therefore we say that thy are lazy, and it is their fault that they are destitute.
So yeah, for those few in the middle class and higher, Capitalism is great. For the over few billion people in this world...........



please excuse my rant, i'm sorry but i get all confused when i do this so that was pretty messed up, but true.

Not quite. All those suffering Africans, and Arabs too, are suffering because of corrupt, despotic leaders. Capitalism doesn't have a chance without liberty. Rather, the success of capitalism is dependant on the quality of the leadership. In a democratic republic, the leadership is us and we should vote in our own interests.

By and large, the folks who settled in the US weren't rich. In the early days, they didn't even own property. The company that financed their escape from Europe owned everything. That didn't work. People didn't care about the company profits, so they did little or nothing. Not until William Bradford gave the Mass Bay colonists private property, was the colony self-sufficent.

We could go on and on about the merits of private property, the success of capitalism in countries where it is owned and the failure of capitalism where the governments sieze it.

Let's rephrase that, capitalism works if you're: rich, talented, smart, creative or hard working.
no, really just if you're rich, lucky or well connected.

there are plenty of smart, creative, talented hardworking people who don't get anywhere because they have terrible timing, luck and don't know anyone who can hook them up and further their career.

The Chinese economy is only so bad because of Maoist ideas that SOE's should cover every aspect of their workers lives. So Chinese car companies also make toothpaste for their workers. And the US economy is in such a state because they are irresponsible capitalist. Don't get me wrong; I'm well aware that communism doesn't work either. But capitalism isn't such a bed of roses as everyone paints. It needs to be sternly controlled with leftist ideas, such as a hefty inheritence tax.

I tend to agree with you, as I believe in the graduated income tax, an end of corporate welfare and such, but you seemed to be painting a very negative image of capitalism, and I was defending it, since it is the best economic system.

The Japanese Yen, if I recall. Not the almighty dollar any more, since it's not as almighty as it likes to believe.

No, the Yuan is pegged at 8.3 per US Dollar.

[QUOTE=Nasopotomia] But capitalism isn't such a bed of roses as everyone paints. It needs to be sternly controlled with leftist ideas, such as a hefty inheritence tax.[QUOTE]

horsesh*t

Everyone wants to provide for their children. This tax is just another way for the government to tell us what to do with our money... in fact, to steal it from us and give it to people we don't know. I hate inheritance tax or any tax that is there for the sole purpose of the redistribution of wealth.

Russia, under the semi-communist Stalinist system, went from a backward pre-industrial rural nation to one of the only two superpowers in a little under twenty years. That doesn't entirely back up your quote.
And then the communist juggernaut collapsed with capitalism filling the void. Russia, the USSR version of Russia, was the only country I ever visited where people stole each other's windshield wipers. The central government could never produce enough.

Then there was the great wheat famine that was caused by the central planners. The sorry capitalist economy in the US managed to bail the Soviets out of that one. We could probably find plenty more central planning blunders, if we looked a little.

Not quite. All those suffering Africans, and Arabs too, are suffering because of corrupt, despotic leaders. Capitalism doesn't have a chance without liberty. Rather, the success of capitalism is dependant on the quality of the leadership. In a democratic republic, the leadership is us and we should vote in our own interests.

By and large, the folks who settled in the US weren't rich. In the early days, they didn't even own property. The company that financed their escape from Europe owned everything. That didn't work. People didn't care about the company profits, so they did little or nothing. Not until William Bradford gave the Mass Bay colonists private property, was the colony self-sufficent.

We could go on and on about the merits of private property, the success of capitalism in countries where it is owned and the failure of capitalism where the governments sieze it.

I believe you are on the right track, but slightly off. It is not the liberty that insures capitalism, but the capitalism that insures liberty. Without the autonomy that capitalism provides, the people would be unable to protect their liberty.

Our minimum wage is over six dollars an hour. I would wager most of the world's average wages are substantially lower than that.

Look at it in comparison to your service prices if you want to compare that.

Healthcare. You have to pay for it, and a substantial chunk of your population CAN'T. Doing well so far.

Your food prices are higher than much of the world. Your travel prices too. Your cars use up vast amounts of fuel compared to EVERYONE ELSE'S, which is why you guzzle so much oil. Electricity and water rates in the US are also artificially high.

In comparison, your wages are no better than anyone elses. They just seem better if you don't look into it.

I believe you are on the right track, but slightly off. It is not the liberty that insures capitalism, but the capitalism that insures liberty. Without the autonomy that capitalism provides, the people would be unable to protect their liberty.
Here's why I said it the way I did. The right to own property is essential to a capitalist economy. Only free citizens can own property. When I say free, I mean citizens that control the government, not serve it. The first step toward capitalism is liberty.

The example of the USSR becoming Russia is a good one. When liberty and private property started to exist, the economy started to become capitialist. Same for Poland. Same for Iraq, I hope. The the rest of the backward Arab nations. Oops, wrong thread. Sorry.

Look at it in comparison to your service prices if you want to compare that.

Healthcare. You have to pay for it, and a substantial chunk of your population CAN'T. Doing well so far.

Your food prices are higher than much of the world. Your travel prices too. Your cars use up vast amounts of fuel compared to EVERYONE ELSE'S, which is why you guzzle so much oil. Electricity and water rates in the US are also artificially high.

In comparison, your wages are no better than anyone elses. They just seem better if you don't look into it.

It is not a substantial chunk of the population who cannot afford healthcare, but I do support universal healthcare.

Our food and luxury prices are higher because they are generally better quality. We use exorbitant amounts of fuel because we can afford it. They are artificially high to protect the industries and the workers of the industries.

If you want a great comparison for our economy, check per capita GDP. The US is second at 31.5K. The closest major European country is Switzerland at 26.4K.

We can look at history and say without doubt that capitalism, free-marketism or however you term it is the only economic system to have 'worked', and by that I mean continually increased the wealth of the nation and its inhabitants. The only examples we have of socialist economies (USSR and Eastern Europe in the 20th Century) have failed and brought misery to their people. The Roman Empire cannot be used as an example of a socialist economy since it was 2000 years ago.

We can see the effect of excessive government intervention in the economy in the post-colonial world. Development Economists claimed that these countries were inherently different to the West and so needed to follow different paths of economic policy. This led to giant debt, excessive budget deficits, plenty of corruption and a population that got poorer and more hungry. Its only now that countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America begin to embrace free-market capitalism that their economies begin to grow. I don't think capitalism can defeat corruption, for that a robust legal system needs to be built up.

Here's why I said it the way I did. The right to own property is essential to a capitalist economy. Only free citizens can own property. When I say free, I mean citizens that control the government, not serve it. The first step toward capitalism is liberty.

The example of the USSR becoming Russia is a good one. When liberty and private property started to exist, the economy started to become capitialist. Same for Poland. Same for Iraq, I hope. The the rest of the backward Arab nations. Oops, wrong thread. Sorry.

There is very little valuable property in Iraq, so I cannot imagine a viable distribution of wealth in Iraq without socialism. That is why I don't believe Democracy will ever work in Iraq.

I tend to agree with you, as I believe in the graduated income tax, an end of corporate welfare and such, but you seemed to be painting a very negative image of capitalism, and I was defending it, since it is the best economic system.

I agree it's currently the best system, but that doesn't mean you have to pretend it's particularly good.

No, the Yuan is pegged at 8.3 per US Dollar.

Are you sure? I know they tied to the Yen for at least a while. Possibly when they agreed to join the WTO.


horsesh*t

Everyone wants to provide for their children. This tax is just another way for the government to tell us what to do with our money... in fact, to steal it from us and give it to people we don't know. I hate inheritance tax or any tax that is there for the sole purpose of the redistribution of wealth.

So, Paris Hilton deserves to live in luxury for her entire life for no other reason than because her Grandaddy was a good business man?

I'm not saying 100% inheritance tax fullstop. A graduated system, starting at 1% per full 20,000 dollars and hitting a ceiling at 50%. Are you going to miss $20 out of every $20,000? Are you really such a tight-fisted swine?

And as for giving money to those you don't know, where do you stand on all the people in India right now who've just lost everything? What if YOU had lost everything, through no fault of your own?

And remember, with inheritence tax, at least income tax can fall or freeze for a while.


And then the communist juggernaut collapsed with capitalism filling the void. Russia, the USSR version of Russia, was the only country I ever visited where people stole each other's windshield wipers. The central government could never produce enough.

Then there was the great wheat famine that was caused by the central planners. The sorry capitalist economy in the US managed to bail the Soviets out of that one. We could probably find plenty more central planning blunders, if we looked a little.

Yes, because it poured vast resources into trying to keep up in an arms race with a hosile US superpower.

And the Capitalist system has made enormous fuck-ups as well. Do you remember hearing about the crash in 1929? All that save your sorry capitalist system was government initiatives. Leftist ones, at that. The Hoover Dam was built by a state-run enterprise. The irrigation of most of the South-west was Government funded.

And I don't claim communism is any better, as I said. It's just that capitalism is not the fabulous, amazing idea everyone thinks. It has serious problems if not kept in check with thorough regulation from Government.

I agree it's currently the best system, but that doesn't mean you have to pretend it's particularly good.

Nothing can be perfect. But if we safeguard ourselves against the downfalls of capitalism it will work very well.

Are you sure? I know they tied to the Yen for at least a while. Possibly when they agreed to join the WTO.



The Chinese renminbi has been pegged at roughly 8.28 to the dollar since 1995 and, by now, is clearly undervalued, perhaps by as much as 40 percent.

So, Paris Hilton deserves to live in luxury for her entire life for no other reason than because her Grandaddy was a good business man?

I'm not saying 100% inheritance tax fullstop. A graduated system, starting at 1% per full 20,000 dollars and hitting a ceiling at 50%. Are you going to miss $20 out of every $20,000? Are you really such a tight-fisted swine?

Maybe not deserves, but does her father deserve to have his money stripped and taken by the government?

I sort of believe in an inheritance tax, and a graduated one. There is an economic principle behind graduated taxes, the marginal utility of a dollar.

There is very little valuable property in Iraq, so I cannot imagine a viable distribution of wealth in Iraq without socialism. That is why I don't believe Democracy will ever work in Iraq.

Particularly not with Illawi. The man's got a worse record than Saddam, and was in one of the previous dictator's elite murder squads in Europe.

Besides, wasn't the Iraqi war just to waste money with? That's the other downfall of capitalism. Everything has to have a lifespan, so as you can replace it with the next model. Otherwise the economy stalls. If you can destroy lots of hardware, and waste lots of expensive bombs (and troopers. each one costs $100,000 or more), then you get to buy more. Which need to be made, creating work.

It's a bit crazy, really.

Particularly not with Illawi. The man's got a worse record than Saddam, and was in one of the previous dictator's elite murder squads in Europe.

Besides, wasn't the Iraqi war just to waste money with? That's the other downfall of capitalism. Everything has to have a lifespan, so as you can replace it with the next model. Otherwise the economy stalls. If you can destroy lots of hardware, and waste lots of expensive bombs (and troopers. each one costs $100,000 or more), then you get to buy more. Which need to be made, creating work.

It's a bit crazy, really.

It is more of an exercise to revamp the military. The PNAC (whose members include Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz) wanted for the military to go through a major overhaul that allowed it to engage in unconventional wars on multiple fronts. What better places than the hills of Afghanistan and the streets of Fallujah to work out the kinks.

But don't reply, I may have just hijacked the thread.

This has long been an argument for the free market but unfortunately has no basis in reality. Businesses are only out to make as large a profit as possible and competition is really a myth.

Yes, businesses are out to make the most money possible, and they do that by attracting consumers with lower prices than the competition. If you think competition is a myth, you haven't seen the huge improvement in services by Yahoo! and Hotmail in response to Google's GMail.

This is a great example, because before Google, Yahoo! was being quite stingy giving us 10 megabytes of space (and Hotmail with 2 megabytes!). Now, they each offer 250 megabytes free (quite an improvement), and Yahoo! for only $20/year gives you 2 gigabytes (!). All so everyone doesn't flock to GMail!


<< Capitalism creates huge corporations which dominate the market and can charge as much as they want and when there are several companies they are often involved in price fixing. >>

These huge corporations develop the means for cheaper distribution as they own a massive system to distribute all this stuff. Buying wholesale, anyone? And the surplus they produce is sold to 99 Cent stores, so the poor can enjoy some of this stuff too. Discount stores like Target and Marshalls are doing great.

<< Whenever state services have been sold off the prices have gone through the roof and for example, in some third world countries after the IMF forced water services to be privatised the prices rose by more than 10 times the previous price. >>

LOL, you've seen The Corporation, with liberal demigods Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. The IMF and World Bank are highly anti-capitalistic , as you saw when they GRANTED a corporation a monopoly over the water distribution in the Bolivian village. A state institution granting a monopoly to a corporation is NOT capitalism. There is no capitalism when a state grants a monopoly.

It's like New York City granting a monopoly to the MTA to run public transportation. I'm a student, I need the subway and buses. If there is a monopoly, they can raise rates ad infinitum, and they do here in NYC. It's now $2.00, watch it raise forever because there is no competition. (There are other bus lines, but they're owned by the city too, LOL!).

<< Even in wealthy countries like the UK water and gas service prices rose significantly as did public transport after they were privatised. >>

UK did a very messy job of that. Not the best example of capitalism. If it wasn't for entrepenuers, we'd still be taking water out of wells. It's the capitalist spirit which encourages people to develop faster, cheaper ways of extracting water.

<< Capitalism is a system which is based on the exploitation of one group by another for the personal gain of the few while the majority of people suffer. >>

Yes, one benefits like crazy (the group which did the creative thing), but the group which *voluntarily* purchases the creative thing is benefitted quite well. For example, Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. He's not the best computer programmer (Windows is crap, we know). But he was quite an entrepenuer [sp.], as he has he instinct to drop out of college during the right time to pursue his vision.

The same way, I can make a better burger than McDonald's. However, Ray Kroc distributed far better and chose strategic sites for his stores. That's something I didn't do.

So, sure Bill Gates has become crazy rich. But look at us! So many people have benefitted tremendously from Microsoft. I mean, yeah, Windows is crap, but it suits most people just fine. I mean, Windows is easy to use, it's highly functional (which is why I prefer it over Macs). Regardless, Microsoft Office has enabled us to send documents in a universally accepted format, etc. etc. We've all benefitted tremendously from Bill Gates' success.

<< Capitalism is failing the world and driving millions of people into poverty and misery. >>

No, the Third World is rising up fast. China is implementing stages of capitalism, and any nation which modernizes its economy but not its political system is headed for trouble. Freedom will come to China and the Third World when people achieve economic freedom and demand political freedoms (happening everywhere from Saudi Arabia to China).

Capitalism is succeeding tremendously for the world. For example, laying phone wires in Africa is quite expensive. However, CELL PHONES are being used in Africa because they're cheaper, and now so many in Africa have access to the world via cell phones. Cell phones are becoming the way to go in Africa. How cool is that?

Toodles.

(I'm new to Nation States. It seems like a lovely dialogue here, though the UN is depressingly controlling of internal affairs of nations. If 51% if the UN agrees that everyone should be an anarchy, it happens, and it ticks me off. What's the point of being a leader of a country if everyone else decides in this game!)

--- Chairman A'dam Farooqui
Theocracy of Filastin, Middle East
Member, Vast-Right Wing Conspiracy (yeah, I'm a Bush man)

I agree, Kramer - captialism does work!

*abridged for brevity*

Well done and welcome to NationStates.

No, not necessarily.

What about the fat, lazy asshole who inherits the business from his father? Did he do anything to get where he is? No.

I was talking about this person the other day, Ashlee Simpson. She's not talented, hardworking, creative, or smart. Because her sister is a multi-millionaire popstar, she has gotten to where she is now.

What about a school teacher? Teachers are some of the most hard working people in the world, yet they are not paid well, many of them are suffering.

Immigrants who face racism and discrimination, it is difficult for them to find work. They suffer because of capitalism.

I could think of MANY more situations where your statement has been proved wrong. Next time please think before you post something. Thanks.

Capitalism is also about choice. You can be any of the things I talked about and still wind up in the gutter. Some people choose to be teachers and in that choice they realize that there is the risk of low pay involved in that.

