Socialism vs capitalism... the grisly truth!

[bripat9643]

There are many, but Goldman Sachs is one example.

So you believe financial corporations don't create wealth?

How about GM? Doesn't it consume more wealth than it produces?

You have missed the difference between profit creation and wealth creation.

I haven't even mentioned profit. Does GM create more wealth than it consumes? Do financial corporations create no wealth?

Try answering the questions.

 

[SnagNasty]

Capitalism and socialism are economic tools. Making a religion of either is equivelant to making a religion of a crescent wrench or socket set. A totally socialist idea is one of the crown jewels of our nation. Saving the best and most unique for the use of all citizens, our National Park System. And when the big corperations, which more resemble socialistic enterprises than capitalistic ones, are not in the way, our small business oppertunities in this nation are the envy of the world.

Capitalism and socialism are the yin and yang of economics, one cannot really exist without the other.

You beat me to the punch Old Rocks. The article the OP posted mentioned T Rosevelt as a "Fabian Socialist" - even if that is true our National Parks are one of the United States Treasures. I am amazed at how many foreigners come visit our parks. When asked - they are impressed and will tell you they have nothing like this back home. Had private industry controlled the lumber rights during Rossevelts time, I think our current day parks would look quite differently. For more detail read "The Big Burn". An absolutly facinating book regarding the creation of our National Parks,

Another note - the embeded theme of this ariticle and the OP is "Obama is a Socialist". Someone better tell the Socialist Party of the United States. They don't see it that way.
Socialist Party USA Leader: Obama Isn’t A Socialist

It is interesting when someone links a fairly deep article that talks about things like Hegel's "Dialetical Movement" the standard USMB left and right hacks are
conspicuously absent from the postings

Maybe Marx simply got the synthesis part wrong of dialetical movement?

 

[bripat9643]

Government may well be corrupt, but all this happened in a context of unsavory, inhuman capitalism. Capitalism does not mean, nor does it have to be, that way. It just was this time.

"in the context?" That's just a weasel phrase designed to obscure the fact, that government is to blame, not capitalism.

Whenever expropriation of wealth occurs, government is always to blame. Private corporations cannot take a dime from you without your consent.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism and socialism are economic tools. Making a religion of either is equivelant to making a religion of a crescent wrench or socket set. A totally socialist idea is one of the crown jewels of our nation. Saving the best and most unique for the use of all citizens, our National Park System. And when the big corperations, which more resemble socialistic enterprises than capitalistic ones, are not in the way, our small business oppertunities in this nation are the envy of the world.

Capitalism and socialism are the yin and yang of economics, one cannot really exist without the other.

You beat me to the punch Old Rocks. The article the OP posted mentioned T Rosevelt as a "Fabian Socialist" - even if that is true our National Parks are one of the United States Treasures. I am amazed at how many foreigners come visit our parks. When asked - they are impressed and will tell you they have nothing like this back home. Had private industry controlled the lumber rights during Rossevelts time, I think our current day parks would look quite differently. For more detail read "The Big Burn". An absolutly facinating book regarding the creation of our National Parks,

Horseshit. I think if a private party had owned the Yellowstone, they would have determined they could make far more money from tourists than from harvesting the lumber.

Another note - the embeded theme of this ariticle and the OP is "Obama is a Socialist". Someone better tell the Socialist Party of the United States. They don't see it that way.
Socialist Party USA Leader: Obama Isn’t A Socialist

It is interesting when someone links a fairly deep article that talks about things like Hegel's "Dialetical Movement" the standard USMB left and right hacks are
conspicuously absent from the postings

Maybe Marx simply got the synthesis part wrong of dialetical movement?

I'm sure your article ignores the fact that the Constitution restrains Obama and the Dims from implementing the policies they would like to implement, not to mention the voters. The people of the United States aren't as stupid as our neighbors across the Atlantic. They haven't yet entirely succumbed to the socialist abracadabra.

 

[SnagNasty]

Horseshit. I think if a private party had owned the Yellowstone, they would have determined they could make far more money from tourists than from harvesting the lumber.

No argument here. I am sure private industry would have done quite well owning the lumber rights to the richly forested mtns of the North West. Bringing this back to the original OP - if that's a socialist idea, it wasn't a bad one.

