Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And yet, in practice both systems tend to lead to power migrating to the top, and the exploitation of the working classes
The problems with "capitalism" in this country are caused by government. Try this exercise:
1) Write down the most anti-consumer industries in this country. Don't peek at 2 until you're done.
2) Note that you just wrote down the most heavily regulated industries. Regulated by government.
3) Now note that the liberal solution to the ills of the industries with the most regulation that didn't work is MORE regulation. Maybe government was the problem.
The best solution to an abusive company is to walk across the street to their competitor either as an employee, customer or vendor. Only government can stop you from doing that...
I found this article useful to show major differences between Socialism & Capitalism 101
Socialism vs Capitalism
Socialism is a form of economy that works for equality among the members of society by pooling the resources of the people to be collectively controlled by the state or the public through communes or councils. There is no market in a socialist economy and therefore, there is no competition. The quantity of products produced and distributed is regulated, including the price that the consumer will pay for the products.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is an economic and political system that is based on the principle of individual rights. It believes that it is inequality that will drive the people to be more innovative and productive. Resources in a capitalistic society are privately owned by individuals or groups of individuals. These individuals or groups of individuals freely trade in a market that has a level playing field. The government stays in the background and allows the forces of supply and demand to freely operate with the guidance of laws and regulations. The law of supply and demand provides that if the supply is greater than the demand for a particular commodity, the price of that particular commodity will go down. Conversely the price of a commodity goes up if there is less supply than the demand.
In socialism, the wealth or the goods and services are distributed to the people based on the work contribution of an individual to produce such wealth. Socialists believe that if individuals work for the sake of everyone in society and receive all the goods and services, work ethics will be heightened.
People, on the other hand, are given equal opportunity to work for their own individual wealth in a capitalist society. Individuals are presumed to be naturally competitive. It is their competitiveness that will drive them to improve. Individuals or groups of individuals in a capitalist society decide on the quantity, quality and price of goods they will produce and sell in a competitive market in order to get the amount of wealth they want. No limits are set to what an individual can earn. This resuls in people having different social status based on the wealth they have accumulated. Thus, there are rich and poor people in one society. Advocates of socialism believe that this is dangerous because the accumulation of wealth by a certain few gives rise to dominance that could lead to the exploitation of people with lesser wealth.Summary:
1. Socialism is an economic system based on the principle of equality while capitalism is an economic and political system based on the principle of individual rights.
2. In socialism, wealth or the goods and services are equitably shared by all members of society based on the individuals productive efforts while in capitalism, each individual works for his own wealth.
3. Socialists believe that the work ethics of an individual will increase if he receives the goods and services he needs when he works for everyone else while capitalists believe that it is mans nature of being competitive that will drive him to work more for more wealth.
Read more: Difference Between Socialism and Capitalism | Difference Between | Socialism vs Capitalism Difference Between Socialism and Capitalism | Difference Between | Socialism vs Capitalism
Those are in fact great examples of my point given that they are two of the most heavily regulated. Electric company deregulation was in fact a complete lack of deregulating electric companies and pharmaceutical deregulation is something you just made up. Thanks for demonstrating my point.And yet, in practice both systems tend to lead to power migrating to the top, and the exploitation of the working classes
The problems with "capitalism" in this country are caused by government. Try this exercise:
1) Write down the most anti-consumer industries in this country. Don't peek at 2 until you're done.
2) Note that you just wrote down the most heavily regulated industries. Regulated by government.
3) Now note that the liberal solution to the ills of the industries with the most regulation that didn't work is MORE regulation. Maybe government was the problem.
The best solution to an abusive company is to walk across the street to their competitor either as an employee, customer or vendor. Only government can stop you from doing that...
Well, immediately pharmaceuticals and electricity came to mind. Strangely loosening regulations on those industries did nothing to make them more pro-consumer. nor could it be even remotely conceivable that removing ALL regulation from utilities and pharmaceuticals would produce a better situation for the consumer
How would I be wrong when I never advocated "zero" regulation. I said they are the most heavily regulated. Why is it one polar extreme or the other, total government control or zero regulation? Those are seriously the only options you can come up with? If more regulation's not working, why not try "less?"And yet, in practice both systems tend to lead to power migrating to the top, and the exploitation of the working classes
The problems with "capitalism" in this country are caused by government. Try this exercise:
1) Write down the most anti-consumer industries in this country. Don't peek at 2 until you're done.
2) Note that you just wrote down the most heavily regulated industries. Regulated by government.
3) Now note that the liberal solution to the ills of the industries with the most regulation that didn't work is MORE regulation. Maybe government was the problem.
The best solution to an abusive company is to walk across the street to their competitor either as an employee, customer or vendor. Only government can stop you from doing that...
You would be both wrong. Zero regulation will lead to abuses and a failed system. Over regulation will lead to the same
I think anthropologist Jared Diamond sums up best what would be the worst image of capitalism: "Any society contains a built-in blueprint for failure if elites insulate themselves from the consequences of their decisions, seperated from the common life of the country."
How would I be wrong when I never advocated "zero" regulation. I said they are the most heavily regulated. Why is it one polar extreme or the other, total government control or zero regulation? Those are seriously the only options you can come up with? If more regulation's not working, why not try "less?"The problems with "capitalism" in this country are caused by government. Try this exercise:
1) Write down the most anti-consumer industries in this country. Don't peek at 2 until you're done.