Racism against immigrants is not even remotely an aspect of capitalism. It's a totally different thing.

It's funny. Capitalists defending a system they know nothing about and trying to discredit another system they know even less about. Catch phrases and stupid quotes to back it up. You got a seriously distorded way of looking at things. I'm not that economically aware, but I feel like a genius when I see the naive remarks of the capitalists here. Are economic books banned in your country? Or maybe you're too buzy/lazy to read?

It's funny. Capitalists defending a system they know nothing about and trying to discredit another system they know even less about. Catch phrases and stupid quotes to back it up. You got a seriously distorded way of looking at things. I'm not that economically aware, but I feel like a genius when I see the naive remarks of the capitalists here. Are economic books banned in your country? Or maybe you're too buzy/lazy to read?
Or maybe you're just being an egotistical flame-baiter.

Or maybe you're just being an egotistical flame-baiter.

AGREED!

First thing you need to put in your head, socialism is not about suppressing incentive. It is about equality IN RIGHTS, not about equality as "everyone will have the same amount of money".

First thing you need to put in your head, socialism is not about suppressing incentive. It is about equality IN RIGHTS, not about equality as "everyone will have the same amount of money".

Way to go!!! You explained the political nature of socialism!!!

Now explain why it is better than capitalism economically.

Let's rephrase that, capitalism works if you're: rich, talented, smart, creative or hard working.
No it only works if you are rich and a complete bastard.

First thing you need to put in your head, socialism is not about suppressing incentive. It is about equality IN RIGHTS, not about equality as "everyone will have the same amount of money".
I understand that. I've always advocated some form of government control in the economy. You know the kind where the government keeps people from harming others life, liberty or property. And since I view that I am admittedly a socialist of sorts, but your post is seething with an air of the "you're all ignorant because you disagree with me" type of language. And that, is egotism.

And when you target other people in the way you did it is inevitably flame-baiting.

Way to go!!! You explained the political nature of socialism!!!

Now explain why it is better than capitalism economically.
It is obviously better because there is incentive to work as opposed to the archaic capitalist class system.

No it only works if you are rich and a complete bastard.
I'd disagree. It most certainly works if your rich, but complete bastards tend to alienate people. And without people around you it is very hard to maintain constant wealth, espescially if you spend it incessantly.

It is obviously better because there is incentive to work as opposed to the archaic capitalist class system.

But... There IS incentive to work in capitalist class-based economic systems. I'm not pro-capitalist, but you'll have to come up with a better argument than that, man. People will laugh at us.

It is obviously better because there is incentive to work as opposed to the archaic capitalist class system.

First, no incentive to work in a capitalist economy?

And second, capitalism is archaic? Modern economic studies are based on the free market, and most require that the free market is to be assumed.

I'd disagree. It most certainly works if your rich, but complete bastards tend to alienate people. And without people around you it is very hard to maintain constant wealth, espescially if you spend it incessantly.

Complete bastards don't alienate people as much as you'd hope. They tend to be charming and manipulative.

I am tired of all of the people on here that are saying that capitalism doesn't work unless you are rich, when they obviously are leading better than average lives compared to the rest of the world.

You do realize that you have capitalism to thank for this forum, the internet, and the personal computer that you are using, correct?

There is very little valuable property in Iraq, so I cannot imagine a viable distribution of wealth in Iraq without socialism. That is why I don't believe Democracy will ever work in Iraq.
What about oil? That industry put Texas on the map. There wasn't much reason to be in Texas, otherwise. It's changed now, but the oil industry had a lot to do with it.

Not everyone can own an oil well, but the industry can certainly provide jobs to a good number of people. If they are willing to do the work. Their money will bring in other commercial enterprises that satisfy other needs and desires.

The government will get it's share, too. If the people are smart, they will spend that share on the kind of research and development that takes place in universities.

It could be a very exciting time for Iraqis. If they can just beat the theocracy crowd.

First, no incentive to work in a capitalist economy?

And second, capitalism is archaic? Modern economic studies are based on the free market, and most require that the free market is to be assumed.
And here we go. You confuse free market and capitalism.
Capitalism offers no incentive to work and tackles the free market of goods and services.

I am tired of all of the people on here that are saying that capitalism doesn't work unless you are rich, when they obviously are leading better than average lives compared to the rest of the world.

You do realize that you have capitalism to thank for this forum, the internet, and the personal computer that you are using, correct?
The internet -> the military funded by the state + some universities funded by the state.
In France, the minitel was available long before the internet thanks to France Telecom, funded by the state.
The computer -> the military (funded by the state).

"Click to buy" -> private initiative.

First thing you need to put in your head, socialism is not about suppressing incentive. It is about equality IN RIGHTS, not about equality as "everyone will have the same amount of money".
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! You are describing the government here in the USA!

Socialism is economic. Where does your definition of socialism exist?

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Adding to the body of knowledge, capitalism is economic, too.

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! You are describing the government here in the USA!

Socialism is economic. Where does your definition of socialism exist?

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Adding to the body of knowledge, capitalism is economic, too.

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Private ownership of the means of production means that the owners control them. It also mean that the workers don't. It means that they have privileges and finally it means that they're not equal in rights.

I understand that. I've always advocated some form of government control in the economy. You know the kind where the government keeps people from harming others life, liberty or property. And since I view that I am admittedly a socialist of sorts, but your post is seething with an air of the "you're all ignorant because you disagree with me" type of language. And that, is egotism.

And when you target other people in the way you did it is inevitably flame-baiting.
I was just trying to get the attention of the people (children) who talk bullshit like "socialism is everyone to the lowest common denominator" and stuff. They're irritating and they are many.

I am tired of all of the people on here that are saying that capitalism doesn't work unless you are rich, when they obviously are leading better than average lives compared to the rest of the world.

You do realize that you have capitalism to thank for this forum, the internet, and the personal computer that you are using, correct?


Incorrect.

The internet began as a government project. It was originally designed to link military computers. Government projects are what socialism does best. Therefore we do not have capitalism to thank for the internet. This forum is a non-profit forum, therefore we do not have capitalism to thank for this forum. The PC was invented by hobbyists with a love for technology (Steve Woz and Steve Jobs). Hobbyists exist in socialist societies too and has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. Finally, the money that bought me my computer and pays for my internet comes from working, and people do work and get payed in a socialist society. Therefore you are completely incorrect on every count. The only possible argument you could make is that since nationstates is an advertisement for a book, it may not exist (and thus this forum may not exist) if it werent for capitalism. Its a lame argument however because even in a socialist society you advertise things (its just cheaper to do so), and even if this forum didnt exist, countless others would.

And here we go. You confuse free market and capitalism.
Capitalism offers no incentive to work and tackles the free market of goods and services.

I have definitions too.

Capitalism n. An economic system characterized by open competition in a free market and by private or corporate ownership of the means of production and distribution.

It is you who is confused in terms of the meanings of words systems.

The internet -> the military funded by the state + some universities funded by the state.
In France, the minitel was available long before the internet.
The computer -> the military (funded by the state).

"Click to buy" -> private initiative.

They were invented by the government for government purposes. They were brought to the public for profit.

And here we go. You confuse free market and capitalism.
Capitalism offers no incentive to work and tackles the free market of goods and services.
Clearly you are the one that is confused. Or at odds with your socialist brethren.

Capitalism is about private ownership of property. The free-market sets the price and quality of goods that are produced. In order to survive in a capitalist economy, one must provide a service, or a product that pleases someone else. In return, the producer is paid. Whether it's cash or barter isn't really imporant to this argument.

So what is the dis-incentive to work that capitalism provides?

Private ownership of the means of production means that the owners control them. It also mean that the workers don't. It means that they have privileges and finally it means that they're not equal in rights.
What the heck are you talking about. Workers don't need to own the means of production. Their ownership may only consist of the money they are paid for doing a service that is valued by the corporation.

As far as rights go, have you ever heard of a labor union?

I have definitions too.

Capitalism n. An economic system characterized by open competition in a free market and by private or corporate ownership of the means of production and distribution.

It is you who is confused in terms of the meanings of words systems.
Capitalism uses free market, but it is not the free market, mainly the free market of CAPITAL (the means of production), the fee market of goods and services and the free market of capital are in confrontation. Explained in the Capital by Marx, but I don't expect any american to read something that filth.

They were invented by the government for government purposes. They were brought to the public for profit.
Certainly not in France (the first country to have the minitel), or in Korea (the most broadband equiped country).

Clearly you are the one that is confused. Or at odds with your socialist brethren.

Capitalism is about private ownership of property. The free-market sets the price and quality of goods that are produced. In order to survive in a capitalist economy, one must provide a service, or a product that pleases someone else. In return, the producer is paid. Whether it's cash or barter isn't really imporant to this argument.

So what is the dis-incentive to work that capitalism provides?Oh so exchange is capitalism. Sorry I was confused. Freedom is capitalism as well I suppose. And capitalism is freedom. Well actually capitalism is good and socialism is bad.

What the heck are you talking about. Workers don't need to own the means of production. Their ownership may only consist of the money they are paid for doing a service that is valued by the corporation.

As far as rights go, have you ever heard of a labor union?
Labor unions are capitalism, too.
Minimum wages, schools and hospitals are capitalism as well.

Capitalism uses free market, but it is not the free market, mainly the free market of CAPITAL (the means of production), the fee market of goods and services is and the free market of capital are in confrontation. Explained in the Capital by Marx, but I don't expect any american to read something that filth.

Awww, dammit. I was hoping you would explain your point with some parts of Das Kapital, but instead you insulted everyone. Maybe in the future a more intelligent debater will come along and enlighten me. I really would like to hear a cohesive argument for socialism.

Certainly not in France (the first country to have the minitel), or in Korea (the most broadband equiped country).

Good thing you mentioned Korea:

An armistice was signed in 1953, splitting the peninsula along a demilitarized zone at about the 38th parallel. Thereafter, South Korea achieved rapid economic growth with per capita income rising to roughly 18 times the level of North Korea.

Or get a dictionary!

I think there are about three people involved in this forum that are using commonly accepted definitions for socialism, capitalism, facism, and communism. These are all economic systems.

Citizens of various governments have allowed the government, either through vote or coup, to adopt one or more of these economies. The fact that Finland is socialist doesn't make them any less free that those of us in the United States. The fact that Hong Kong is capitalist doesn't make those people any more free than those in North Korea. Some governments exist to serve the population, others exist to enslave them.

Quit confusing governments and economies! At least argue with a common set of definitions! Damn, this is so frustrating.

While we are at it, how 'bout some examples of why capitialism is so bad? I've given a couple that show the fall of a communist dictatorship. Examples please, not platitudes about rights and poor and sick.

Oh so exchange is capitalism. Sorry I was confused. Freedom is capitalism as well I suppose. And capitalism is freedom. Well actually capitalism is good and socialism is bad.

You were partially right. Freedom is not capitalism, but capitalism is economic freedom.

Or get a dictionary!

I think there are about three people involved in this forum that are using commonly accepted definitions for socialism, capitalism, facism, and communism. These are all economic systems.
.

Actually if I am correct, Fascism and Communism are more types of government that employ socialism, not actual economic systems of their own.

Actually if I am correct, Fascism and Communism are more types of government that employ socialism, not actual economic systems of their own.
I think I slipped up on fascism. It does seem to be more authoritarian and nationalistic than economic. I guess I'm not one of the "three".

Communism does appear to be a blend of government and economics. Sort of fascist socialism. Although the USSR never reached "true enlightenment", there seems to be a condition where everyone will just exist happily ever after.

Communism:
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

I dont consider capitalism a complete waste, although it is a failed system. The lessons we have learned from the capitalist experiment will be very valuable in designing the next economic systems.

There is alot of evidence of capitalism's failure in the economy and standard of living. Compare a capitalist society like the one in the US with a socialist society like the one in the Netherlands. In the US you will find poverty and homelessness, in the Netherlands you will not.

But I dont want to explore the economic failure of capitalism because so many have done so in this thread already. Instead I want to bring attention to the social consequences of capitalism.

Capitalism has caused people to develop a mentality that material things are the key to happiness. Yet, when you compare the level of self reported contenment (happiness) in the US, with the level in any number of poorer nations, the US comes short by far. So, it appears that even though the US has been able to convince its self that it is the best nation because of its riches, the people of the US as individuals are less happy than people in the rest of the world. What good are riches if they do not bring you happiness?

The attitude in the US has become one where "he who dies with the most toys wins". It has become an attitude of endless competition for material things. Always wanting to have the better car, the bigger house, the bigger pool, the most expensive suit, the biggest office, etc. The dream of most people seems to be to be rich. Yet being rich does not bring happines.

Capitalism's obsession with material goods and corporate power has lead people away from seeking true happiness and lead them down a futile path of seeking happiness in material things. In the end, no one wins. The corporations get richer, the poor get poorer, and all of them get less happy because they are looking for their happiness in the wrong place.

I think I slipped up on fascism. It does seem to be more authoritarian and nationalistic than economic. I guess I'm not one of the "three".

Communism does appear to be a blend of government and economics. Sort of fascist socialism. Although the USSR never reached "true enlightenment", there seems to be a condition where everyone will just exist happily ever after.

Communism:
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

You were close enough, you definitely understand them better than Psylos.

*abridged for brevity*

Bullshit. Capitalism has nothing to do with the obsession for material goods and wealth. That has been a strong running theme amongst humanity for a lot longer than capitalism has been around.

I dont consider capitalism a complete waste, although it is a failed system. The lessons we have learned from the capitalist experiment will be very valuable in designing the next economic systems.

[shameless promotion lauding socialism's eradication of the sick, lame, and lazy--deleted]

But I dont want to explore the economic failure of capitalism because so many have done so in this thread already. Instead I want to bring attention to the social consequences of capitalism.

Capitalism has caused people to develop a mentality that material things are the key to happiness. Yet, when you compare the level of self reported contenment (happiness) in the US, with the level in any number of poorer nations, the US comes short by far. So, it appears that even though the US has been able to convince its self that it is the best nation because of its riches, the people of the US as individuals are less happy than people in the rest of the world. What good are riches if they do not bring you happiness?

The attitude in the US has become one where "he who dies with the most toys wins". It has become an attitude of endless competition for material things. Always wanting to have the better car, the bigger house, the bigger pool, the most expensive suit, the biggest office, etc. The dream of most people seems to be to be rich. Yet being rich does not bring happines.

Capitalism's obsession with material goods and corporate power has lead people away from seeking true happiness and lead them down a futile path of seeking happiness in material things. In the end, no one wins. The corporations get richer, the poor get poorer, and all of them get less happy because they are looking for their happiness in the wrong place.

Buddah, Jesus, Mohammed(Muhammed for the intolerant) MOVE OVER. This guy has seen the light. I am following the religon of the prophet LazyHippies. Who do I give all my stuff to?

Back to reality. Here we go with a different and still erroneous argument against capitalism. This contestant is arguing against the drive and ambition that has made the United States what it is. Capitalism merely gives us the tools to be extravagent and audacious.

Buddah, Jesus, Mohammed(Muhammed for the intolerant) MOVE OVER. This guy has seen the light. I am following the religon of the prophet LazyHippies. Who do I give all my stuff to?

Not at all. I am not against material things. If you can afford a nice house with a pool and a good view, thats great! enjoy it. I am against basing your life on the hordeing of material things. Both Jesus and Muhammed (as well as Buddha) agreed with me, so there really is no need for starting a new religion. Material things are not bad, but pretending that material things can bring you happiness is.

Back to reality. Here we go with a different and still erroneous argument against capitalism. This contestant is arguing against the drive and ambition that has made the United States what it is. Capitalism merely gives us the tools to be extravagent and audacious.

That is a perfect illustration of what capitalism has done. "has made the United States what it is". What is it? Studies prove that it is a rich nation filled with unhappy people committing a large amount of the world's crime.

Studies prove that it is a rich nation filled with unhappy people committing a large amount of the world's crime.

Sources?

Not at all. I am not against material things. If you can afford a nice house with a pool and a good view, thats great! enjoy it. I am against basing your life on the hordeing of material things. Both Jesus and Muhammed (as well as Buddha) agreed with me, so there really is no need for starting a new religion. Material things are not bad, but pretending that material things can bring you happiness is.

And socialism fixes that.