But the point of turning land into national parks was not profit driven. I'm glad they did it. Every time I pitch a tent in Glacier, The Tetons, Yellowstone......

Seriously - read the book "The Big Burn". Simply fascinating.

 

[bripat9643]

.

Why do things always have to be so black & white?

Howzabout capitalism with efficient, effective, dependable, flexible, transparent regulation? That would get my vote, but we're nowhere near it. Markets absolutely must be carefully regulated, but let's minimize waste and corruption and maybe we'll like what remains.

.

You have just been nominated for the "Oxymoron of the Month" award for your entry "efficient, effective, dependable, flexible, transparent regulation."

Congratulations!

 

[Mac1958]

.

Why do things always have to be so black & white?

Howzabout capitalism with efficient, effective, dependable, flexible, transparent regulation? That would get my vote, but we're nowhere near it. Markets absolutely must be carefully regulated, but let's minimize waste and corruption and maybe we'll like what remains.

.

You have just been nominated for the "Oxymoron of the Month" award for your entry "efficient, effective, dependable, flexible, transparent regulation."

Congratulations!

Yeah, I know. I do think it's possible, but I ain't holdin' my breath.

.

 

[bripat9643]

.

Why do things always have to be so black & white?

Howzabout capitalism with efficient, effective, dependable, flexible, transparent regulation? That would get my vote, but we're nowhere near it. Markets absolutely must be carefully regulated, but let's minimize waste and corruption and maybe we'll like what remains.

.

You have just been nominated for the "Oxymoron of the Month" award for your entry "efficient, effective, dependable, flexible, transparent regulation."

Congratulations!

Yeah, I know. I do think it's possible, but I ain't holdin' my breath.

.

Wrong, it isn't possible. You don't understand the nature of government if you think it is possible.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have missed the difference between profit creation and wealth creation.

Oh, this should be good...

Please, do explain.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Government may well be corrupt, but all this happened in a context of unsavory, inhuman capitalism. Capitalism does not mean, nor does it have to be, that way. It just was this time.

Taxpayer money going to the well connected has nothing to do with capitalism. There is no mechanism in the market for this to occur.

ONLY governments can take by force from one group, the tax payer, and give the proceeds to another, GM/UAW, California Teachers Union, SEIU, et al.

Capitalism is a free individual trading their wealth for goods and services, buying a hamburger, or an hours worth of work from the hamburger flipper. Corruption requires government.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Capitalism and socialism are economic tools. Making a religion of either is equivelant to making a religion of a crescent wrench or socket set. A totally socialist idea is one of the crown jewels of our nation. Saving the best and most unique for the use of all citizens, our National Park System. And when the big corperations, which more resemble socialistic enterprises than capitalistic ones, are not in the way, our small business oppertunities in this nation are the envy of the world.

Capitalism and socialism are the yin and yang of economics, one cannot really exist without the other.

That is perhaps the stupidest thing anyone has ever posted on these forums.

You are qualified to press a button to make a machine open and close; you are not qualified to comment on subjects you have zero understanding of, such as economics.

 

[Darkwind]

Government may well be corrupt, but all this happened in a context of unsavory, inhuman capitalism. Capitalism does not mean, nor does it have to be, that way. It just was this time.

IT can be said that any endeavor of humankind is unsavory and inhuman. It is a specious argument at best.

Capitalism has been responsible for bringing mankind out of the hunter-gatherer mentality and brought us into a more enlightened, prosperous situation.

Without the capitalistic nature of mankind, we'd not live as long as we do, have as high a quality of life as we do, and we'd still be killing each other with spears and sharp rocks.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Socialism has done better than the US model where again????

 

[logical4u]

The article confuses capitalism with trade and demand/supply economic relationships. Capitalism, contrary to right wing American folklore, has nothing to do with those aspects.

Capitalism, instead, refers to how economic activity is controlled--in the case of capitalism, it is controlled by wealth. In fact, capitalism is nearly identical (in terms of power concentration and aristocracy) to feudalism.

Socialist countries, barter economies, and tribal communitarians all work within a supply/demand framework.

The person that wrote the article referred to in the original thread seems to lack background in economic education.

