Socialism VS. Capitalism

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? :lol:
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?

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.

This is exactly why we need regulations. Because people like you own businesses. Unbelievable!

We were never able to prove that he stole the tips that people gave with the understanding that they were not going to him. I later worked for the same business under different management (it was then owned by a proper Christian couple). Though the previous owner had alienated most of his regular customers before he sold and they had less business, we received more tips. This is how we found out

edited to add; In a fully socialist economy, the government IS the sole capitalist, and so it stands to reason that it acts like... well, you :p
 
Last edited:
[...]There is no Justice in Equal Distribution, only Servitude and playing the system..
There is an ongoing effort by corporate interests and the emerging plutocracy to indoctrinate the impressionable public with the notion that opponents of the right-wing agenda are socialists who oppose capitalism and aspire to equal distribution of the Nation's wealth. That is deceptive propaganda because the most extreme left-wing proponent will agree there is no justice in equal distribution.

Neither capitalism (per se) nor socialism (per se) offer potential long-term viability. One system evolves as oppressive exploitation, the other devolves into stagnation. So as modern history shows, the ideal economic system is the capitalist engine regulated by socialist controls which enabled unprecedented prosperity and social growth in America from the 1940s through 1980s -- when Ronald Reagan commenced the sequence of de-regulations that led to the recent economic collapse.

The objective of that system was not equal distribution but equitable distribution. And the evidence that it works is irrefutable.
 
[...]There is no Justice in Equal Distribution, only Servitude and playing the system..
There is an ongoing effort by corporate interests and the emerging plutocracy to indoctrinate the impressionable public with the notion that opponents of the right-wing agenda are socialists who oppose capitalism and aspire to equal distribution of the Nation's wealth. That is deceptive propaganda because the most extreme left-wing proponent will agree there is no justice in equal distribution.

Neither capitalism (per se) nor socialism (per se) offer potential long-term viability. One system evolves as oppressive exploitation, the other devolves into stagnation. So as modern history shows, the ideal economic system is the capitalist engine regulated by socialist controls which enabled unprecedented prosperity and social growth in America from the 1940s through 1980s -- when Ronald Reagan commenced the sequence of de-regulations that led to the recent economic collapse.

The objective of that system was not equal distribution but equitable distribution. And the evidence that it works is irrefutable.

That's why they call such countries "The Free World" :cool:
 
I refuse to believe anyone intelligent enough to have an ISP is arguing either pure capitalism or pure socialism is the ideal form of government.
 
I refuse to believe anyone intelligent enough to have an ISP is arguing either pure capitalism or pure socialism is the ideal form of government.
Well, even as a libertarian, I agree with you since you chose the words pure, capitalist and "government." So to clarify:

1) The left views capitalism as "big business." Then they pit big business versus government. One will win and make your choices for you. They declare big business Goliath and the government David, small, outnumbered and out to protect consumers from the evil giant.

2) The right views capitalism as "free markets." Free markets means choice. Everyone is protected by competition. Consumers are protected by choosing companies they want to do business with, employees are protected by choosing their employer.

3) The left goes wrong because in their attempt to control Goliath, they create endless rules and regulations. They restrict choice of companies to those chosen by government, they tie employees to companies with benefits, rules and regulation. The irony is in order to "protect" consumers and employees, their endless rules and regulations end up restricting consumer choices and actually cause companies to become the Goliath they went out to fight.

4) The right goes wrong by allowing the word "capitalism" to be the term used for their belief rather then "free markets." This allows the left to demogog capitalism and scare the masses to believe they do need to be protected.

So, using capitalism as "free markets" which means "choice," the Federal government should be completely free market and have no socialism.

Where I agree with you though is that I do believe local governments should be able to provide a safety net to help the homeless, unemployed, etc. A small Federal government would leave the money in the economy to fund it and charity would then be answerable to local politicians instead of the current system where the Federal Government is virtually unanswerable to the people in it's entirety.
 
I refuse to believe anyone intelligent enough to have an ISP is arguing either pure capitalism or pure socialism is the ideal form of government.

