NationStates Jolt Archive

RAWR.

Capitalism-->Good for freedom and Economy, Bad for equality
Socialism--> Bad Freedom Good economy and equality
Communism--> Bad,Bad,Excellent
Monarchies-->Very Bad, Excellent, Very Bad

What about this...

Capitalism, the free market type, thrives essentially on the ideology that everyone can make a good business.

Why not have PARTIES not governments possess through means of capitalism, ie stock exchange, companies.

A socialist parrty that owned a business could give employees high wages and lower the price of the product because, a political party doesnt need the extra millions produced.
And so, with the free market STILL protected, a Capitalist-Socialist combination means High Freedom, a good economy and good equality.

Complaints,Flames,Agreements,Kudos and rawr please.

RAWR.

Capitalism-->Good for freedom and Economy, Bad for equality
Socialism--> Bad Freedom Good economy and equality
Communism--> Bad,Bad,Excellent
Monarchies-->Very Bad, Excellent, Very Bad

What about this...

Capitalism, the free market type, thrives essentially on the ideology that everyone can make a good business.

Why not have PARTIES not governments possess through means of capitalism, ie stock exchange, companies.

A socialist parrty that owned a business could give employees high wages and lower the price of the product because, a political party doesnt need the extra millions produced.
And so, with the free market STILL protected, a Capitalist-Socialist combination means High Freedom, a good economy and good equality.

Complaints,Flames,Agreements,Kudos and rawr please.

But prices and wages aren't determined by a company's budget. :(

Monarchies aren't necessarily bad for freedom. Dictatorships are the more extreme and usually they are more unfortunate. Monarchies though can have law-making bodies like Parliament.

Capitalism-->Good for freedom and Economy, Bad for equality
Socialism--> Bad Freedom Good economy and equality
Communism--> Bad,Bad,Excellent
Monarchies-->Very Bad, Excellent, Very Bad

Why is equality, by means of everyone having the same amount of money, a virtue anyway? It takes away the incentive for people to strive to work hard and think in new ways.

But prices and wages aren't determined by a company's budget. :(

But if a party OWNED the company then it could give better wages anyway and lower prices

RAWR.

Capitalism-->Good for freedom and Economy, Bad for equality
Socialism--> Bad Freedom Good economy and equality
Communism--> Bad,Bad,Excellent
Monarchies-->Very Bad, Excellent, Very Bad

What about this...

Capitalism, the free market type, thrives essentially on the ideology that everyone can make a good business.

Why not have PARTIES not governments possess through means of capitalism, ie stock exchange, companies.

A socialist parrty that owned a business could give employees high wages and lower the price of the product because, a political party doesnt need the extra millions produced.
And so, with the free market STILL protected, a Capitalist-Socialist combination means High Freedom, a good economy and good equality.

Complaints,Flames,Agreements,Kudos and rawr please.

I dont like shooting down peoples ideas but socalist economies are not "good," they are fair at most.

Also, when you have different parties working on different standards in the same society, problems are created. :headbang:

Also, who is going to make decisions regarding the people? You have gotten rid of any form of centralized government and have left pockets controlled by parties. Now you have set up the enviornment for feuding parties, invasions, etc and we are back in Medieval times now arent we?

Sorry, I just shot you down. :sniper:

But if a party OWNED the company then it could give better wages anyway and lower prices

If they paid higher wages than other companies, they would get so many applicants, and some of the people who most wanted to work there, wouldn't get the job. On the price side, at extra low prices (compared to other companies), everyone would want to buy their products there first, until the company ran out of product, which would mean that some of the people who most wanted the product wouldn't be able to get it.

But if a party OWNED the company then it could give better wages anyway and lower prices

Anyhow, who serves better food: your school cafeteria (non-profit) or your local restaurant (for profit)?

I'm not sure having non-profit companies, particularly run by socialists, would help much because without profit there is no incentive to try to please customers.

I dont like shooting down peoples ideas but socalist economies are not "good," they are fair at most.

Also, when you have different parties working on different standards in the same society, problems are created. :headbang:

Also, who is going to make decisions regarding the people? You have gotten rid of any form of centralized government and have left pockets controlled by parties. Now you have set up the enviornment for feuding parties, invasions, etc and we are back in Medieval times now arent we?

Sorry, I just shot you down. :sniper:

Nahh, you just misinterperated cos you wanted to use a cool phrase :rolleyes: WHERE did i say get rid of the government.
Just cos parties own companies doesnt mean no government.

Anyhow, who serves better food: your school cafeteria (non-profit) or your local restaurant (for profit)?

I'm not sure having non-profit companies, particularly run by socialists, would help much because without profit there is no incentive to try to please customers.

Other than winning the election because everyones pleased that your company is so great

Other than winning the election because everyones pleased that your company is so great

Why don't the political parties work on running the K-12 system so great that they win the election. They can't even do that, and you, in effect are proposing to give political parties control of all sectors of the economy?

Let them start with K-12 education and then once that have made that top notch, then we will examine what other sectors they can take on.

(In reality though, perhaps it's time to take the K-12 system away from politicians, and return it to individual families and children, because it seems even after decades and decades, they still can't seem to get it right.)