Then why do the "socialist" leaning societies tend to look more like the gov't being the feudal lords, and the "workers" look more like serfs?

 

[Sherry]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnX7TNFIELg]Thomas Peterffy - Freedom To Succeed - YouTube[/ame]

 

[logical4u]

tooAlive:

My statement that implies socialism is unworkable (given the condition of humanity today) should not be taken as an endorsement of capitalism. Capitalism is basically unworkable for the same reasons--selfishness, albeit fewer persons are able to abuse it (the capitalists).

"Capitalism" by itself is anarchy. One of the reason the founding fathers made sure that Christians were free to practice their faiths (not much other variety in the "New World"). Christian/Judeo values with a capitalist economic system (see 10 Commandments) work really, really well. Capitalism in an immoral society looks like our current administration: corrupt, corporate chronism, and deceit.

 

[mex]

tooAlive:

My statement that implies socialism is unworkable (given the condition of humanity today) should not be taken as an endorsement of capitalism. Capitalism is basically unworkable for the same reasons--selfishness, albeit fewer persons are able to abuse it (the capitalists).

Bullshit again! Capitalism in a Republic with checks and balances such as we have, allows the pathway for people to pull themselves up and change their lives for the good.

INDEED!

Honestly, the whole debate boils down to one thing:

Socialism/collectivism (they're all part of the same family) assumes all people are equal... in skill, talent, and most importantly, MOTIVATION.

The truth is, people are NOT equal.

Some people are more motivated to succeed. They're willing to get up early and work longer hours. To go to night school to enhance their knowledge and/or skillset.

Some people are more talented. We can't all play in the NBA. Is that unfair? Sometimes these talented people can be dumber than a box of rocks, but they still succeed because of their talents. And if there's a market for those talents... they SHOULD succeed.

Some people are more skilled than other people... in areas that can benefit them financially.... singers, actors, artists... engineers, architects, doctors. These people usually have one thing in common... they're all MOTIVATED to accomplish things in life. They're willing to SACRIFICE whether it is practicing a musical instrument for hours, days, weeks and years... or taking on an expensive, 8 year field of study.

Let's face it. Some people are just fucking smarter than others. That's why they do better. That's why they have money when others don't. It has LESS to do with the system, as it does with the fact that people are simply DIFFERENT. They aren't EQUAL.

Success (happiness) isn't guaranteed in this country. Never has been. What is guaranteed, is the right to PURSUE it.

When government subsidizes an activity, that activity will grow exponentially. Subsidizing poverty has done nothing but grow poverty.

Any ridiculous attempts to create a society of "fiscally equal" people (socialism, collectivism, call it what you want) is inherently unfair. All it does is create a wealthy and pampered RULING CLASS.

To me, I'd rather have a wealthy class of people who EARNED their wealth, rather than a ruling class who became wealthy because of the power they wield.

The fact is, if you are a motivated individual in a free-market constitutional republic, you can succeed. You may not ever get wealthy, but you can indeed succeed.

Here's a great analogy.

In every classroom, there are varying degrees of students. Some are smart. Some are talented. Some are motivated.

Some are neither of the above.

In a free-market classroom, the smartest students, and the motivated students, will get the best grades. The less motivated will not do so well. We've all experienced it. There will be some who get A's... some who get B's, some who get D's and some who will get an average score... C's. Some will fail.

In a socialist or collectivist classroom, all students will get a C. The motivated students who study their ass off every day and make good decisions ie not going out to the bars and partying the night before an exam, etc... they'll have their own grade points reduced, to give to the other grade-point impaired students who haven't produced in the classroom. The unmotivated students can stay out all night drinking, sleep in, cut class because they are hung over, yet they'll still get a C because hey.... everyone is 'equal'! Share the GPA wealth! The additional grade points given to these students are taken from the students who work hard and take care of business in the classroom.

After word gets out that no matter how hard you work, 50% of your GPA will be confiscated from you and given to less motivated students, well, the motivated students become less motivated. They'll quit working and producing. There is now LESS total GPA points to be confiscated and redistributed, which ultimately lowers the GPAs of the less motivated students.

This hurts EVERYONE... not just the GPA wealthy.