People often refuse to believe all sorts of stuff.
Well, regarding the left, they will not state our system should be entirely socialist. But every argument is for complete socialism. There is never a point at which they believe we are socialist enough. They may not do it in one step, but until they will ever stop, that will be the end result.
 
I refuse to believe anyone intelligent enough to have an ISP is arguing either pure capitalism or pure socialism is the ideal form of government.

People often refuse to believe all sorts of stuff.
Well, regarding the left, they will not state our system should be entirely socialist. But every argument is for complete socialism. There is never a point at which they believe we are socialist enough. They may not do it in one step, but until they will ever stop, that will be the end result.

Some children can not stop eating candy either.
 
Well, regarding the left, they will not state our system should be entirely socialist. But every argument is for complete socialism. There is never a point at which they believe we are socialist enough. They may not do it in one step, but until they will ever stop, that will be the end result.
Can you provide any verbatim examples of that? Or is that something you've been led to believe but for which there is no evidence?
 
People often refuse to believe all sorts of stuff.
Well, regarding the left, they will not state our system should be entirely socialist. But every argument is for complete socialism. There is never a point at which they believe we are socialist enough. They may not do it in one step, but until they will ever stop, that will be the end result.

again the past 30 years disagree with you.
Guess who socialized F&F?
It wasnt a dem.

don't forget airline security...

and airline insurance...
 
Well, regarding the left, they will not state our system should be entirely socialist. But every argument is for complete socialism. There is never a point at which they believe we are socialist enough. They may not do it in one step, but until they will ever stop, that will be the end result.
Can you provide any verbatim examples of that? Or is that something you've been led to believe but for which there is no evidence?

Give me an example where the current ruling junta of BO, Pelosi or Reid, any one of them, have by choice taken a non-socialist stance on an issue. Something where they could have gotten more government and chose a lesser government approach.
 
We did try less regulation. It led to a huge disparity in incomes and financial meltdowns.
You are begging the question

What question?

The first great depression was caused by Laissez-faire capitalism and had to be bailed out by tax payers.

Reagan's deregulation led to the Bond and Banking industries collapse. Those had to be bailed out by tax payers.

Bush's replay of Reagan's deregulation led to the current mess we are in.

Every time that this Laissez-faire nightmare is tried the same exact thing happens. The big risk takers walk away from the table with a good deal of money..and the tax payers are left with the check.
Your knowledge of economics, cause and effect relationships and history is zero. You just spun self serving bull shit.

And like other liberals, you apparently are too lazy to google terms you don't know. So I'll stop telling you to do what you're not going to do and exlpain it to you. Begging the question is a logical fallacy where you state something as fact which has not been established. You said this as fact when it's not only not established, it's wrong. "We did try less regulation. It led to a huge disparity in incomes and financial meltdowns."

What we have done is micromanaged government control of the economy and corporations. That is not free markets. We have tried government to death over and over and over and yet don't even question it as a solution. One completely government controlled experiment like the "energy deregulation" farce and we've tried and rejected capitalism right there.

And as for your post:

The first depression happened under 15 years after the first massive intervention of government in our economy and the implementation of the income tax, yet you say it was caused by capitalism.

With Reagan, it's just too clueless to respond to. The S&L crisis, which is what you're referring to, happened long before Reagan under heavy regulation. But you're right he was in the White House and capitalism didn't magically fix the mess. So it was capitalism that caused that.

Bush did nothing, Clinton was the one who forced banks to make subprime loans. Government underwrote them. So man, it was caused by capitalism...
 
Last edited:
Socialism has never succeeded. This country was founded so people would have the opportunity to prosper. Just because some can't does not give them the right to take from those that do and give to the ones that are too lazy to make something of their lives. Socialism goes against everything this country stands for, if you like socialism, leave.
 
Well, regarding the left, they will not state our system should be entirely socialist. But every argument is for complete socialism. There is never a point at which they believe we are socialist enough. They may not do it in one step, but until they will ever stop, that will be the end result.

again the past 30 years disagree with you.
Guess who socialized F&F?
It wasnt a dem.

don't forget airline security...

and airline insurance...
Bush is an example of failure of government solutions and not an example of anything regarding capitalism. He was a horrible President, and you give great examples of why. He was your boy, not mine. At least in policy, you just didn't like the Republican label.
 