Oh, and material things do bring happiness. I hate it when people say money can't buy happiness. Whenever prostitutes and jet-skis can be obtained with something other than money, get back to me with that argument.

I don't think that I know anyone who would deny (speaking as an anarcho-capitalist, incidentally) that capitalism has its failings, both ideological and economical; I also know very few people who have a simple alternative that's both plausible and easy to effect. The point of capitalism has always been that it may not be perfect, but until another system comes along, it's all we have.

Sources?

You can start with the article by robert wright in the September-October 2000 issue of Foreign Policy if you want to read some already digested information on happiness and economics. The studies on happiness throughout the world are too numerous to begin listing here, and too professional to be found on some free web site. If you have access to a university library you can find alot of info in the publication Psychological Abstracts.

United Nations publications are the best source for crime statistics throughout the world. Those can also be found in alot of university libraries.

I hope this thread keeps going.

The forum is being sucked in by Christian validity threads and Political hackery.

Capitalism or Economic Socialism?

Do you hold the right of the individual over that of the group? Or the right of the group over that of the individual?

In a Capitalist economy the rights of the individual and the right to property (this includes ideas and skills) are held over that of the group. The onus is on the individual, as are the consequences of actions and decisions (You rise and fall based upon your own actions).

In a Socialist economy the right of the group is held over the right of the individual and there is no right to property. The onus is upon the group; consequences of actions and decision are shared among the group (Stand together, fall together).

We have yet to see one entirely free of the other.

I think the rights of the individual to be paramount and the right to property to be vital. I cannot support Economic Socialism; it violates what I hold to be the basic rights of the individual.

I don't think that I know anyone who would deny (speaking as an anarcho-capitalist, incidentally) that capitalism has its failings, both ideological and economical; I also know very few people who have a simple alternative that's both plausible and easy to effect. The point of capitalism has always been that it may not be perfect, but until another system comes along, it's all we have.

The failings of the Capitalism are not with capitalism, they are with the people who exploit it, and the people who get left behind.

But exploitation of the system where possible is a human characteristic. Variety between individuals is a human characteristic. Capitalism is a system for humans. If it can't survive those two facts, well, then we have a problem.

Let say there is a river and everybody need to drink the water in order to survive.

In capitalism, the river will be owned by a group of people and the other people will work for the owners in exchange for water.
In socialism, the river will be owned by all the people, organized in a state. People will work for the state in exchange for water.

In capitalism, most people work.
In socialism, everybody work.

In a socialist country, prices are controlled. The state, in effect, has a monopoly on production (sounds like karl Marx...) While most Europeans take it as a matter of faith that the State knows what the hell it is doing, they obviously have not been under anyone like good old Uncle Joseph Stalin, or had a long and bloody civil war to decide what were the rights and duties of the state and federal government. The American darling of Europe, Bill Clinton, pretty much overheated the economy and increased trade debt (and also sent the Asian economies into recession.) Besides, trade debt is something the United States does not have to worry about. Why? Quite simple. The lower the American Dollar is in value with respect to another nation, the easier to pay off. Why? Because the actuall debt remains the same while money supply increases, hence it means those nations eager to get high value American dollars are now screwed. That is why Europe and China are screaming and kicking because they have (Suprise Suprise!) the largest share of that trade debt. And I hate to say it, but the Europeans are about to get themselves into a nasty economic war with the United States, and I can guarantee that France and Germany will be crushed into dust. Fae it, capitalism is the way to go baby!

The failings of the Capitalism are not with capitalism, they are with the people who exploit it, and the people who get left behind.

That's not a weakness. Capitalism gives every single one of its practioners an equal chance at success. What's even better is that capitalism gives each and every one of us a equal chance to be equally successful. The wonderful thing about the market is the market itself.

The discussions kind of hint around about this, but I'm not sure any of the posters are quick enough to see it. Most of the socialist-types seem to consider wealth as finite. The "greedy" take more of it than anyone else. The "unfortunate" don't get as much. Once the bank is passed out, it's like Monopoly. You just trade what is already there. Bull. We aren't playing Monopoly.

The free market and the philosphy of capitalism makes that a ridiculous proposition. Any thing that is desired by someone else can be made, or done, or found, or grown by someone else. The providers can get rich providing what pleases others. One can start a restaurant, or a newspaper, or a bank. Even today that is possible. One can become educated and practice medicine, or law, or engineering. One can even build a spacecraft without government assistance or obstruction. There are just no limits to what can be achieved in a free and capitalist society. The only "unlucky" ones in a capitalistic society are the ones that are too stupid to see the opportunity or too lazy to take advantage of it.

Maybe the weakness is that capitalism isn't for the stupid and lazy.

Well judging by America capitalism doesn't work very well. Your country's debt's are too big for your government to pay, leaving a third of your country in poverty and you need government protection, subsidies and import tariffs to keep your companies (eg Steel) working.

By contrast the Roman Empire successfully used socialist economic principles to control the world for over 500 years !!!!!

Stop waving a flag and start reading books....

And Rome was around for a thousand if you go back to the Republic... ;)

Let say there is a river and everybody need to drink the water in order to survive.

In capitalism, the river will be owned by a group of people and the other people will work for the owners in exchange for water.
In socialism, the river will be owned by all the people, organized in a state. People will work for the state in exchange for water.

In capitalism, most people work.
In socialism, everybody work.

Wow, that was the single most ridiculous oversimplification of anything I have ever seen.

If you account for

1] people could manufacture more water and eventually enough water would be produced until equilibrium price was achieved
2] that there will also be a river of soda, kool-aid, beer, and milk
3] that the owners must work to maintain both the source and distribution of the water
4] that funding for the maintainance must be acheived through public offerings of partial ownership of the river

and multiple other factors, then you might have a somewhat realistic model for capitalism.

But even going by your asinine example, what is different between the two, besides socialism creating completely powerless populous that is entirely subservient to the government?

it seems to be that in general europeans prefer socialism, americans prefer capitalism.
so if we're both happy with our current systems, who cares what system the other country/continent has?

personally, i don't like having to share the stuff i worked for, so capitalism all the way.
and i dunno about that thing about ppl in the US being less happy. i don't know a lot of really unhappy people. of course, i do live in a town filled with the white upper middle class, with a few sporadic lower middle class families. in the state with the highest per capita income in the country.

That's not a weakness. Capitalism gives every single one of its practioners an equal chance at success. What's even better is that capitalism gives each and every one of us a equal chance to be equally successful. The wonderful thing about the market is the market itself.

The discussions kind of hint around about this, but I'm not sure any of the posters are quick enough to see it. Most of the socialist-types seem to consider wealth as finite. The "greedy" take more of it than anyone else. The "unfortunate" don't get as much. Once the bank is passed out, it's like Monopoly. You just trade what is already there. Bull. We aren't playing Monopoly.

The free market and the philosphy of capitalism makes that a ridiculous proposition. Any thing that is desired by someone else can be made, or done, or found, or grown by someone else. The providers can get rich providing what pleases others. One can start a restaurant, or a newspaper, or a bank. Even today that is possible. One can become educated and practice medicine, or law, or engineering. One can even build a spacecraft without government assistance or obstruction. There are just no limits to what can be achieved in a free and capitalist society. The only "unlucky" ones in a capitalistic society are the ones that are too stupid to see the opportunity or too lazy to take advantage of it.

Maybe the weakness is that capitalism isn't for the stupid and lazy.

Yes, I agree with you. This is what I meant. Capitalism is not a problematic system, there are problematic people inside the system. Socialism, on the other hand, is a problematic system.

I do disagree with you on your callous explanation of the "unlucky" ones. There are many other factors than being stupid or lazy.

Let say there is a river and everybody need to drink the water in order to survive.

In capitalism, the river will be owned by a group of people and the other people will work for the owners in exchange for water.
In socialism, the river will be owned by all the people, organized in a state. People will work for the state in exchange for water.

In capitalism, most people work.
In socialism, everybody work.

I see your misguided attempt at arguing has landed you into a problem. Germany is a socialist country and has an unemployment of 10.4%. The US is a capitalist country with around a 6% unemployment rate. If this was a "River," then the American river would only have six out of a hundred people doing nothing, while the German river would have one in ten doing nothing. So, ten germans work their ass off to help one of their fellows who doesnt work live, while in the states a hundred work their asses off to support six. The resource ratio for the us is 100 to 6 while in Germany it would be 10 to 1, which means each German looses 1/10th of their income while each american only looses 6/100th of their income. Hence why the United States has the largest economy in the world and is increasing its GPD fairly well, while Germany is in stagnation.

And Germany also had its own misguided attempt at a socialist haven. It was called Mr. Hitler and his regime....

odd, capitalism works for me, and i am a poor academic who volunteers at a local clinic and youth program because i want to encourage more people to become doctors (and thus increase the number of people "competing" with me).

A fine example of the kind of narcissism so natural to Americans. You see everything only in relation to yourself.

"If it works for me (in whatever situation I happen to be), then clearly it works or it is good."

Try stepping outside of yourself for a change. Understand where other people are coming from. And don't tell me you volunteer, therefore you already concern yourself with others. People volunteer for all sorts of reasons... I suspect yours have a lot to do with what it does for you. I doubt you really understand the people you are so eager to "help."

Tell the people working in Export Processing Zones in Asia that capitalism works. Can they "work hard" for a better future, when they are not even paid a living wage?

What about unskilled immigrants working at McDonalds in the US, being paid less than minimum wage and being denied union recognition?

What about the abject poverty in the UK in the early 20th century, before liberal reforms. That was your "free market" and look what happened - the few got very rich and rest got poor. In the global market the "few" are now western "democracies" the the "rest" are the thrid world countries being rapen by trans-national corperations.

A fine example of the kind of narcissism so natural to Americans. You see everything only in relation to yourself.

"If it works for me (in whatever situation I happen to be), then clearly it works or it is good."

Try stepping outside of yourself for a change. Understand where other people are coming from. And don't tell me you volunteer, therefore you already concern yourself with others. People volunteer for all sorts of reasons... I suspect yours have a lot to do with what it does for you. I doubt you really understand the people you are so eager to "help."

A fine example of the kind of fallacy so natural to someone who really doesn't know what he is talking about. You cannot argue the validity on your own so you try to destroy the validity of the other side.

Try to actually provide evidence for or against our subject instead of relying on ad-hominem logical fallacies?

Tell the people working in Export Processing Zones in Asia that capitalism works. Can they "work hard" for a better future, when they are not even paid a living wage?

What about unskilled immigrants working at McDonalds in the US, being paid less than minimum wage and being denied union recognition?

What about the abject poverty in the UK in the early 20th century, before liberal reforms. That was your "free market" and look what happened - the few got very rich and rest got poor. In the global market the "few" are now western "democracies" the the "rest" are the thrid world countries being rapen by trans-national corperations.

Living wage!? Hell! They are payed in relation to labour supply! If they were so concerned about the wealthfare of themselves they would stop breeding like rabbits! Why do you think Europe and the United States have some of the lowest birth rates in the world!? It isnt because we are concerned about over population, that is for sure. It is a reaction to LABOUR MARKETS! The more labour you have, the more easily you can replace them with! Besides, what is the cost of living in those countries? Several hundred dollars a year? Probably. What is the cost of living in Europe and the US? Several THOUSAND, thats right, several THOUSAND. So, we get payed lots o money because of the HIGHER cost of LIVING. They get payed less because of the LOWER cost of LIVING. Dear God! And look at North Korea! What is its standard of living? Pathetic! South Korea, just south of it, and pro-capitalist, is extremly wealthy! My God, what do we have here, an example of changing situations? And look at India! Pre-decentralization of the economy, it was one of the laughing stocks of the world! Post-decentralization it is one of the wealthiest nations in the region! It consistently grows each year at record bounds and leaps! So, what does that mean? Gee, it must mean that capitalism does work afterall, and socialists are just too much like evangelical types to believe the data they see. *mutters about communists, socialists, and tyrants*

...Capitalism gives every single one of its practioners an equal chance at success. What's even better is that capitalism gives each and every one of us a equal chance to be equally successful.

This is true in theory, and it is what makes capitalism such an attractive option. Unfortunately, in practice it has proven to be untrue. It has been statistically proven that a person born in the ghetto does not have the same opportunities to be successful as a person born to an upper class family. This is because the person in the ghetto is forced to attend the worst schools while the upper class child attends the best expensive private schools. The person in the ghetto can only get into college if he is so good that he can get all kinds of scholarships to pay for his schooling, while the person born to an upper class family only has to be mediocre because their parents will pay anyway. Those are merely a few examples of what causes the discrepancy between the poor and the rich when it comes to success. In current capitalist systems, people DO NOT have an equal chance to succeed, people with more money have a better chance.

Most of the socialist-types seem to consider wealth as finite. The "greedy" take more of it than anyone else. The "unfortunate" don't get as much. Once the bank is passed out, it's like Monopoly. You just trade what is already there. Bull. We aren't playing Monopoly.

That statement does a lot to display your ignorance. You have not taken a basic economy class have you? If you ever do, the first day of class, when you sit down the first thing that will be taught to you in the most basic of economy classes is what is reffered to as the Basic Economic Problem. Basically, the basic economic problem states the opposite of what you just said. It states that the fundamental problem of the economy is that people have unlimited wants and needs but there is a limited amount of resources. That is precisely what the science of economy seeks to study, how to maximize the use of the limited resources.

The only "unlucky" ones in a capitalistic society are the ones that are too stupid to see the opportunity or too lazy to take advantage of it.

Maybe the weakness is that capitalism isn't for the stupid and lazy.

No, the unlucky ones are the ones whose parents couldnt afford to put them in better schools so they had to settle for the overcrowded public school where they were unable to get the attention they needed in order to develop their intellectual skills. The unlucky ones are the ones whose parents couldnt afford to pay for their schooling, so they had to settle for going without higher education or for a degree from a technical school or community college. There are many other examples of who is lucky and unlucky in the capitalist system, but I think you get the point.

I do disagree with you on your callous explanation of the "unlucky" ones. There are many other factors than being stupid or lazy.
Well, you can put so many caveats on a point that it gets lost. There will be those that are unable to take care of themselves, but a society that is free from government regulation and intrusion would leave the families enough to take care of the really "unlucky". That's another topic, though.

I object to the word "unlucky" when it is applied to people who can't seem to make the choices that would make their lives better. The kind that insist on using drugs, committing crimes, having kids without the means to support them, and on and on. People who make smart choices shouldn't be characterized by the word "lucky" either.

You were partially right. Freedom is not capitalism, but capitalism is economic freedom.

No, market socialism is economic freedom.

A fine example of the kind of narcissism so natural to Americans. You see everything only in relation to yourself.

"If it works for me (in whatever situation I happen to be), then clearly it works or it is good."

Try stepping outside of yourself for a change. Understand where other people are coming from. And don't tell me you volunteer, therefore you already concern yourself with others. People volunteer for all sorts of reasons... I suspect yours have a lot to do with what it does for you. I doubt you really understand the people you are so eager to "help."
Maybe the reason we see stuff from our point of view is because we view the individual as superior to the group.

A fine example of the kind of fallacy so natural to someone who really doesn't know what he is talking about. You cannot argue the validity on your own so you try to destroy the validity of the other side.

Try to actually provide evidence for or against our subject instead of relying on ad-hominem logical fallacies?

What the hell are you talking about?

I was criticizing a fallacy: the one that says, "It works for me, therefore it works for all." Recognize it?

Tell the people working in Export Processing Zones in Asia that capitalism works. Can they "work hard" for a better future, when they are not even paid a living wage?

What about unskilled immigrants working at McDonalds in the US, being paid less than minimum wage and being denied union recognition?

What about the abject poverty in the UK in the early 20th century, before liberal reforms. That was your "free market" and look what happened - the few got very rich and rest got poor. In the global market the "few" are now western "democracies" the the "rest" are the thrid world countries being rapen by trans-national corperations.

I would tell those in Asia that they are screwed by a totalitarian government that relies on intense protectionism.

I would tell the unskilled immigrants working at McDonalds that they wouldn't be making shit in their country but since our economy is so strong they can come here and make 6 dollars an hour.

Pointing out the problems of capitalism that have been somewhat fixed by government regulation neither proves that Capitalism is bad nor that socialism is viable.