Nahh, you just misinterperated cos you wanted to use a cool phrase :rolleyes: WHERE did i say get rid of the government.
Just cos parties own companies doesnt mean no government.

Umm, youre an idiot. You are still forgetting my other point
Also, when you have different parties working on different standards in the same society, problems are created.

Also, you can not have multipartisan ownership of a system like a stock market. There needs to be one constant enforcing body that does not have rules that confict with themselves.

If you want a socialist and a captialist to control a stockmarket they are going to conflict with eachother.

If they paid higher wages than other companies, they would get so many applicants, and some of the people who most wanted to work there, wouldn't get the job. On the price side, at extra low prices (compared to other companies), everyone would want to buy their products there first, until the company ran out of product, which would mean that some of the people who most wanted the product wouldn't be able to get it.

For example, say you wanted a new gadget really badly, and you were willing to pay $200 for it and some other people only $100. The socialist store would sell it for $100, but since there is only a limited number available, you happened to lose out on the lottery to get one. Therefore, even though you were willing to pay $200 for it and others weren't, you weren't able to get the gadget you really wanted.

Umm, youre an idiot. You are still forgetting my other point


Also, you can not have multipartisan ownership of a system like a stock market. There needs to be one constant enforcing body that does not have rules that confict with themselves.

If you want a socialist and a captialist to control a stockmarket they are going to conflict with eachother.

:( Be nice to Ostroeuropa, he's a good kid. :cool:

Equality is freedom.

Umm, youre an idiot. You are still forgetting my other point


Also, you can not have multipartisan ownership of a system like a stock market. There needs to be one constant enforcing body that does not have rules that confict with themselves.

If you want a socialist and a captialist to control a stockmarket they are going to conflict with eachother.

Fantastic, just the response i was expecting. An insult because i managed to thwart part of your arguement.

As for your other point i see it as immaterial and based on nothing, which is why i chose to respond with nothing.

The constant enforcing body... whats that NOW then?

But prices and wages aren't determined by a company's budget. :(
yeah....i agree

plus, who said capitalism is bad for equality? The point of capitalism is everyone has the same chance to succeed. And, not everyone is equal! Let's face it. There are much more important people than me and you, we are not that person's equal.

Equality is freedom.
Oh, horseshit.

For example, say you wanted a new gadget really badly, and you were willing to pay $200 for it and some other people only $100. The socialist store would sell it for $100, but since there is only a limited number available, you happened to lose out on the lottery to get one. Therefore, even though you were willing to pay $200 for it and others weren't, you weren't able to get the gadget you really wanted.

What if they werent rich enough? hows that fair? (hehe im the middle-classmen defending the lower-classes stereotype :P)

Thanks for the kid comment.

Oh, horseshit.
seriously, i agree. equality=brainwashig.

Oh, horseshit.
Ditto. :D

yeah....i agree

plus, who said capitalism is bad for equality? The point of capitalism is everyone has the same chance to succeed. And, not everyone is equal! Let's face it. There are much more important people than me and you, we are not that person's equal.
Yup equal.
But ESPECIALLY equal if your daddy was rich.
And if your not a minority.
And if your not disabled

Fantastic, just the response i was expecting. An insult because i managed to thwart part of your arguement.

As for your other point i see it as immaterial and based on nothing, which is why i chose to respond with nothing.

The constant enforcing body... whats that NOW then?

No, I responed like that because you have no clue what you're talking about.

And my other point is very valid. You just refuse to see the truth because you are that much full of yourself.

Yup equal.
But ESPECIALLY equal if your daddy was rich.
And if your not a minority.
And if your not disabled

No, not really. In a capitalist society everyone has equal chance to suceed. It just depends on how hard you want to work. Also, with a large job market, being a minority or disabled has no bearing on the matter whatsoever.

Yup equal.
But ESPECIALLY equal if your daddy was rich.
And if your not a minority.
And if your not disabled
shut the fuck up.


you know what? my daddy is not rich, he's dead. and my mother and i moved to America and went on welfare, and now i'm studying to become a Virologist at Johns Hopkins.

What if they werent rich enough? hows that fair? (hehe im the middle-classmen defending the lower-classes stereotype :P)

Thanks for the kid comment.

$100 or $200 is not out of anyone's range if they want to work a few extra hours overtime. Let's say you specifically worked 5 extra hours to get that gadget, and you really, really wanted it when it first came out. But instead, someone who just thought it would be fun, but didn't care that much for it, bought it because the price was artificially low.

The other piece you will encourage is that person, once they get the product from the socialist store, might just re-sell it for the original $200 price to you, because that's the price it really "should" be. Why should that random person buy a product from the socialist store without any intention of using it and make $100 off of you.

Ok, I need to leave for the airport. My final message to ostroeuropa: shut up kid, we have all disproved your argument

Ok, I need to leave for the airport. My final message to ostroeuropa: shut up kid, we have all disproved your argument

Don't shut up, you are a very smart kid. What grade are you going into?

Don't shut up, you are a very smart kid. What grade are you going into?

im 17. :p