Well, regarding the left, they will not state our system should be entirely socialist. But every argument is for complete socialism. There is never a point at which they believe we are socialist enough. They may not do it in one step, but until they will ever stop, that will be the end result.
Can you provide any verbatim examples of that? Or is that something you've been led to believe but for which there is no evidence?

Give me an example where the current ruling junta of BO, Pelosi or Reid, any one of them, have by choice taken a non-socialist stance on an issue. Something where they could have gotten more government and chose a lesser government approach.
How about Obama bailing out the banks instead of taking them over? That would have been a socialist coup -- if the left-wing were in fact the rising socialist junta you've been led to believe it is.

While it's true that the left favors imposing certain controls to hold the emerging corporatocracy in check that doesn't indicate a radical socialist agenda anymore than the New Deal did.

Your fears are exaggerated and unfounded.
 
Can you provide any verbatim examples of that? Or is that something you've been led to believe but for which there is no evidence?

Give me an example where the current ruling junta of BO, Pelosi or Reid, any one of them, have by choice taken a non-socialist stance on an issue. Something where they could have gotten more government and chose a lesser government approach.
How about Obama bailing out the banks instead of taking them over? That would have been a socialist coup -- if the left-wing were in fact the rising socialist junta you've been led to believe it is.

While it's true that the left favors imposing certain controls to hold the emerging corporatocracy in check that doesn't indicate a radical socialist agenda anymore than the New Deal did.

Your fears are exaggerated and unfounded.
Your statement is ridiculous. Obama did not by choice not take over the banks. He had no option to. My question was not name something he would like to do he didn't, it was name something he COULD do and by CHOICE didn't do. You named something he could not do. That is my point, you can't. He has when given the choice chosen socialism every time.
 
Capitalism by its very nature creates a gap between rich and poor and then builds on it under its own power,

if left to do as it pleases.

There are no real life examples of unregulated, unrestrained Capitalism doing otherwise, to any meaningful degree.
 
Capitalism by its very nature creates a gap between rich and poor and then builds on it under its own power,

if left to do as it pleases.

There are no real life examples of unregulated, unrestrained Capitalism doing otherwise, to any meaningful degree.

Right, good thing there's a solution. Walk across the street to their competitor. Only government can remove choice.

On the other hand, Politicians are corrupt and the more power they have the more they want. And unlike capitalism there is no choice to walk across the street to their competitor. There are no real life examples of unrestrained Socialism doing otherwise, to any meaningful degree.
 
Socialism has never succeeded. This country was founded so people would have the opportunity to prosper. Just because some can't does not give them the right to take from those that do and give to the ones that are too lazy to make something of their lives. Socialism goes against everything this country stands for, if you like socialism, leave.
I'm not aware of any successful textbook example of a fully formed socialist entity in World history. There have been several attempts to bring about functional socialist political structures, typically by nations recovering from economically and socially devastating wars, but they usually end up as totalitarian dictatorships.

It appears that you have been well indoctrinated in the belief that the American left-wing agenda is to bring about a full-blown socialist political structure in America. I know better than to try to alter in one message an idea which has taken some time to impart, but for the benefit of those who might be swayed by your persistence the wish to adopt certain socialistic principles and policies to offset the effects and inevitable consequences of laissez faire capitalism does not reflect the radical political objective of transforming America into a socialist state.

Capitalism is the engine that drove America toward economic world dominance in the period between the 1940s and 1980s -- during which the socialistic controls imposed by the New Deal brought about the rise of the middle class, thus an atmosphere of internal harmony which enabled unprecedented economic and social growth. Ronald Reagan commenced the removal of those controls during his presidency. Bush-1 and Bill Clinton followed his lead and Bush-2 all but finished the job. What we're seeing now is the consequence of their efforts.

Please keep in mind that to enjoy peas, carrots and potatoes with one's supper does not make one a vegetarian. They simply go well with beefsteak and gravy.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top