Are you seriously suggesting that Italy is not a capitalist country?

If so, how would you classify it, and why.

it is, just not as capitalist as America.

Maybe the reason we see stuff from our point of view is because we view the individual as superior to the group.

It is possible to view the individual as superior to the group and still attempt to understand other individuals from their own perspective. This is a basic characteristic of a healthy psychological make-up. Americans for at least the last half-century have generally lacked the ability, their population made up of primarily narcissistic personalities. The same problem drives our buying frenzy... we see the things we own as extensions of ourselves. We cannot even appreciate beauty or utility for their own sakes anymore.

We are a nation of narcissists.

What the hell are you talking about?

I was criticizing a fallacy: the one that says, "It works for me, therefore it works for all." Recognize it?

He was pointing out that those saying that only the rich benefit from capitalism are wrong.

This is true in theory, and it is what makes capitalism such an attractive option. Unfortunately, in practice it has proven to be untrue. It has been statistically proven that a person born in the ghetto does not have the same opportunities to be successful as a person born to an upper class family. This is because the person in the ghetto is forced to attend the worst schools while the upper class child attends the best expensive private schools. The person in the ghetto can only get into college if he is so good that he can get all kinds of scholarships to pay for his schooling, while the person born to an upper class family only has to be mediocre because their parents will pay anyway. Those are merely a few examples of what causes the discrepancy between the poor and the rich when it comes to success. In current capitalist systems, people DO NOT have an equal chance to succeed, people with more money have a better chance.



That statement does a lot to display your ignorance. You have not taken a basic economy class have you? If you ever do, the first day of class, when you sit down the first thing that will be taught to you in the most basic of economy classes is what is reffered to as the Basic Economic Problem. Basically, the basic economic problem states the opposite of what you just said. It states that the fundamental problem of the economy is that people have unlimited wants and needs but there is a limited amount of resources. That is precisely what the science of economy seeks to study, how to maximize the use of the limited resources.



No, the unlucky ones are the ones whose parents couldnt afford to put them in better schools so they had to settle for the overcrowded public school where they were unable to get the attention they needed in order to develop their intellectual skills. The unlucky ones are the ones whose parents couldnt afford to pay for their schooling, so they had to settle for going without higher education or for a degree from a technical school or community college. There are many other examples of who is lucky and unlucky in the capitalist system, but I think you get the point.


No, I don't get the point. First, I don't buy into the limited wealth argument. I don't buy into the idea that economists are the only ones who understand the economy. I do think that you can find plenty of socialist-leaning economists that would be happy to argue that there is limited wealth. They are teaching in universities because they couldn't cut it in the free market. They had nothing of value to offer, except to others with similar ideas. Just because an econ prof says the sky is pink doesn't make it so. Even if it is true that resources are limited, the available pool of untapped resources is so great that the problem of distribution is irrelevant.

Second, ghetto kids are not without some resources. They are more likely to make bad choices because their parents made bad choices. As much as I dislike the practice, colleges bend over backwards to help poor minorities be successful. Private and governmental foundations throw money at these kids so that they can be successful. Then, there is always the idea that one can get work experience, get a better job, and improve from there. Things are never static.

One last thing. You forget that every person has an equal chance to fail, as well as succeed. Money doesn't buy wisdom.

It is possible to view the individual as superior to the group and still attempt to understand other individuals from their own perspective. This is a basic characteristic of a healthy psychological make-up. Americans for at least the last half-century have generally lacked the ability, their population made up of primarily narcissistic personalities. The same problem drives our buying frenzy... we see the things we own as extensions of ourselves. We cannot even appreciate beauty or utility for their own sakes anymore.

We are a nation of narcissists.

We are a world of narcissists, it is human nature, the perpetuation of the species.

He was pointing out that those saying that only the rich benefit from capitalism are wrong.

Yes, but he seemed to imply that because some of the less wealthy "make it," he had disproven the simple statistical fact that most do not.

As I pointed out earlier, "rags to riches" stories exist precisely because they are abnormal.

No, market socialism is economic freedom.


:confused: :confused: :confused:


Are you serious, it is the opposite of economic freedom. It is the idea that if some people abuse their economic freedom that it should be taken away from everyone.

I have to wonder if we are talking about the same thing, so here we go:

Socialism is a economic system in which the wealth of the nation is collected by the government and redistributed in a way in which the government sees fit. Do you agree?

Yes, but he seemed to imply that because some of the less wealthy "make it," he had disproven the simple statistical fact that most do not.

As I pointed out earlier, "rags to riches" stories exist precisely because they are abnormal.

So you would prefer that no one is allowed to "make it", or that we should allow the government to decide who makes it?

We are a world of narcissists, it is human nature, the perpetuation of the species.

No, narcissism is a distortion of normal healthy self-esteem and ambition. It is a condition in which the human being fails to successfully differentiate between the self and others, as well as the self and objects, so that the relationship with other people as well as with material objects is one in which those things exist only to bolster the weak parts of the self.

A healthy person can still be a consumer... but he or she purchases things because he/she wants to surround her/himself with beautiful things desirable for their own good. A narcissist, however, can never be satisfied... he/she purchases goods because he/she feels less successful or worthy without them. He/she is obsessed with "keeping up with the Jones's." That is not healthy. And not everyone is like that. Moreover, Americans were not always like that.

I have to wonder if we are talking about the same thing, so here we go:

Socialism is a economic system in which the wealth of the nation is collected by the government and redistributed in a way in which the government sees fit. Do you agree?

No. Socialism is the economic principle that a government should intervene in the economy in order to promote the general economic and social welfare. What you describe is collectivist socialism, or communism, which holds that all economic functions should be communal, run through the arm of the government.

I prefer market socialism. The government owns natural resources and major industries, but allocation is run by a consumer market. The technical details can be a little difficult, but basically this means that no one "sets" prices. (There are "accounting prices" for basic resources, but these are adjusted to meet the needs of the market.)

People work the jobs they want, and buy the things they want. So there is freedom on the individual end.

But there is also the greater political freedom when it comes to essential natural resources. In a democracy, the people as a whole rightfully own the resources of the nation... and they should be able to make decisions about whether or not to preserve forests, or reduce the use of fossil fuels. In a market socialism, they do this by adjusting the price at which they are willing to "sell" their resources. Raising the price decreases the ability of firms to purchase the resource, and thereby decreases its use in the economy... while the actual allocation of the scarce resource to consumer goods is determined by market demand.

So you would prefer that no one is allowed to "make it", or that we should allow the government to decide who makes it?

Not at all! I would prefer that everyone have a truly equal right to "make it," as opposed to the purely formal right advanced by capitalist theory.

No, I don't get the point. First, I don't buy into the limited wealth argument. I don't buy into the idea that economists are the only ones who understand the economy. I do think that you can find plenty of socialist-leaning economists that would be happy to argue that there is limited wealth. They are teaching in universities because they couldn't cut it in the free market. They had nothing of value to offer, except to others with similar ideas. Just because an econ prof says the sky is pink doesn't make it so. Even if it is true that resources are limited, the available pool of untapped resources is so great that the problem of distribution is irrelevant.

Again you display your ignorance. This isnt a theory proposed by some college Economists. It is the foundation of the study of Economics. It is accepted throughout the world as the fundamental problem of Economics. In fact, it is the phenomenon that the science of Economics seeks to study. If you want to look at it from a scientific perspective its not a theory, it is a law. But you would like to pretend that it isnt true, fine, go ahead and tell yourself the sky is pink. The fact is that resources are limited and wants and needs are unlimited. Lets put it in simpler terms so that someone with your level of education can understand it. There are not enough televisions to give one to every person on the planet. In fact, if we were to attempt to make enough televisions for everyone on the planet, the process of creating them would take for ever, we simply cannot make them fast enough. Sort of like the problem with body armor that the US military is facing, it just cant be made fast enough. Not only that, but the materials used to make televisions are also limited, and if I am using all of that material to make televisions then I cant be using them to make radios. Since there arent enough televisions to give one to every person on the planet, there needs to be a system to decide who gets to have one and who doesnt. This system is what is reffered to as an Economy. It is all very simple and well understood by everyone who knows anything about economics.

Second, ghetto kids are not without some resources. They are more likely to make bad choices because their parents made bad choices. As much as I dislike the practice, colleges bend over backwards to help poor minorities be successful. Private and governmental foundations throw money at these kids so that they can be successful.

There are foundations that attempt to help poor kids go to college, but there arent enough of them. Once again, this is a limited resource. The result is that only a very small fragment of the eligible underpriviledged youth are able to get enough help. Yes, most can get a Pell grant, but the Pell grant isnt enough to pay the tuition on almost any university.

There are no programs to help poor kids go to private schools instead of public schools during their childhood. I wish there were, but there arent (or if there are, they are so small and/or localized that they are not making a difference). So, they are forced to go to overcrowded schools where teachers cannot give them the attention they need.

Then there is what you mention. A disadvantage for the poor kids caused by the environment in which they live. Their environment is one where if you want to make money, one of the few ways is to sell drugs. This is once again, a result of capitalism.

So, even you agree that poor kids do not have an equal opportunity to succeed. You just dont agree on the reasons because you have never been poor.

Then, there is always the idea that one can get work experience, get a better job, and improve from there. Things are never static.

Of course, but for poor people, this is one of the only avenues through which they might find success, whereas for a rich person it is simply one of many. So, still the fact remains that poor people have less opportunities for success.

One last thing. You forget that every person has an equal chance to fail, as well as succeed. Money doesn't buy wisdom.

Once again you are mistaken. Not everyone has an equal chance at failure. George Bush founded several unsuccessful companies that all went bankrupt before finally hitting a jackpot. If he were from a poor family, the first company wouldve been the last. Since he was from an upper class well connected family, he could still find people to buy into his next ideas even though he had proven ineffective in the past. Once again, the opportunity for failure is not equal.

Someone may have already said this, but I don't feel like reading through fifteen pages of posts just so I don't repeat someone.

Anyway, I think that pure laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work. You end up having massive social welfare problems ("rich get richer and the poor get poorer") and corporate domination of the market. New businesses are unable to start because of massive monopolies, and, in the end, you have the equivalent of economic gridlock. Capitalism, however, should not be dismissed outright. A form of limited capitalism, with adequate social welfare (in the US, something like social security, unemployment checks, minimum wage, or government housing) and with environmental and economic regulations can work quite well. In other words, companies should be restricted from unethical business practices and should be taxed at a greater rate as they expand. This helps prevent huge corporations from dominating the market and controlling all of a specific product.

In a system such as this, there should be scaled tax brackets. If you're a CEO making 15 million, you'd get taxed about 50%; if you're living in the ghetto making 9000 a year, you'd have little to no taxes.

A limited capitalist system, while preserving the economic benefits of capitalism, also provides the welfare of a socialist system. Such an economic structure is best all around and works best for all of the citizens of a country.

No. Socialism is the economic principle that a government should intervene in the economy in order to promote the general economic and social welfare. What you describe is collectivist socialism, or communism, which holds that all economic functions should be communal, run through the arm of the government.

So you like capitalism with government restraints?

I prefer market socialism. The government owns natural resources and major industries, but allocation is run by a consumer market. The technical details can be a little difficult, but basically this means that no one "sets" prices. (There are "accounting prices" for basic resources, but these are adjusted to meet the needs of the market.)

How can the price not be set? With a government monopoly, there will be no way to determine supply or demand and there can be no equilibrium price, only what the government wants.

People work the jobs they want, and buy the things they want. So there is freedom on the individual end.

But there is also the greater political freedom when it comes to essential natural resources. In a democracy, the people as a whole rightfully own the resources of the nation... and they should be able to make decisions about whether or not to preserve forests, or reduce the use of fossil fuels. In a market socialism, they do this by adjusting the price at which they are willing to "sell" their resources. Raising the price decreases the ability of firms to purchase the resource, and thereby decreases its use in the economy... while the actual allocation of the scarce resource to consumer goods is determined by market demand.

Firms will be owned by the government so there will be no price-demand correlation.

Market demand would not exist since there is only one source and is no competition.

Not at all! I would prefer that everyone have a truly equal right to "make it," as opposed to the purely formal right advanced by capitalist theory.

How does your plan even come close to offering that? As far as I can tell it will be the same system with government having complete control over wages.

Someone may have already said this, but I don't feel like reading through fifteen pages of posts just so I don't repeat someone.

Anyway, I think that pure laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work. You end up having massive social welfare problems ("rich get richer and the poor get poorer") and corporate domination of the market. New businesses are unable to start because of massive monopolies, and, in the end, you have the equivalent of economic gridlock. Capitalism, however, should not be dismissed outright. A form of limited capitalism, with adequate social welfare (in the US, something like social security, unemployment checks, minimum wage, or government housing) and with environmental and economic regulations can work quite well. In other words, companies should be restricted from unethical business practices and should be taxed at a greater rate as they expand. This helps prevent huge corporations from dominating the market and controlling all of a specific product.

In a system such as this, there should be scaled tax brackets. If you're a CEO making 15 million, you'd get taxed about 50%; if you're living in the ghetto making 9000 a year, you'd have little to no taxes.

A limited capitalist system, while preserving the economic benefits of capitalism, also provides the welfare of a socialist system. Such an economic structure is best all around and works best for all of the citizens of a country.

I agree with you. The economic benefits provided by the economic efficiencies capitalism creates, more than pays for the government regulation and welfare problems it needs and creates.

So you like capitalism with government restraints?

Market socialism would most likely allow for capitalism on the small-scale. No one wants to stop Mom and Pop from opening the corner store. But any firms large enough to individually affect the economy would be government owned, although their products are still subject to a market. (With managers strictly required to balance accounts, this is more than possible. You should read up on the theory... I would start with Oskar Lange, and work my way up.)

How can the price not be set? With a government monopoly, there will be no way to determine supply or demand and there can be no equilibrium price, only what the government wants.

Again, the theory is more complex than I think we want to get into here, but there is plenty of reading available on the subject. I will make only two general points: First, there is no central management of any industry. Rather, industries are broken into individual firms (still government owned), and managers are rewarded according to competition between firms. (Rewarding management for firm efficiency is a way to control for "shirking" by employees... it is a general market failure not limited to capitalism. Capitalism merely makes the reward automatic by awarding profits to entrepreneurs. Market socialism operates on a similar principle.) Secondly, if you take a careful look at how the economy operates in capitalist countries, "accounting prices" are effectively a fact of economic existence, and they do not hurt the ability to maintain stable equilibrium prices. They exist in the form of permits, land taxes, and so on. These are essentially "arbitrary" in the same sense that market socialism sets "arbitrary" accounting prices for natural resources... but adjusts them as necessary.

"Supply" and "demand" works just fine as long as you hold managers accountable to their accounting prices. Supply is "too high" when revenue does not meet costs, and managers will be bound to lower prices... as long as the government sticks to its own rule, and does not lower the accounting prices to "fudge" a balance.

Firms will be owned by the government so there will be no price-demand correlation.

See above. Essentially, the community (through the government) sets prices on natural resources... but that just means that "we" own them, and "we" set the price at which we are willing to sell -- to the government, as it were. This is the very definition of a market... actually, a better market in natural resources than we have today, in which they are essentially given away. The price is already arbitrary. Why not adjust it for the common good instead?

Yes, but he seemed to imply that because some of the less wealthy "make it," he had disproven the simple statistical fact that most do not.

As I pointed out earlier, "rags to riches" stories exist precisely because they are abnormal.
Most do not become ueber-rich because they don't have the skills or knowledge desired by the market. But, many of the lower group can get into the middle class area fairly easily.

The economic benefits provided by the economic efficiencies capitalism creates, more than pays for the government regulation and welfare problems it needs and creates.

True. But there needs to be social institutions to deal with those problems. Also, pure, unregulated, hardcore capitalism can be bad. Plus, poor people smell funny, so it's good to have the smallest amount of homeless people possible.

Market socialism would most likely allow for capitalism on the small-scale. No one wants to stop Mom and Pop from opening the corner store. But any firms large enough to individually affect the economy would be government owned, although their products are still subject to a market. (With managers strictly required to balance accounts, this is more than possible. You should read up on the theory... I would start with Oskar Lange, and work my way up.)