2) Note that you just wrote down the most heavily regulated industries. Regulated by government.
3) Now note that the liberal solution to the ills of the industries with the most regulation that didn't work is MORE regulation. Maybe government was the problem.
The best solution to an abusive company is to walk across the street to their competitor either as an employee, customer or vendor. Only government can stop you from doing that...
You would be both wrong. Zero regulation will lead to abuses and a failed system. Over regulation will lead to the same
Electric company deregulation was in fact a complete lack of deregulating electric companies
So what you learn from the failure of more and more regulation is that we can't possibly try less regulation?How would I be wrong when I never advocated "zero" regulation. I said they are the most heavily regulated. Why is it one polar extreme or the other, total government control or zero regulation? Those are seriously the only options you can come up with? If more regulation's not working, why not try "less?"You would be both wrong. Zero regulation will lead to abuses and a failed system. Over regulation will lead to the same
"Less" Regulation has been leading to multiple financial meltdowns that have to be covered by Tax payers..here and abroad.
And "somehow" there are a bunch of well connected people walking away from the situation with bucketloads of cash.
Excellent analogy.this reads nice...
some restaurants' servers pool their tips together, so at the end of the shift the worst server and the best server get equal pay.
Excellent analogy.this reads nice...
some restaurants' servers pool their tips together, so at the end of the shift the worst server and the best server get equal pay.
It would be interesting to poll the individual servers, from the one who consistently receives the largest tips to the one who receives the smallest, for their candid opinions of the collective policy.
Excellent analogy.this reads nice...
some restaurants' servers pool their tips together, so at the end of the shift the worst server and the best server get equal pay.
It would be interesting to poll the individual servers, from the one who consistently receives the largest tips to the one who receives the smallest, for their candid opinions of the collective policy.
I had a job at a carwash where we pooled tips in a locked box so that the owner could steal half of them. probably a better analogy
The concept of hard work as it applies to individual contribution to accumulated wealth poses serious questions, mainly as to the actual definition of the term. For example, who "works" harder, the immigrant who labors twelve hours a day under the hot sun picking fruit or the hedge fund speculator who lounges poolside trading stocks on a laptop between massages and cool drinks served by his lackeys?Everyone does not and will not work equally hard, thank you, drive thru........
Excellent analogy.
It would be interesting to poll the individual servers, from the one who consistently receives the largest tips to the one who receives the smallest, for their candid opinions of the collective policy.
I had a job at a carwash where we pooled tips in a locked box so that the owner could steal half of them. probably a better analogy
It was his company, but it was your choice to work for him. So why didn't you get a job with someone who operated his company according to your rules of fairness? Were you too lazy?
Mans nature to greed is what ruins both systems. I believe that their are some things the government should run...the military, and our national energy suppy i.e. fossile fules, solar, air, and a host of other things.
No, I'm disagreeing with your statement the owner was stealing your tips. A hint to that is the post I responded to was your statement he was stealing your tips. I own two businesses, one is a restaurant and our policy is to give all tips to staff. But that is part of our consideration in determining their compensation. It's his carwash and you work for him under his rules. What protects you is the ability to walk across the street to another car wash and work for them. You said he stole your tips, but you stayed there. Why?I had a job at a carwash where we pooled tips in a locked box so that the owner could steal half of them. probably a better analogy
It was his company, but it was your choice to work for him. So why didn't you get a job with someone who operated his company according to your rules of fairness? Were you too lazy?
So... you are DISAGREEING with my criticism of socialist planned economy?
So what you learn from the failure of more and more regulation is that we can't possibly try less regulation?How would I be wrong when I never advocated "zero" regulation. I said they are the most heavily regulated. Why is it one polar extreme or the other, total government control or zero regulation? Those are seriously the only options you can come up with? If more regulation's not working, why not try "less?"
"Less" Regulation has been leading to multiple financial meltdowns that have to be covered by Tax payers..here and abroad.
And "somehow" there are a bunch of well connected people walking away from the situation with bucketloads of cash.
You are begging the questionSo what you learn from the failure of more and more regulation is that we can't possibly try less regulation?"Less" Regulation has been leading to multiple financial meltdowns that have to be covered by Tax payers..here and abroad.
And "somehow" there are a bunch of well connected people walking away from the situation with bucketloads of cash.
We did try less regulation. It led to a huge disparity in incomes and financial meltdowns.
You are begging the questionSo what you learn from the failure of more and more regulation is that we can't possibly try less regulation?
We did try less regulation. It led to a huge disparity in incomes and financial meltdowns.
No, I'm disagreeing with your statement the owner was stealing your tips. A hint to that is the post I responded to was your statement he was stealing your tips. I own two businesses, one is a restaurant and our policy is to give all tips to staff. But that is part of our consideration in determining their compensation. It's his carwash and you work for him under his rules. What protects you is the ability to walk across the street to another car wash and work for them. You said he stole your tips, but you stayed there. Why?It was his company, but it was your choice to work for him. So why didn't you get a job with someone who operated his company according to your rules of fairness? Were you too lazy?
So... you are DISAGREEING with my criticism of socialist planned economy?
Your reference seemed to be in support of the argument capitalists are greedy and workers abused and are being stole from by their capitalist overlords. If I misunderstood that then please re-frame for me.