Ultimately, is the class (society) better off?

 

[clevergirl]

tooAlive:

My statement that implies socialism is unworkable (given the condition of humanity today) should not be taken as an endorsement of capitalism. Capitalism is basically unworkable for the same reasons--selfishness, albeit fewer persons are able to abuse it (the capitalists).

Bullshit again! Capitalism in a Republic with checks and balances such as we have, allows the pathway for people to pull themselves up and change their lives for the good.

INDEED!

Honestly, the whole debate boils down to one thing:

Socialism/collectivism (they're all part of the same family) assumes all people are equal... in skill, talent, and most importantly, MOTIVATION.

The truth is, people are NOT equal.

Some people are more motivated to succeed. They're willing to get up early and work longer hours. To go to night school to enhance their knowledge and/or skillset.

Some people are more talented. We can't all play in the NBA. Is that unfair? Sometimes these talented people can be dumber than a box of rocks, but they still succeed because of their talents. And if there's a market for those talents... they SHOULD succeed.

Some people are more skilled than other people... in areas that can benefit them financially.... singers, actors, artists... engineers, architects, doctors. These people usually have one thing in common... they're all MOTIVATED to accomplish things in life. They're willing to SACRIFICE whether it is practicing a musical instrument for hours, days, weeks and years... or taking on an expensive, 8 year field of study.

Let's face it. Some people are just fucking smarter than others. That's why they do better. That's why they have money when others don't. It has LESS to do with the system, as it does with the fact that people are simply DIFFERENT. They aren't EQUAL.

Success (happiness) isn't guaranteed in this country. Never has been. What is guaranteed, is the right to PURSUE it.

When government subsidizes an activity, that activity will grow exponentially. Subsidizing poverty has done nothing but grow poverty.

Any ridiculous attempts to create a society of "fiscally equal" people (socialism, collectivism, call it what you want) is inherently unfair. All it does is create a wealthy and pampered RULING CLASS.

To me, I'd rather have a wealthy class of people who EARNED their wealth, rather than a ruling class who became wealthy because of the power they wield.

The fact is, if you are a motivated individual in a free-market constitutional republic, you can succeed. You may not ever get wealthy, but you can indeed succeed.

Here's a great analogy.

In every classroom, there are varying degrees of students. Some are smart. Some are talented. Some are motivated.

Some are neither of the above.

In a free-market classroom, the smartest students, and the motivated students, will get the best grades. The less motivated will not do so well. We've all experienced it. There will be some who get A's... some who get B's, some who get D's and some who will get an average score... C's. Some will fail.

In a socialist or collectivist classroom, all students will get a C. The motivated students who study their ass off every day and make good decisions ie not going out to the bars and partying the night before an exam, etc... they'll have their own grade points reduced, to give to the other grade-point impaired students who haven't produced in the classroom. The unmotivated students can stay out all night drinking, sleep in, cut class because they are hung over, yet they'll still get a C because hey.... everyone is 'equal'! Share the GPA wealth! The additional grade points given to these students are taken from the students who work hard and take care of business in the classroom.

After word gets out that no matter how hard you work, 50% of your GPA will be confiscated from you and given to less motivated students, well, the motivated students become less motivated. They'll quit working and producing. There is now LESS total GPA points to be confiscated and redistributed, which ultimately lowers the GPAs of the less motivated students.

This hurts EVERYONE... not just the GPA wealthy.

Ultimately, is the class (society) better off?

 

[francoHFW]

Socialism is ALWAYS democratic, regulates capitalism to protect workers and customers, and assists the unfortunate. It's NOT COMMUNISM, dupes. Ferchrissake! That new Romney ad with the old guy from Hungary is talking about communism, not socialism.

 

[mex]

Socialism is ALWAYS democratic, regulates capitalism to protect workers and customers, and assists the unfortunate. It's NOT COMMUNISM, dupes. Ferchrissake! That new Romney ad with the old guy from Hungary is talking about communism, not socialism.

What's so great about democracy? All democracy is, is tyranny of the majority.

We're certainly not a democracy, nor should we EVER be. Some decisions are too important for dumbass citizens.

I posted this in another thread, but it applies to this one too:



A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to selfishness;

From selfishness to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.