How would Mom and Pop stores compete with the government? It doesn't take an active attempt to force out competitors, it can happen through sheer size. For Mom and Pop stores to actually prosper they would be required to offer goods a lower price than what the government does. If they can do that, then arbitrage takes place and either government lowers prices and forces out the mom and pop, or they are eventually forced out. Unless retail stores are completely privately owned.

Again, the theory is more complex than I think we want to get into here, but there is plenty of reading available on the subject. I will make only two general points: First, there is no central management of any industry. Rather, industries are broken into individual firms (still government owned), and managers are rewarded according to competition between firms. (Rewarding management for firm efficiency is a way to control for "shirking" by employees... it is a general market failure not limited to capitalism. Capitalism merely makes the reward automatic by awarding profits to entrepreneurs. Market socialism operates on a similar principle.) Secondly, if you take a careful look at how the economy operates in capitalist countries, "accounting prices" are effectively a fact of economic existence, and they do not hurt the ability to maintain stable equilibrium prices. They exist in the form of permits, land taxes, and so on. These are essentially "arbitrary" in the same sense that market socialism sets "arbitrary" accounting prices for natural resources... but adjusts them as necessary.

For the rewards part, I can see how the principle, but I don't think it would work. First off, how are the managers selected? Second off, how do you avoid corruption in the government in the form of kickbacks and such? Lastly, do you actually approve of giving the government the power to employ 75% of the nation?

By "accounting prices" do you mean the lowest possible price to make the cash flow zero? You may have to define it for me.

"Supply" and "demand" works just fine as long as you hold managers accountable to their accounting prices. Supply is "too high" when revenue does not meet costs, and managers will be bound to lower prices... as long as the government sticks to its own rule, and does not lower the accounting prices to "fudge" a balance.

I hope that is overly simplistic because that wouldn't work. The fact is that there is no alternative to judge whether profit is high. With sole control of the industry, the government will not have competition in which to judge whether equilibrium price is being met. The prices will be very sticky and the market efficiency will be horrible.

See above. Essentially, the community (through the government) sets prices on natural resources... but that just means that "we" own them, and "we" set the price at which we are willing to sell -- to the government, as it were. This is the very definition of a market... actually, a better market in natural resources than we have today, in which they are essentially given away. The price is already arbitrary. Why not adjust it for the common good instead?

I can see the benefits of federalizing the supply of natural resources since the government already controls all of it, anyway, but I still don't like the thought of giving government control of major industries.

No. Socialism is the economic principle that a government should intervene in the economy in order to promote the general economic and social welfare. What you describe is collectivist socialism, or communism, which holds that all economic functions should be communal, run through the arm of the government.
I shouldn't even bother with this. Socialism is most widely defined as government owned and operated industry. The definition of communism adds to this with the distinction that planning is done by a central government. The economic nirvana part is funny, but irrelevant.

I prefer market socialism. The government owns natural resources and major industries, but allocation is run by a consumer market. The technical details can be a little difficult, but basically this means that no one "sets" prices. (There are "accounting prices" for basic resources, but these are adjusted to meet the needs of the market.)

People work the jobs they want, and buy the things they want. So there is freedom on the individual end.

So prices follow demand and supply. Or is that what you mean? What is the advantange to having the government own the resources and production? What happens when I want to start raising hogs for sale? Who do I sell them to? Where do I get the feed? How big does my farm have to be before the government siezes it? I mean, before the government nationalizes it? What if I want to start an airline? Or if I want to open a bank? Can I still do that?

But there is also the greater political freedom when it comes to essential natural resources. In a democracy, the people as a whole rightfully own the resources of the nation... and they should be able to make decisions about whether or not to preserve forests, or reduce the use of fossil fuels. In a market socialism, they do this by adjusting the price at which they are willing to "sell" their resources. Raising the price decreases the ability of firms to purchase the resource, and thereby decreases its use in the economy... while the actual allocation of the scarce resource to consumer goods is determined by market demand.
But the government owns the resources and means of production. How do the people "sell" their resources if the resources are owned by the government? Isn't increased or decreased consumption the only way to affect resource use? From what is said here, I think you are proposing to modify consumption, but based on what? A referendum to save trees? Sounds tricky.

I shouldn't even bother with this. Socialism is most widely defined as government owned and operated industry. The definition of communism adds to this with the distinction that planning is done by a central government. The economic nirvana part is funny, but irrelevant.

That's really not what communism is. Communism states that all production should be controlled by the workers, not the government. Government in communism would be almost non-existant, merely existing for administration purposes.

How would Mom and Pop stores compete with the government?

Who said they would compete with the government? Market socialism privatizes the production of small-scale or local goods that are better produced privately. Mom and Pop specialize in hand-made crafts, restaurants, that sort of thing. They are not running nuclear plants or making steel.

First off, how are the managers selected?

Whatever method suits you. Appointment by merit; election by peers; general election? It is a political issue, and not one of great concern.

Second off, how do you avoid corruption in the government in the form of kickbacks and such?

Umm, the same way we do now? It's not always perfect, but the press combined with internal regulation and "checks and balances" seems to do a decent enough job.

Lastly, do you actually approve of giving the government the power to employ 75% of the nation?

Yes. More, probably. Also, I should point out that income taxes as we know them would be minimal or non-existent. "Taxes" are primarily in the form of direct profits.

By "accounting prices" do you mean the lowest possible price to make the cash flow zero? You may have to define it for me.

As I said, we already use a sort of accounting price in the form of permits. The point may be best made in terms of the very attractive idea to sell permits for pollution. The price of a permit is itself essentially arbitrary: the government sets it at a price that they estimate will allow enough businesses to produce needed goods, but not so many as to exceed desirable levels of pollution. If they guess too low, there will be too much pollution and they will need to increase the price. If they guess too high, people will protest at the especially high price of affected consumer goods. Somewhere in the middle there is a balance (and it is both an economic and a political issue), and while it may take some guess work to get there, it is nonetheless a stable price.

Other versions of the same idea simply set the acceptable level of pollution and let firms buy and sell permits amongst themselves. It is the same principle. Market socialism proposes to do essentially the same thing with all natural resources that we already do with some (land use, etc). It is called an "accounting" price because the government "sets" it... but political and economic pressures exert force on the government to set it at a price suitable to the market (which in this case encompasses the public's willingness or unwillingness to "sell" certain vital resources or rights).

I hope that is overly simplistic because that wouldn't work. The fact is that there is no alternative to judge whether profit is high. With sole control of the industry, the government will not have competition in which to judge whether equilibrium price is being met.

I already told you that the industries are not centrally managed. Were you not reading that part? Seriously, plenty of authors make a much better explanation than I do... I recommend you check them out. The principle of the thing, again, is that managers essentially compete with one another. All you need to create competition is incentive for efficiency. Ownership is not a prerequisite to incentive.

I still don't like the thought of giving government control of major industries.

Well, the theory really does require democracy (in a way that capitalism does not), since the idea is that -- to the greatest extent possible -- the people control their economic destiny (in terms of the use of essential resources).

Again you display your ignorance. This isnt a theory proposed by some college Economists. It is the foundation of the study of Economics. It is accepted throughout the world as the fundamental problem of Economics. In fact, it is the phenomenon that the science of Economics seeks to study. If you want to look at it from a scientific perspective its not a theory, it is a law. But you would like to pretend that it isnt true, fine, go ahead and tell yourself the sky is pink. The fact is that resources are limited and wants and needs are unlimited. Lets put it in simpler terms so that someone with your level of education can understand it. There are not enough televisions to give one to every person on the planet. In fact, if we were to attempt to make enough televisions for everyone on the planet, the process of creating them would take for ever, we simply cannot make them fast enough. Sort of like the problem with body armor that the US military is facing, it just cant be made fast enough. Not only that, but the materials used to make televisions are also limited, and if I am using all of that material to make televisions then I cant be using them to make radios. Since there arent enough televisions to give one to every person on the planet, there needs to be a system to decide who gets to have one and who doesnt. This system is what is reffered to as an Economy. It is all very simple and well understood by everyone who knows anything about economics.

Oh did you miss the point about resources. It's not televisions, or cars, or any other single product. It's about opportunity. If I can make something that pleases someone else, I can become rich. Look at the folks that marketed pet rocks and beanie babies, for Pete's sake! Two of the most worthless things I can think of, but someone got rich from the idea. Look at Ron Popeil and his endless ads for cutting and dicing machines. Those are't Cuisinarts, but he's doing pretty well. Look at Burt Rutan. He build a space ship. Flew it into space. Landed safely. A capitalistic system will always reward what is successful.


There are foundations that attempt to help poor kids go to college, but there arent enough of them. Once again, this is a limited resource. The result is that only a very small fragment of the eligible underpriviledged youth are able to get enough help. Yes, most can get a Pell grant, but the Pell grant isnt enough to pay the tuition on almost any university.

There are no programs to help poor kids go to private schools instead of public schools during their childhood. I wish there were, but there arent (or if there are, they are so small and/or localized that they are not making a difference). So, they are forced to go to overcrowded schools where teachers cannot give them the attention they need.

Then there is what you mention. A disadvantage for the poor kids caused by the environment in which they live. Their environment is one where if you want to make money, one of the few ways is to sell drugs. This is once again, a result of capitalism.

So, even you agree that poor kids do not have an equal opportunity to succeed. You just dont agree on the reasons because you have never been poor.



Of course, but for poor people, this is one of the only avenues through which they might find success, whereas for a rich person it is simply one of many. So, still the fact remains that poor people have less opportunities for success.

College is not the be-all, end-all criteria for success. The military provides a very good opportunity. A lot of technical education. A lot of discipline. Something more than a few poor kids could use.

I knew a guy that ran a diesel engine shop. Couldn't get enough mechanics. Lowest pay after a probationary period was $50K. Had a guy come out to fix the air conditioner. He had his own business, several trucks, a few employees. Didn't go to college. Learned his trade from an apprenticeship. Don't tell me that opportunity doesn't exist.


Once again you are mistaken. Not everyone has an equal chance at failure. George Bush founded several unsuccessful companies that all went bankrupt before finally hitting a jackpot. If he were from a poor family, the first company wouldve been the last. Since he was from an upper class well connected family, he could still find people to buy into his next ideas even though he had proven ineffective in the past. Once again, the opportunity for failure is not equal.
Look, no one ever hears about failures that don't go on to succeed. I suspect that quite a few successes are built on failures, too. No guarantee that George wouldn't have got more capital from another investor even without a rich family. It might have taken more leg work, but I don't see why we only get one chance at success.

That's really not what communism is. Communism states that all production should be controlled by the workers, not the government. Government in communism would be almost non-existant, merely existing for administration purposes.
That's what I referred to as economic nirvana. Totally unrealistic and only a vague Marxist dream. The more practical side of communism is total mismanagement by a central committee. Thus the great wheat famine, ...oops, already been there. The ugly capitalists bailed out the noble central committee, by the way.

I shouldn't even bother with this. Socialism is most widely defined as government owned and operated industry.

Yes, it is. Of course, the people who talk "most widely" are, of necessity, least educated. If you read the socialist authors, they all specify that the point of socialism is economic management for the general good. Most of them even point out that, in times and places in which capitalism is or was the healthiest economic system, they would prefer it. But they believe it can be shown that capitalist control of the largest industries and natural resources can no longer be justified in terms of the general good (for at least the most advanced nations).

What happens when I want to start raising hogs for sale? Who do I sell them to? Where do I get the feed? How big does my farm have to be before the government siezes it? I mean, before the government nationalizes it? What if I want to start an airline? Or if I want to open a bank? Can I still do that?

Maybe; maybe not. Sincere socialists do not make hard and fast distinctions between what is and is not a beneficially capitalist enterprise. If it is small "enough," it is fine. What is small "enough"? That is a political question... and being a committed democrat, I leave it to the people to decide. It will likely fluctuate with time and circumstance.

But the government owns the resources and means of production. How do the people "sell" their resources if the resources are owned by the government?

Is it not obvious that this is the only way they can sell their resources? If individuals own resources, they are not the people's to sell. Only through the government -- the arm of the people's will in a democracy -- can the population make collective decisions about selling their collective goods -- the res publica, the things of the people.

Isn't increased or decreased consumption the only way to affect resource use?

No. Increased demand (which is not the same as increased consumption) may affect resource use by meeting the price at which the owner of a resource is willing to sell. Conversely, an owner may decide to sell for a greater or lesser price, thereby affecting consumption. In a market socialism, the public -- through a democratic government -- may elect to raise or lower their sell price in order to affect consumption. They may even decide that some resources are so precious they will not sell at any price -- this is their right.

But this is truly basic economics now.

From what is said here, I think you are proposing to modify consumption, but based on what?

Allocatively, the only way it can be done and still be free. That is, rather than passing laws banning certain actions, the people (through the government) decides to tax them in much the same way we currently heavily tax cigarettes. The tax in this case, however, falls on the supply end: political pressure can result in raising prices on, as you say, trees.

I am not saying what would and would not be preserved. That, again, is a political question. Let the people decide.

Who said they would compete with the government? Market socialism privatizes the production of small-scale or local goods that are better produced privately. Mom and Pop specialize in hand-made crafts, restaurants, that sort of thing. They are not running nuclear plants or making steel.

But what about banks and why couldn't a small steel company open up. The rust belt has plenty of small steel companies grow up since the demise of the giants.



Whatever method suits you. Appointment by merit; election by peers; general election? It is a political issue, and not one of great concern.

More important, how do we get rid of them? The barely compentant manage to hang on in government all the time. They don't last as long in small, private industry.

One last thing. Remember how well the wage and price controls worked in the '70s? Like shit. It screwed up things beyond all imagination. That was one bad attempt to control the economy via the setting of "accounting prices" or something similar,anyway. The demand can't be controlled by adjusting supply. All you get then is rationing.

That's what I referred to as economic nirvana. Totally unrealistic and only a vague Marxist dream. The more practical side of communism is total mismanagement by a central committee. Thus the great wheat famine, ...oops, already been there. The ugly capitalists bailed out the noble central committee, by the way.

Since when is it your job to decide what is and isn't realistic? A true communist society hasn't been fully attempted thus far, so you can't dismiss it as impossible, and assume that it would turn into what you think it will.

Maybe; maybe not. Sincere socialists do not make hard and fast distinctions between what is and is not a beneficially capitalist enterprise. If it is small "enough," it is fine. What is small "enough"? That is a political question... and being a committed democrat, I leave it to the people to decide. It will likely fluctuate with time and circumstance.

Wow, I can raise my pigs one day and when the mob gets jealous, they take them. I love this market socialism mixed with mob rule.


Is it not obvious that this is the only way they can sell their resources? If individuals own resources, they are not the people's to sell. Only through the government -- the arm of the people's will in a democracy -- can the population make collective decisions about selling their collective goods -- the res publica, the things of the people.

I guess this is just a difference of opinion about who should own property. I firmly believe that it is only individuals that can own anything or produce anything. Government is only there to prevent anarchy and mob rule, I mean democracy. The best the government could ever do with property is manage it for public use, like a park, or reservoir, or highway.


No. Increased demand (which is not the same as increased consumption) may affect resource use by meeting the price at which the owner of a resource is willing to sell. Conversely, an owner may decide to sell for a greater or lesser price, thereby affecting consumption. In a market socialism, the public -- through a democratic government -- may elect to raise or lower their sell price in order to affect consumption. They may even decide that some resources are so precious they will not sell at any price -- this is their right.

But this is truly basic economics now.

I am from the South, so sometimes you need to speak more slowly. How can increased demand not be the same as increased consumption? We have tried to control consumption or demand with price controls. It was miserable. Rationing in the '40s, rationing again in the '70s. You can't reduce supply or raise prices to reduced demand.

Since when is it your job to decide what is and isn't realistic? A true communist society hasn't been fully attempted thus far, so you can't dismiss it as impossible, and assume that it would turn into what you think it will.
Since when does that matter here? On the other hand, I thought a communist paradise was supposed to grow from the imperfect implementation? That sure hasn't happened.

In your opinion, how close does the kibbutz(sp?) in Israel conform to an ideal Marxist society? Where does it deviate?

But what about banks and why couldn't a small steel company open up. The rust belt has plenty of small steel companies grow up since the demise of the giants.

How many times do I have to say "it is a political question" before it finally sinks in? We are assuming a democracy here: if you can convince people that it would be economically beneficial to have privatized banks and steel companies of a certain size, then let it be so. How can I object to the details of a world that does not even exist?

More important, how do we get rid of them?

Limited terms? Reviews? Again, a largely political question.

The barely compentant manage to hang on in government all the time. They don't last as long in small, private industry.

You are right, they don't last as long in small private industry, in which competition is fierce. If you can figure out a way to keep all industry small, then congratulations... you have solved a major problem for the socialists. Unfortunately, I doubt that is possible, in which case we'll just have to make do with the occasional mediocrity of leadership to which we have become accustomed in large enterprises. Nothing is perfect.

One last thing. Remember how well the wage and price controls worked in the '70s? Like shit.

Yes, but have I said anything about controlling wages or consumer prices? Nope, because that's an idiot's idea. Wages will operate on a market: a better one, I hope, than we have now. The least desirable occupations should, on a market principle, tend to pay the most (although there are good economic reasons this should not be an "absolute" principle). It promotes rapid turnover in the worst jobs, at the same time providing the people who work them the means with which to obtain the education and training to get better employment. A world in which garbage men are paid hansomely is precisely the world that promotes the economic mobility capitalists fantasize about. (Of course, in order to get there, you need some basic minimum of equality to begin with -- due to the facts of marginal utility.)

That was one bad attempt to control the economy via the setting of "accounting prices" or something similar,anyway.

It is nothing like the accounting prices I have been talking about. I have been talking about the population setting prices on things that they own directly like natural resources, not on the result of processes that involve labor inputs and other costs. Completely different.

The demand can't be controlled by adjusting supply.

Sure it can. That is the very definition of the law of supply and demand, since demand means desire plus the ability and willingness to pay. As supply decreases, price increases, and the number of people willing to pay the price decreases, i.e. lower demand.

All you get then is rationing.

No, rationing occurs when you disregard price and say "everyone gets X amount." It is a distributive rule. Allocative rules affect price and then say, "anyone who can pay for it can have it."

Since when does that matter here? On the other hand, I thought a communist paradise was supposed to grow from the imperfect implementation? That sure hasn't happened.

In your opinion, how close does the kibbutz(sp?) in Israel conform to an ideal Marxist society? Where does it deviate?

Communism is the next step after capitalism, whenever the time comes. It does not have a set parameter for when the change must occur. The fact that it has not happened is irrelevant to communism.

As for the kibbutz, the idea of communal work and ownership is interesting, but I do not know anything about the way they "govern" themselves.

Wow, I can raise my pigs one day and when the mob gets jealous, they take them. I love this market socialism mixed with mob rule.

Hey, either you want democracy or not. It could be any ruler that decides on a whim what laws to enact. At least democracy lets you have a say and a vote first.

I guess this is just a difference of opinion about who should own property. I firmly believe that it is only individuals that can own anything or produce anything. Government is only there to prevent anarchy and mob rule, I mean democracy. The best the government could ever do with property is manage it for public use, like a park, or reservoir, or highway.

Well, that is exactly what I want: public property managed for use. The government ("we" in a democracy) decide how our property should be used. If we want to make it into a park, we make it into a park. If we want to allocate it for industrial use, we do so. But we do so according to a price system that reflects the extent to which we value our property.

I am from the South, so sometimes you need to speak more slowly.

I'll try.

How can increased demand not be the same as increased consumption?

Some... goods... have... fixed... supply. Thus... demand... can increase... increasing prices... while consumption... remains fixed... by the maximum supply. Increased demand means increased prices (usually), but not always increased consumption.

You can't reduce supply or raise prices to reduced demand.

Yes. You can. Seriously, this is high school economics. Let me spell it out for you: most products have "elastic" demand. This means people buy more or less of them depending on how much they cost. If ice cream is $2.00 for a half-gallon, I might eat a gallon a week. If the supply of milk is reduced, milk will be more expensive... and in turn ice cream might go up to $3.00 a half-gallon. So I cut back to one half-gallon a week.

Moreover, for most products there is a significant part of the population that has a marginal ability to purchase the good. That is, some people just barely afford a good as it is, or it is just barely cheap enough for them to justify the purchase to themselves. If the price goes up, those people will necessarily stop purchasing the good. (Alternatively, they may rearrange their finances... but for everyone there is some point at which the price of a good will be "too high.")

Supply and demand. Basic market economics.

This is what is most irritating. Capitalists always talk about democracy and freedom (the free market, and stuff) being the best system and they never discuss the issue. The issue is ownership. Capitalism is about private ownership. Democracy and freedom do not need private ownership. Private ownership goes against freedom. I want to walk on the beach for free and I want to drink water for free. That is what freedom is about. I can pay people who work because I need them and they bring value, but I won't pay them for owning the beach or the river, so they better start to work.

First step : abolish inheritance (or limit it to something reasonable, like €50 000). That way, the state can expropriate the big capitalist dynasties.
Next step : distribute dividends to the people. Everybody should have at minimum a home, school access, free health care and enough food and water to live.

This is what is most irritating. Capitalists always talk about democracy and freedom (the free market, and stuff) being the best system and they never discuss the issue. The issue is ownership. Capitalism is about private ownership. Democracy and freedom do not need private ownership. Private ownership goes against freedom. I want to walk on the beach for free and I want to drink water for free. That is what freedom is about. I can pay people who work because I need them and they bring value, but I won't pay them for owning the beach or the river, so they better start to work.

First step : abolish inheritance (or limit it to something reasonable, like €50 000). That way, the state can expropriate the big capitalist dynasties.
Next step : distribute dividends to the people. Everybody should have at minimum a home, school access, free health care and enough food and water to live.

Democracy doesn't need it... But then again, I hate democracy... it is an evil tyrannical system that is to opposed at all costs for the evil that it is...

Freedom... or rather, more importantly LIBERTY does...

I own my house.... because I bought it... I payed someone else for it... with money I earned... I own it...

Now, if I didn't own this house, and the government did... I only live there by will of the government... Even if this government exists as a democratic organization, of which I am only a part of, they still own it... and I do not... The government can make determinations, being the owner... this "mob" can decide whether or not I live there... They can tell me I can't, and force me to move somewhere else... Even place me somewhere I do not want to be....

Now, if I am being forced somewhere else, and have to rely on the MOB to define where I go... How is it I am free?

Part of FREEDOM and LIBERTY is the FREEDOM and LIBERTY to own property...

Part of the differnece of out opinion is FREEDOM itself... My idea of FREEDOM and LIBERTY, is that individuals are free and liberous... And can make their own decisions...

Your idea of freedom and liberty is that the mob makes all decisions for the individual...

As such, you have no clue what actual FREEDOM and LIBERTY is...

...
Freedom and liberty are the same thing, aren't they?
(I'm not a native english speacker but in my language, they both translate into "liberté", or "gratuit", but for something completely different).

Anyway, it is not about the ownership of your house or your pants or your tooth brush. I don't need any of them. In the USSR, people owned their pants. It's about the ownership of the means of production. It doesn't make any sense to own a nuclear plant because you don't use it for your own needs, you use it to exploit the workers and to increase your wealth.

Freedom stops where begins the one of others. It means you can't have the freedom to limit someone else's freedom. (That's article 4 in the declaration of human rights)

Freedom and liberty are the same thing, aren't they?
(I'm not a native english speacker but in my language, they both translate into "liberté", or "gratuit", but for something completely different).

Anyway, it is not about the ownership of your house or your pants or your tooth brush. I don't need any of them. In the USSR, people owned their pants. It's about the ownership of the means of production. It doesn't make any sense to own a nuclear plant because you don't use it for your own needs, you use it to exploit the workers and to increase your wealth.

Freedom stops where begins the one of others. It means you can't have the freedom to limit someone else's freedom. (That's article 4 in the declaration of human rights)
Wow thanks. It's like I wrote it. So you're french?

Freedom and liberty are the same thing, aren't they?
(I'm not a native english speacker but in my language, they both translate into "liberté", or "gratuit", but for something completely different).

Anyway, it is not about the ownership of your house or your pants or your tooth brush. I don't need any of them. In the USSR, people owned their pants. It's about the ownership of the means of production. It doesn't make any sense to own a nuclear plant because you don't use it for your own needs, you use it to exploit the workers and to increase your wealth.

Freedom stops where begins the one of others. It means you can't have the freedom to limit someone else's freedom. (That's article 4 in the declaration of human rights)

Ownership of means of production is still part of overall cost (Case in point of the horrible status of Soviet production capability especially in reactors)...

As for "not using it for your own needs" that is also a failure on your part to proove... I happen to be a SBO (Small Business owner)... I own a business AND work for it... The business exists because of my work to create and market it... Now I have more employees... The business does not exist to "exploit" them, it exists to provide a service and product to the consumers.

Now, being an SBO is a lot of work... It entails extensive research and marketing, bill maintenance, and the like... I actually work more than a I purely get paid for... Though overall part of the incurred proffits exist as my own net worth.

I myself, before had worked for another SBO... And I do have a couple of emplyees who want to be SBO's themselves in the future...

This is the concept of capitalism... That an individual can create, and run their own system of production, hiring other individuals and marketing products to individual consumers... Alot of individuals there... That is the point of liberty... ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS ARE LIBERTINE... They have the ability to make decisions, and live their life how they want...

Your system is built upon a false assumption that Capitalism has a hard-line class structure... Such is not the case... it is in fact, a lie... Capitalism does not actually possess a delineated class structure... People can move between classes fairly easily by their own work and merit... The "Class" in capitalism is purely an artificial construct that exists in a nebulous realm...

I myself was born in the "lower" so-called "working class"... Now, I am, within the typical upper-middle class... which would be the Bourgeoisie in the Communist concept of things... And I am not the only one... the bulk of SBO's are not in inherative classes... I'm a Free-Market Capitalist, BTW... I believe in consumers exercizing market power to drive companies... The Consumers, that is, those receiving the services are ultimately the "Boss"...

Now, in addition, not everyone who works for me wants to be an SBO... Some of them are adverse to ever doing that, but merely living in the employ of my company... Many of them are adverse because of the massive risks I entail in the exercize of this principle of freedom of choice that exists in Capitalism... When doing contracted site work, they see me paying them, and buying equipment, when I may not see any return for months down the line...

Capitalims is the beginning of absolute liberty... Because it is the only system whereby the individuals actually make their own choices... Any other system leads to the mob making decisions for the individual... Mob rule, is not liberty...

Freedom and liberty are the same thing, aren't they?
(I'm not a native english speacker but in my language, they both translate into "liberté", or "gratuit", but for something completely different).

Anyway, it is not about the ownership of your house or your pants or your tooth brush. I don't need any of them. In the USSR, people owned their pants. It's about the ownership of the means of production. It doesn't make any sense to own a nuclear plant because you don't use it for your own needs, you use it to exploit the workers and to increase your wealth.

Freedom stops where begins the one of others. It means you can't have the freedom to limit someone else's freedom. (That's article 4 in the declaration of human rights)

The ownership of the means of production is a horrible argument to use in this day and age. Most companies today are no owned by a single person or small group of people, and most of the ones that are qualify as small businesses like Tekania's. Most of the people in America could, if they wanted to, go out and buy stock in the company that they work for, and hence own a small peice of it. In fact, there are some corporations that are entirely owned by the workers. I believe Harley-Davidson is one, if I'm not out of date on these things. The real fat cats these days are the CEOs hired to run the corporations, not the owners themselves.

What we have is an incorrect definition of profit. For the stadard Marxist, profit is the left-over value after you pay the workers, which should have gone to the workers. Profit is actually the wages of the owners of the business. If I own a business or stock, I get payed for having enough faith in that business to put my own money into it. The business can then use that money to expand, pay wages, etc. It's quite similar to a bank loan, where the profit is substituted for the interest.

Owning a business does not encroach on the freedom of others. They are also free to start their own businesses or buy stock in an existing one. What we are talking about is the freedom to do whatever I want with my money, and this we are not abridging.

...Tekania is a SBO...
Well good for you, you're a SBO. That's cool.
You talk with the other bourgeois around you and they're happy. Everything looks like it's ok. Bananas and nike shoes are cheap on the supermarket. There are some annoying illegal immigrants every now and then and sometimes some ghettos but overall, there is no problem. You have a big SUV, a big house, a dog, and a big TV screen. Life is good.

...
To buy stocks you need to have the capital in the first place. Who don't those chinese workers buy the plant they work for? Is that because there's no minimum wage there?
And what about the iraqis? Why don't they just buy the oil wells and operate them with their capital? Is that because they don't have capital?

People often have a good idea if they are for or against "capitalism", as if it was obvious what capitalism is. Some define it as "market economy", while others define it as a system for profiting on other peoples land, labour and weak position or as a system for profiting on the enviroment. In the first case it is obvious that capitalism can be both good an efficient, but when it comes to the other definition, I guess that few will think it is a good thing.

As Wittgenstein says: "...the meaning of a word is its use in the language. And the meaning of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer." (Wittgenstein, Philosopical Investigations, Oxford 1953, §43)

Things are perhaps not as simple as we want them to be.

How free are the current markets anyway?

Try going into your local McDonalds and buying a drink from Coca-Cola (or Pepsi - can't remember which giant has the contract).

Feels like you have a lot of large corporations all tied together, which kind of defeats the whole "best product at best price" philosophy.

Personally I think the whole capitalism/socialism debate is fairly moot. Human nature dictates that whoever has power will use it to achieve their own ends first. The rest are nice theories in textbooks.

Capitalism is the best way to provide the best service for all. The market mechanisms of competition ensure that the best possible goods and services are available. That's why we should privatise the NHS, because it would be so much more efficient.

Just like double glazing companies, which are private, and always provide the best service to everyone.

And there are no bad double glazing companies because they have all gone bust through lack of custom.

And there's no overpriced double glazing because market competition keeps prices down.

And there's nobody who can't afford double glazing because low taxes and the dynamic economy mean everybody's rich.

Capitalism is the best way to provide the best service for all. The market mechanisms of competition ensure that the best possible goods and services are available. That's why we should privatise the NHS, because it would be so much more efficient.

Just like double glazing companies, which are private, and always provide the best service to everyone.

And there are no bad double glazing companies because they have all gone bust through lack of custom.

And there's no overpriced double glazing because market competition keeps prices down.

And there's nobody who can't afford double glazing because low taxes and the dynamic economy mean everybody's rich.
Or just like the train system.

Capitalism reults in lower costs, higher quality, mainly because of competition, and the Free Enterprise System.

What the hell are you talking about?

Capitalism results in higher costs at lower prices. Mostly because people are fully driven by profit, jacking up the prices and making things out of cheaper quality means more profit, not less.

What the hell are you talking about?

Capitalism results in higher costs at lower prices. Mostly because people are fully driven by profit, jacking up the prices and making things out of cheaper quality means more profit, not less.

Market Capitalism is a religion. Even though it makes almost no sense, and contradicts experience in obvious ways, people still believe in it. I believe in the second coming of Karl Marx, when capital and the state will wither away.

Today in the west and elsewhere we enjoy high living standards. Only 100 years ago we had largescale poverty in Britain, USA and Europe with literacy rates, infant mortality, life expectancy etc being comparable to that of Africa today. Only 50 years ago in Britain things like a motor car, mass air travel, a computer or a university education where things that could only be enjoyed by a small wealthy elite, but today most people in the country will at some point have the opportunity to have or experience those things. In over 5000 years of human civilisation capitalism and individual rights has been around for only a tiny fraction of time and despite delivering more benefits to civilisation than any other system, no system has ever been attacked so fiercely. Its only through inventions like the tractor and fertiliser for farming, canned food, the flushable toilet to name but a few, having been made available to people through the market that has allowed for such a drastic increase in living standards. I hope as I'm sure we all do that one day maybe a 100 years from now living standards in Africa, parts of Asia and South America will comparable to the West now. But this can only be done through investment, economic development and free trade and not through half-hearted promises about wiping debt and giving more hand-outs.

Today in the west and elsewhere we enjoy high living standards. Only 100 years ago we had largescale poverty in Britain, USA and Europe with literacy rates, infant mortality, life expectancy etc being comparable to that of Africa today. Only 50 years ago in Britain things like a motor car, mass air travel, a computer or a university education where things that could only be enjoyed by a small wealthy elite, but today most people in the country will at some point have the opportunity to have or experience those things. In over 5000 years of human civilisation capitalism and individual rights has been around for only a tiny fraction of time and despite delivering more benefits to civilisation than any other system, no system has ever been attacked so fiercely. Its only through inventions like the tractor and fertiliser for farming, canned food, the flushable toilet to name but a few, having been made available to people through the market that has allowed for such a drastic increase in living standards. I hope as I'm sure we all do that one day maybe a 100 years from now living standards in Africa, parts of Asia and South America will comparable to the West now. But this can only be done through investment, economic development and free trade and not through half-hearted promises about wiping debt and giving more hand-outs.
This is something which is debated since the enlightement.
The french revolution was the first rationalization of economics. Since then, there has been many social reforms and more are to come.
The USSR was very successfull in bringing technology to the people. Then electrified even the most remote areas and they started space exploration.
Progress will not stop and our society has to adapt to those changes. Capitalism has its place in the development of society, but it has its limits.

What the hell are you talking about?

Capitalism results in higher costs at lower prices. Mostly because people are fully driven by profit, jacking up the prices and making things out of cheaper quality means more profit, not less.
No talking about ideal communism if you aren't going to ignore ideal capitalism.

In ideal capitalism, people compete for your dollar, and to do this they make the consumer good of as high a quality as possible and at as low a price as possible. The reason for this is because another guy is probably making the consumer good, and he's also after the consumers dollar. And to do that he wants to make his good more attractive than yours.

But it doesn't work that way, because people will form into monopolies and trusts and the like. BUT, in all western nations we have anti-trust laws that forbid that from happening, and we've had these for hundreds of years.

You arguement only works in some circumstances, namely when there is only one provider of a good. And the reason for this price gouging can affect extreme socialism (everything under government control) as well. As the government is the sole distributor of goods they can set the prices at whatever. And we find ourselves facing a monopoly.

This is why a middle of the road approach is best. A system under which the government restrains abuses, but otherwise allows people to spend their money how and where they want.

This is why a middle of the road approach is best. A system under which the government restrains abuses, but otherwise allows people to spend their money how and where they want.
That's socialism.
You can spend your money and buy anything to help yourself, but you can't buy the river and the beach that everybody needs.

That's socialism.
I know, that's why I made the mention of "extreme socialism" in the post. I prefer a system that is somewhat less controlled than European socialism all the same. (But with slightly more controls than American)

You can spend your money and buy anything to help yourself, but you can't buy the river and the beach that everybody needs.
This is what I disagree with. The river and the beach, being initially public property are sold by the government (and therefore the people) to a private interest. And then it is legitimately the private interests.

Needs should be part of the market, not some hand-out from the government.

And, I have class in ten minutes. Got to run.

This is what I disagree with. The river and the beach, being initially public property are sold by the government (and therefore the people) to a private interest. And then it is legitimately the private interests.

Needs should be part of the market, not some hand-out from the government.

And, I have class in ten minutes. Got to run.
Well I understand what you mean, and there has to be a line somewhere. Only democracy can draw that line, but there has to be a line.
I hope you agree with me nobody should own the oxygen I need to survive, or the sun light.

This is what is most irritating. Capitalists always talk about democracy and freedom (the free market, and stuff) being the best system and they never discuss the issue. The issue is ownership. Capitalism is about private ownership. Democracy and freedom do not need private ownership. Private ownership goes against freedom. I want to walk on the beach for free and I want to drink water for free. That is what freedom is about. I can pay people who work because I need them and they bring value, but I won't pay them for owning the beach or the river, so they better start to work.

First step : abolish inheritance (or limit it to something reasonable, like €50 000). That way, the state can expropriate the big capitalist dynasties.
Next step : distribute dividends to the people. Everybody should have at minimum a home, school access, free health care and enough food and water to live.

This is completely wrong. In fact it may be the single dumbest thing I have ever heard. You argue against the right of property, but then you use a simplistic asinine argument about beaches and rivers. Let me begin by telling you that most beaches and rivers are publicly maintained and open. Second, run your water faucet and tell me where you are buying that water from. I bet it is the government.

Also, people cannot maintain their autonomy without the right of property. Democracy will not work without a ample distribution of wealth and that can only be acheived through ownership of property and resources.

Finally, our free market is doing a damn fine job of providing people with what you have said we need. The homeless population is very small, with most having other factors leading to their homelessness. Welfare and public works generally do provide healthcare to those who need it, (although, I would say more can be done) and provide food and water at very low cost.

The ownership of the means of production is a horrible argument to use in this day and age. Most companies today are no owned by a single person or small group of people, and most of the ones that are qualify as small businesses like Tekania's. Most of the people in America could, if they wanted to, go out and buy stock in the company that they work for, and hence own a small peice of it. In fact, there are some corporations that are entirely owned by the workers. I believe Harley-Davidson is one, if I'm not out of date on these things. The real fat cats these days are the CEOs hired to run the corporations, not the owners themselves.

What we have is an incorrect definition of profit. For the stadard Marxist, profit is the left-over value after you pay the workers, which should have gone to the workers. Profit is actually the wages of the owners of the business. If I own a business or stock, I get payed for having enough faith in that business to put my own money into it. The business can then use that money to expand, pay wages, etc. It's quite similar to a bank loan, where the profit is substituted for the interest.

Owning a business does not encroach on the freedom of others. They are also free to start their own businesses or buy stock in an existing one. What we are talking about is the freedom to do whatever I want with my money, and this we are not abridging.

Alright, Robbopolis.

Vittos Ordination Seal of Approval for pointing out the wealth distribution of a capitalist system and correlating power behind it.

Socialists apparently believe that instead of allowing people to build their own wealth, it would be a great idea to have government parcel it out, and make sure that non of the citizenry has any power.

To buy stocks you need to have the capital in the first place. Who don't those chinese workers buy the plant they work for? Is that because there's no minimum wage there?
And what about the iraqis? Why don't they just buy the oil wells and operate them with their capital? Is that because they don't have capital?

China is a socialist country.

Capitalism allows people to build capital, socialism doesn't.

Vittos Ordination : I think you confuse the US with capitalism and China with socialism.

Examples :

Minimum wages is a socialist law.
Intellectual property is a capitalist law.
40 hours/week -> socialist.
inheritance -> capitalist.

If china was socialist, no corporation could employ people that cheap.
If the US was capitalist, the NASA would not exist.

This has been fun to watch. The one thing that comforts me is that we, the USA, has a net influx of immigrants. We must have something that the rest of the world wants. At least the rest of the world that values practical things.

Without even considering illegal immigration, we have enough H2b visa applicants to make the native-born engineering and scientific community worry about their jobs. Why don't these guys stay in India or Africa? Or England or Canada, for that matter? It's the opportunity that is offered by our freedom and economy.

I know a lot of you are truly devoted to some theoretical economic systems. In an academic environment, they probably seem like pretty slick ways of dealing with the ills of capitalism. In practice, well as AnarchyeL put it, 'don't bother me with the political details, I'm too busy with my grand theory'. That was paraphrased, of course, but it's what he meant. Gosh folks, the world runs on political details.

Some of us have gone case-by-case and really made a good case for capitalism. So far, the worst thing anyone has been able to attack it with is 'there are poor people', or 'there are rich people', or 'there are unemployed people'. There are variations on that, like 'there are sick people without health insurance', or 'everything isn't free', or 'corporations own too much'.

That last one is funny, because the proponents of socialism would rather have the government own it. This example is anecdotal, rather than analytic, but it illustrates a point. When was the last time any of you had a pleasant interaction with a government bureaucrat? Not where licenses and permits are issued, not at a Veteran's Affairs office, certainly not at the Post Office. What does the government do well? That's certainly another discussion. For my purposes, the answer is to protect it's citizens from force and fraud. That's it.

Thanks for reading and thanks for participating. Carry On!

Also, people cannot maintain their autonomy without the right of property. Democracy will not work without a ample distribution of wealth and that can only be acheived through ownership of property and resources.There is no autonomy. It's just a dream.

This has been fun to watch. The one thing that comforts me is that we, the USA, has a net influx of immigrants. We must have something that the rest of the world wants. At least the rest of the world that values practical things.

Without even considering illegal immigration, we have enough H2b visa applicants to make the native-born engineering and scientific community worry about their jobs. Why don't these guys stay in India or Africa? Or England or Canada, for that matter? It's the opportunity that is offered by our freedom and economy.

I know a lot of you are truly devoted to some theoretical economic systems. In an academic environment, they probably seem like pretty slick ways of dealing with the ills of capitalism. In practice, well as AnarchyeL put it, 'don't bother me with the political details, I'm too busy with my grand theory'. That was paraphrased, of course, but it's what he meant. Gosh folks, the world runs on political details.

Some of us have gone case-by-case and really made a good case for capitalism. So far, the worst thing anyone has been able to attack it with is 'there are poor people', or 'there are rich people', or 'there are unemployed people'. There are variations on that, like 'there are sick people without health insurance', or 'everything isn't free', or 'corporations own too much'.

That last one is funny, because the proponents of socialism would rather have the government own it. This example is anecdotal, rather than analytic, but it illustrates a point. When was the last time any of you had a pleasant interaction with a government bureaucrat? Not where licenses and permits are issued, not at a Veteran's Affairs office, certainly not at the Post Office. What does the government do well? That's certainly another discussion. For my purposes, the answer is to protect it's citizens from force and fraud. That's it.

Thanks for reading and thanks for participating. Carry On!
Maybe you didn't get it at all.
Of course everybody want to be a bourgeois in capitalism.
And 'why do they want to emmigrate to the US'? Ask an iraqi. It is because the US fucked up their country in the first place. Their oil belongs to US corporations. What the hell do you expect?
As for what the government does well, my train system and my health care system are working fine thank you.

There is no autonomy. It's just a dream.
So what is there? Just buzzing around like mindless drones?

I think not.

People are not a hive mind, we make decisions for our own. We have the rights of Life, Liberty and Property, and these are inherent to the human condition.

If the US was capitalist, the NASA would not exist.

Psylos, you got one of my buttons. I love aircraft and spacecraft and anything to do with them. I guarantee that there would be a robust commerical space program in the US, even, maybe especially, without government assistance.

The evidence is overwhelming. All of our airlines are private. None are nationalized. All means of producing aircraft are private. None are nationalized. Both take government contracts from time to time, but that doesn't make the a nationally controlled industry.

Let's make the jump to space. For as long as it was subsizdized by the government, private industry has been building spacecraft. NASA doesn't do the building, just provides the oversight. But, there is a very forward thinking group of people that would like to see commerical enterprise in space. The benefits are the same sort of thing we have been discussing for the last day. Anyhow, these guys got some backing. They established a prize. The $10 million X prize.

Many competed and there was finally a winner. Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites built a fiberglass spaceship and launched it from another fiberglass aircraft. Spaceship One went to 100 Km and landed safely in the Mojave. A week later they did it again. They won the prize.

This is what makes a capitalist society so great! None of you see that! What makes you so blind to the possibilities that capitalistic societies offer!

If one guy can start his own space program, why can't the rest of us do something just as great. Wait. We can! One guy started Microsoft. A couple guy started Apple. It just goes on and on.

Vittos Ordination : I think you confuse the US with capitalism and China with socialism.

Examples :

Minimum wages is a socialist law.
Intellectual property is a capitalist law.
40 hours/week -> socialist.
inheritance -> capitalist.

If china was socialist, no corporation could employ people that cheap.
If the US was capitalist, the NASA would not exist.

Capitalism is about the free market and private property rights. Socialism is about government ownership of capital.

The US operates on a capitalistic economy, China is a socialism. I am not confusing them, China has some capitalistic characteristics, but uses socialism to control the population and allow intense protectionism. The US is a capitalist government with socialistic safeguards to guarantee autonomy.

This has been fun to watch. The one thing that comforts me is that we, the USA, has a net influx of immigrants. We must have something that the rest of the world wants. At least the rest of the world that values practical things.

Without even considering illegal immigration, we have enough H2b visa applicants to make the native-born engineering and scientific community worry about their jobs. Why don't these guys stay in India or Africa? Or England or Canada, for that matter? It's the opportunity that is offered by our freedom and economy.

I know a lot of you are truly devoted to some theoretical economic systems. In an academic environment, they probably seem like pretty slick ways of dealing with the ills of capitalism. In practice, well as AnarchyeL put it, 'don't bother me with the political details, I'm too busy with my grand theory'. That was paraphrased, of course, but it's what he meant. Gosh folks, the world runs on political details.

Some of us have gone case-by-case and really made a good case for capitalism. So far, the worst thing anyone has been able to attack it with is 'there are poor people', or 'there are rich people', or 'there are unemployed people'. There are variations on that, like 'there are sick people without health insurance', or 'everything isn't free', or 'corporations own too much'.

That last one is funny, because the proponents of socialism would rather have the government own it. This example is anecdotal, rather than analytic, but it illustrates a point. When was the last time any of you had a pleasant interaction with a government bureaucrat? Not where licenses and permits are issued, not at a Veteran's Affairs office, certainly not at the Post Office. What does the government do well? That's certainly another discussion. For my purposes, the answer is to protect it's citizens from force and fraud. That's it.

Thanks for reading and thanks for participating. Carry On!

Maybe your government isn't great to deal with. Mine's ok most of the time, particularly where it pays well enough to attract an intelligent, interested workforce. What joy have you ever experienced talking to a telephone monkey working for a phone, water, electricity, insurance, whatever company?

The government doesn't own anything, it administers things on behalf of the people. As the saying goes "I used to own shares in gas, electricity, the phone network, water, the rail network and air traffic control, but then the government sold them". If your government is acting like it owns the place, you should vote against it.

The fact that capitalism concentrates wealth is what is so bad about it. You may not think that "capitalism creates poverty" is a problem, maybe you aren't poor. The same mechanisms that encourage people to migrate into the US to get rich make other people get poor, people in the US and people abroad. So for those that get rich and are selfish, capitalism's great. For those that get poor who are selfish, those who get rich who aren't selfish and those who get poor who aren't selfish, capitalism is not always so great.

Maybe you didn't get it at all.
Of course everybody want to be a bourgeois in capitalism.
And 'why do they want to emmigrate to the US'? Ask an iraqi. It is because the US fucked up their country in the first place. Their oil belongs to US corporations. What the hell do you expect?
As for what the government does well, my train system and my health care system are working fine thank you.
And as for what private industry does well, our train system and healthcare work very nicely as well. Despite outrageous propagandistic claims...

There is no autonomy. It's just a dream.

There will be autonomy as long as there are enforced property rights.

Unless you are talking about the grand scheme of existence, but that is for another thread.

Capitalism is about the free market and private property rights. Socialism is about government ownership of capital.

The US operates on a capitalistic economy, China is a socialism. I am not confusing them, China has some capitalistic characteristics, but uses socialism to control the population and allow intense protectionism. The US is a capitalist government with socialistic safeguards to guarantee autonomy.
And the US system is for the most part a good system.

Capitalism is about the free market and private property rights. Socialism is about government ownership of capital.

The US operates on a capitalistic economy, China is a socialism. I am not confusing them, China has some capitalistic characteristics, but uses socialism to control the population and allow intense protectionism. The US is a capitalist government with socialistic safeguards to guarantee autonomy.
...

This is completely wrong. In fact it may be the single dumbest thing I have ever heard. You argue against the right of property, but then you use a simplistic asinine argument about beaches and rivers. Let me begin by telling you that most beaches and rivers are publicly maintained and open. Second, run your water faucet and tell me where you are buying that water from. I bet it is the government.

This is what makes a capitalist society so great! None of you see that! What makes you so blind to the possibilities that capitalistic societies offer!

If the government gives $10 million, it's from your taxes, because your government is socialist.
Yet it preaches capitalism in the world. Hypocrits. All they want is to protect their interests overseas, but they don't do what they say.
Look at what they're doing to Iraq.

If the government gives $10 million, it's from your taxes, because your government is socialist.
If you are referring to the X prize value, it wasn't offered by the government. Read more closely.

...

Psylos, what are you getting at?

I guess you are trying to counter my point about private property with my statement about public works.

My first quote in other words: The US is a capitalistic system with socialistic programs providing protection for the basic rights and needs of its citizens.

My second quote in other words: The argument that public areas and rivers are not provided for by capitalism is erroneous, as in the US, capitalism more than affords to provide for the basic right and needs of the individual.

If you are referring to the X prize value, it wasn't offered by the government. Read more closely.
Ok, but can you have something as advanced and as expensive as the NASA or the ESA or the Russian's space program with no business model run by the private sector? I don't think so.

Psylos, what are you getting at?

I guess you are trying to counter my point about private property with my statement about public works.

My first quote in other words: The US is a capitalistic system with socialistic programs providing protection for the basic rights and needs of its citizens.

My second quote in other words: The argument that public areas and rivers are not provided for by capitalism is erroneous, as in the US, capitalism more than affords to provide for the basic right and needs of the individual.
It's not capitalism. If it was capitalism, the rivers would be privately owned.

If the government gives $10 million, it's from your taxes, because your government is socialist.
Yet it preaches capitalism in the world. Hypocrits. All they want is to protect their interests overseas, but they don't do what they say.
Look at what they're doing to Iraq.

Those taxes go into protect the rights of the individual, provide public works that are better paid by the government, and generally protect the free market.

It's not capitalism.

Would you like to explain how, without talking about the income tax or monopoly busters?

It's not capitalism. If it was capitalism, the rivers would be privately owned.

Well if you are trying to get me to say that it is not a pure capitalistic society, then yes you win we are not a pure capitalistic society. I will grant you that we are only 90% capitalistic.

Those taxes go into protect the rights of the individual, provide public works that are better paid by the government, and generally protect the free market.
Bullshit. They subsidize agriculture to death, they subsidize their big industries when they feel the need and yet they cry when they see "unfair competition" from other countries doing the same. They preach capitalism only in foreign countries.

Bullshit. They subsidize agriculture to death, they subsidize their big industries when they feel the need and yet they cry when they see "unfair competition" from other countries doing the same.

They subsidize farming to make it profitable for the farmers, it is the alternative to having it government owned. The fact that farmers own their capital with which they make money and sell their goods in a free market shows it is a capitalism. Government contribution in the price levels is a socialistic tactic to protect the autonomy of the farmer and to enhance the market.

I will admit that the government does to much subsidizing of corporations, but it has more to do with the stringent protectionism in Asia and the retaining of employment in the US.

They subsidize farming to make it profitable for the farmers, it is the alternative to having it government owned. The fact that farmers own their capital with which they make money and sell their goods in a free market shows it is a capitalism. Government contribution in the price levels is a socialistic tactic to protect the autonomy of the farmer and to enhance the market.

I will admit that the government does to much subsidizing of corporations, but it has more to do with the stringent protectionism in Asia and the retaining of employment in the US.
I think it has to do with the double language. They must look like they have a free market so they can preach free market in the world and yet they must control the economy so foreigners don't come to buy their land. They're just hypocrits. I remember the Credit Lyonnais affair. They approve the Credit Lyonnais buying assets in the US and then they get it back saying it is against anti-trust laws, but they don't give the money back.

Anyway, the point is not to debate whether or not such or such country is capitalist or not. The point is that capitalism creates an unjust class system.

Ok, but can you have something as advanced and as expensive as the NASA or the ESA or the Russian's space program with no business model run by the private sector? I don't think so.
The point is that it shouldn't be as advanced and expensive as what the government does. It should be cost-effective. We can, and do, launch satellites without government assistance. We build airplanes and run airlines without government subsidies.

The X prize was the first step toward commerical manned spaceflight. The craft was something I could, theoretically, build in my garage. It wasn't a lot different that Rutan's VariEZ or LongEZ fiberglass aircraft that were built by the hundreds in garages.

We can, and do, launch satellites without government assistance. We build airplanes and run airlines without government subsidies.
Hmm... no.

I think it has to do with the double language. They must look like they have a free market so they can preach free market in the world and yet they must control the economy so foreigners don't come to buy their land. They're just hypocrits. I remember the Credit Lyonnais affair. They approve the Credit Lyonnais buying assets in the US and then they get it back saying it is against anti-trust laws, but they don't give the money back.

Anyway, the point is not to debate whether or not such or such country is capitalist or not. The point is that capitalism creates an unjust class system.

The US economy is 80% foreign money.

Capitalism creates a class system that liquid and somewhat free.

Socialism creates an totalitarian government.

The US economy is 80% foreign money.

Capitalism creates a class system that liquid and somewhat free.

Socialism creates an totalitarian government.Except when you live in Angola as a farmer. You're free to buy stock shares of Microsoft and become rich but it will never happen because they won't give you the money.

Originally Posted by Myrmidonisia
We can, and do, launch satellites without government assistance. We build airplanes and run airlines without government subsidies. Hmm... no.
Stick your head in the sand if you want to.

Except when you live in Angola as a farmer. You're free to buy stock shares of Microsoft and become rich but it will never happen because they won't give you the money.

Well don't blame that on capitalism, blame that on nationalistic politics.

Ok, but can you have something as advanced and as expensive as the NASA or the ESA or the Russian's space program with no business model run by the private sector? I don't think so.
Actually Boeing and other companies launch satellites all the time at a lower cost than the government often as well.

Actually Boeing and other companies launch satellites all the time at a lower cost than the government often as well.
Except that Boeing is subsidized like no other industry in the US.

Except when you live in Angola as a farmer. You're free to buy stock shares of Microsoft and become rich but it will never happen because they won't give you the money.
Vittos,
I've decided Psylos isn't worth the effort. He changes his definitions from post to post, then hides behind a language problem. The market-socialist was a lot more interesting.

Psylos,
Who is 'they' and why should they give me anything. You, personally you, not the generic sense, can't understand the difference between government and economics. That's been the point for the last day.

Except that Boeing is subsidized like no other industry in the US.
Wrong. I won't waste any more time on stupid comments. Back it up.

Well don't blame that on capitalism, blame that on nationalistic politics.
Let say that all of a sudden, all the borders magically disappear. And all governments are magically replaced with a pure global capitalist government.
Will you give my farmer the $1000 he needs to buy Microsoft?

Let say that all of a sudden, all the borders magically disappear. And all governments are magically replaced with a pure global capitalist government.
Will you give my farmer the $1000 he needs to buy Microsoft?
No, he has to work for the $1000.

Vittos,
I've decided Psylos isn't worth the effort. He changes his definitions from post to post, then hides behind a language problem. The market-socialist was a lot more interesting.

Psylos,
Who is 'they' and why should they give me anything. You, personally you, not the generic sense, can't understand the difference between government and economics. That's been the point for the last day.
No I'm trying to debate economics. It's you who always bring the US or China to back your claim that capitalism is superior.
BTW watch your langage.

No, he has to work for the $1000.At $1/day, it will take ages, especially when he needs to repay his debt and feed himself at the same time.

Wrong. I won't waste any more time on stupid comments. Back it up.http://liberalorder.typepad.com/the_liberal_order/2004/10/planes_and_subs.html

At $1/day, it will take ages, especially when he needs to repay his debt and feed himself at the same time.
He shouldn't have accumulated the debt in the first place. And he should learn a skill more useful than subsistence farming.

http://liberalorder.typepad.com/the_liberal_order/2004/10/planes_and_subs.html
If you read the first few lines you'll notice that Boeing's subsidies are for services provided, not just randomly given.

If you read the first few lines you'll notice that Boeing's subsidies are for services provided, not just randomly given.
Indeed they're hidden.
Like the US military contract for the 7E7. They basically hired Boeing for a big military project which they cancelled but they still paid for it. If that's not subsidies, I don't know what it is.

Indeed they're hidden.
Like the US military contract for the 7E7. They basically hired Boeing for a big military project which they cancelled but they still paid for it. If that's not subsidies, I don't know what it is.
That's called contract law.

in just the last few posts we see the difference between free-enterprise thought and that of socialism:

Socialism assigns almost no responsibility to the individual; rather, they assign that responsibility to the government.

Psylos was giving the typical bleeding-heart argument of the plight of the poor farmer and how he can't help himself and all that.

Andaluciae countered with the "personal responsibility" argument... that a person is chiefly responsible for himself and his circumstances... that we control our destinies, or at least that we have a good deal of control.

Therein we find one of the main differences between the two ideologies:

To socialist thought, people are helpless... dust in the wind.

To free-enterprise/capitalist thought, people are the masters of their fate and "get what they deserve".

I thought it was neat... it was as clear as day as the argument unfolded.

Thanks fellas!

He shouldn't have accumulated the debt in the first place. And he should learn a skill more useful than subsistence farming.
The problem is that it is his parents who accumulated the debt. They accumulated the debt because they were colonized.

To socialist thought, people are helpless... dust in the wind.Not exactly. SOME people are helpless because they are born poor (in a capitalist society, that is). The rich are far from helpless.

another perceived tenet of socialist thought:

The rich person is the oppressor of the poor; the rich person did not deserve to be rich; great ideas (and the money derived from them) belong to the people, not just a person or a few people.

No I'm trying to debate economics. It's you who always bring the US or China to back your claim that capitalism is superior.
BTW watch your langage.

Except when you live in Angola as a farmer. You're free to buy stock shares of Microsoft and become rich but it will never happen because they won't give you the money.

Politics

To buy stocks you need to have the capital in the first place. Who don't those chinese workers buy the plant they work for? Is that because there's no minimum wage there?
And what about the iraqis? Why don't they just buy the oil wells and operate them with their capital? Is that because they don't have capital?

Politics

If the government gives $10 million, it's from your taxes, because your government is socialist.
Yet it preaches capitalism in the world. Hypocrits. All they want is to protect their interests overseas, but they don't do what they say.
Look at what they're doing to Iraq.

Politics

another perceived tenet of socialist thought:

The rich person is the oppressor of the poor; the rich person did not deserve to be rich; great ideas (and the money derived from them) belong to the people, not just a person or a few people.
That's more like that, although it is not only about great ideas. It is mainly about land and resources.

Politics



Politics



Politics
All those quotes are responses.

Why are the countries that embraced capitalism long ago the most well-off?

Because those 'industrialized' countries operate at the expense of the 'developing' countries. American capitalism, for instance, has almost completely eliminated its national proletariat. We Americans are a nation almost entirely made up of the bourgeoisie. So where did all the proles go? Down south, mi amigo. 'Industrialized' nations can be so wealthy only because we suck up resources and labor from 'developing' nations. We are attempting to 'penetrate' new markets by stabilizing the middle east. And a stable, bourgeois middle-east would be in our best economic interest because we will not have to worry about Islamist terrorists or civil wars hindring our fossil fuel supply.
And Marxism has yet to fail; there has never been a Marxist revolution. There have been Marxist-Leninist revolutions and Maoist revolutions, but no Marxist ones. Marx has yet to be proved wrong. And, within the next century, when the bourgeoisie has effectively destroyed all traditional culture, language, and beliefs, when the workers of the world suddenly find themselves without religion, ethnicity, or language to divide them and their mutual hatred of the bourgeoisie to unite them, Marx will be proved very right. Proved right with all of our bourgeois blood running through the streets.

All those quotes are responses.

And all of them were responses in which you countered economic points with geopolitical scenarios.

I never brought up Angola, Iraq, or China, which by the way were all examples of why government control of capital is a very bad idea.

And all of them were responses in which you countered economic points with geopolitical scenarios.

I never brought up Angola, Iraq, or China, which by the way were all examples of why government control of capital is a very bad idea.Whatever. Let's end this talk about it here.
Let's discuss the economic aspects instead.
What is the incentive for the rich to work? Why wouldn't they spend their time on the beach and just pay employees to work for them? (as a banker for instance)

Apparently you have no idea whatsoever what the hell socialism entails. Or even is. By the by, it typically results in lower prices but lower quality, from the lack of a profit motive. Capitalism typically results in higher proces but higher quality.
Wether you are right or wrong about the price, you are right about the rest.
I'll take quality over quantity any day.

Socialism assigns almost no responsibility to the individual; rather, they assign that responsibility to the government.


Right, but so does capitalism; the individual has no social responsibility except to increase his capital. That's why we need Anarchy, in which everybody is truly responsible for there own self and for every other person in their society. THE ONLY GOOD GOVERNMENT IS NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL.

Whatever. Let's end this talk about it here.
Let's discuss the economic aspects instead.
What is the incentive for the rich to work? Why wouldn't they spend their time on the beach and just pay employees to work for them? (as a banker for instance)

Well there are multiple reasons for the rich to work. But that is society and mentality and not economic.

The economic trouble with socialism is that it mostly eliminates arbitrage, which, if you don't know, is where people exploit the market in order to make profit. The only way they can do this in an efficient market is to offer either lower priced or higher quality goods and services. Without the ability to take advantages of inefficiencies in the marketplace there will be no economic profit from doing so. So there is still motivation to work hard, which is a facet of society and personality, but the motivation to earn a profit, which drives an economy is no longer there.

One thing has become obvious in the short amount of time I have spent in these forums. A great deal of people like to comment about things they really know nothing about, and then they try to defend their ignorance. It can be frustrating trying to debate with someone who has no clue what they are talking about because you have to go back and explain the basics of the subject to them.

My point is, if you do not know what socialism is and what capitalism is, then its a good idea not to post a reply on this thread because your reply will sound good only to other uninformed people. A good clue that you have no idea what socialism and capitalism are about is if you find yourself mixing one or the other with a particular type of government (such as a democracy vs a dictatorship). Also, a good clue that you dont know anything about the subject is if you are under the delusion that the only socialist countries were connected to the USSR and communism (in other words, if you have never heard of democratic socialist countries like the Netherlands and Canada).

Since all I am a Finance major with a economics minor, I haven't taken any Roman History courses, so maybe you could explain these socialist economic principles that the Roman Empire employed, and how they strengthened the empire.

1) The Roman Empire's economy was 100% regulated. Marcus shopkeeperius had to apply for a permit/license to sell goods from the civic governor.

2) The price of all goods and services was centrally controlled from rome and was fixed for the entire empire and reviewed annually. There was no free market per say, and competition could not be done by price.

3) The state owned huge percentages of industries directly and strategic resources (such as gold mining in Northern africa) were entirely state owned.

4) Rome's public expenditure operated on rolling 5 year plans, hense extras such as Gladiatoral shows had to be paid for out of senator's own pockets.

5) Agricultural goods were managed by regional collectives

6) Currency could not be exchanged with foreign nation's or taken out of the empire. The State frequently used credit notes rather than cash too.

7) Land and other fixed assets were leased by individuals rather than owned directly by them. Land was also frequently allocated to individuals according to their service to the empire.

8) Rome guarenteed the majority of her citizens their own state allocated property - sized according to their status.

In addition to which Rome offered a large number of benefits, free healthcare, schooling and other excellent facilities found in modern social democracies.

6)

Because those 'industrialized' countries operate at the expense of the 'developing' countries...
'Industrialized' nations can be so wealthy only because we suck up resources and labor from 'developing' nations.


How did they get in a position to 'take advantage' of developing countries? They just got up one day a decided to? No, they managed to get into such a position by embracing the free market, allowing for upward mobility, and curbing corruption.

One thing has become obvious in the short amount of time I have spent in these forums. A great deal of people like to comment about things they really know nothing about, and then they try to defend their ignorance. It can be frustrating trying to debate with someone who has no clue what they are talking about because you have to go back and explain the basics of the subject to them.

My point is, if you do not know what socialism is and what capitalism is, then its a good idea not to post a reply on this thread because your reply will sound good only to other uninformed people. A good clue that you have no idea what socialism and capitalism are about is if you find yourself mixing one or the other with a particular type of government (such as a democracy vs a dictatorship). Also, a good clue that you dont know anything about the subject is if you are under the delusion that the only socialist countries were connected to the USSR and communism (in other words, if you have never heard of democratic socialist countries like the Netherlands and Canada).

Thanks. You really added to the debate.

The Netherlands and Canada are not socialist; they have robust equity/debt markets.

How did they get in a position to 'take advantage' of developing countries? They just got up one day a decided to? No, they managed to get into such a position by embracing the free market, allowing for upward mobility, and curbing corruption.
Colonization did not happen. Colonization did not happen. Colonization did not happen. Colonization did not happen. Colonization did not happen.