The difference between capitalism and socialism in a nutshell

[Edgetho]

socialism sucks.

You liked it so much in Sweden, stay there.

Been there, dewd. Don't lecture me on it. It is one of the most depressing places on earth. No...... Just no fun. No (what's the word?) joie de vivre.....

It's like they're all just waiting to die.

They're so depressed, they aren't even reproducing fast enough to replace their aging population. They have to import towelheads.

Most of Europe is doing this.

They have lost the will to live

And socialism is why.

They're trying to fix it, but nobody wants to go there. Ford bought Volvo and sold it when they economy collapsed and that's about it.

Are they doing 'okay'? Yeah, but that's about it. Even half the people that live on that frozen fucking rock want to leave.

 

[Nosmo King]

Are safety standards for automobiles Fascist in your eyes?.

I would say so in some regards. People are dying because big government leans on auto makers to get X amount of miles per. Since they can only push current technology so far they often meet the regulations by lightening the bodies. There are a report this morning on the three most fatal cars, all small econ-cruisers.

ALSO, I had a GMC Jimmy once. They had to have some versions meet the mileage standards to sell the body, normally a 4.0 liter motor. They did it by stuffing a 2.6 in it. It was too small. Mine died like they all did, engine was toast. So that means I had to spend resources on getting another auto and someone had to build another auto, all because the one I had died prematurely.

So the bureaucrats and supporters of this nonsense can feel good about themselves but they are killing people and costing us lots of money. Small price to pay I guess.

Sometimes it is helpful to sit back understand Human Nature.

This is a good time to look at it....

(most of this rant is aimed at the general public, not at you personally)

If the government didn't step in and make Safety Standards universal, guess what would happen?

Some Auto Manufactures would omit safety equipment in order to meet a price point.... IOW, they could sell them more cheaply.

The socialists (and idiots, same-same) among us will automatically, without thought, blame the Big Corporations for their 'Greed and Avarice' when the truth is.... It is just the opposite.

It is the CONSUMER who would make the choice to buy the cheapest car for the cheapest price REGARDLESS of the onboard safety equipment.

By mandating that ALL manufacturers put certain safety equipment on ALL of their models, the goobermint takes the choice out of the hands of the public.

Corporations just make what people want, they don't make moral judgements. They just sell the shit.

You buy a piece of shit that gets half your family killed in an accident? Is it really the manufacturers fault or did you not know that it was piece of shit to begin with.

Of course you did. But you're gonna run to Dewey, Cheatum and Howe two seconds after they take you off the respirator. And we both know it

Own a business, run a business, hire and fire..... Then talk to me about where the real greed in this Country is.

And the same folks who think safety features on cars make for an undue burden on car makers will then turn around and call for tort reform to eliminate what they see as 'frivolous' lawsuits.

The people deserve no protection, but the makers sure do.

 

[Mr Natural]

Profits over people vs people over profits.

Take your pick.

 

[Edgetho]

Profits over people vs people over profits.

Take your pick.

That's real original.

 

[Billy000]

I have never met any liberal who wanted the government to take over the economy. You people have no concept what liberalism is.

 

[Contumacious]

Where do you get this muck from? Sweden is Socialist, a Mixed Economy actually, and do you think life sucks there? It doesn't.

Sweden, Capitalism, and the Welfare State


During the last few years the number of Swedish citizens that are being supported by unemployment, sick leave or early retirement has increased dramatically. Is there a major epidemic that is keeping people from going to work and causing young unemployed people to retire? The social democrats certainly seem to think so, maintaining that Sweden is still a country where most people are willing to accept any full time job if offered.

This denial goes deep in Swedish mentality. Recently Jan Edling, an economist from Sweden’s largest labour union, LO, wrote a report where he explained that it was the welfare system that caused people to go on sick leave or early retirement. According to Edling, Sweden had a de facto unemployment rate of 20–25 percent. As LO refused to print the report Edling resigned after 18 years of service.

Telling the truth might not be popular, but I wish that Edling's report would be translated and sent to all fans of the welfare state around the world. It shows that the Swedish welfare state has systematically destroyed personal responsibility and work ethics. There is a point where so many people start taking advantage of the system that each individual understands that they will be on the losing side if they don’t maximize their own utility. A system that pays people not to work eventually creates a mentality where many people choose not to work. In the coming years the citizens of the European welfare systems will probably wake up to this reality."

.

 

[Edgetho]

I have never met any liberal who wanted the government to take over the economy. You people have no concept what liberalism is.

Neither do you. It is a feeling, not a political party.

There is no definition of it except in your mind.

I believe I am very liberal. You may not believe that I am, but I am.

You are among the same people that believe that you (goobermint) should have the power to bend people to your will by force if necessary.

I don't believe in that.

Who's more liberal?

I am

 

[Iceweasel]

Are safety standards for automobiles Fascist in your eyes?.

I would say so in some regards. People are dying because big government leans on auto makers to get X amount of miles per. Since they can only push current technology so far they often meet the regulations by lightening the bodies. There are a report this morning on the three most fatal cars, all small econ-cruisers.

ALSO, I had a GMC Jimmy once. They had to have some versions meet the mileage standards to sell the body, normally a 4.0 liter motor. They did it by stuffing a 2.6 in it. It was too small. Mine died like they all did, engine was toast. So that means I had to spend resources on getting another auto and someone had to build another auto, all because the one I had died prematurely.

So the bureaucrats and supporters of this nonsense can feel good about themselves but they are killing people and costing us lots of money. Small price to pay I guess.

Sometimes it is helpful to sit back understand Human Nature.

This is a good time to look at it....

(most of this rant is aimed at the general public, not at you personally)

If the government didn't step in and make Safety Standards universal, guess what would happen?

Some Auto Manufactures would omit safety equipment in order to meet a price point.... IOW, they could sell them more cheaply.

The socialists (and idiots, same-same) among us will automatically, without thought, blame the Big Corporations for their 'Greed and Avarice' when the truth is.... It is just the opposite.

It is the CONSUMER who would make the choice to buy the cheapest car for the cheapest price REGARDLESS of the onboard safety equipment.

By mandating that ALL manufacturers put certain safety equipment on ALL of their models, the goobermint takes the choice out of the hands of the public.

Corporations just make what people want, they don't make moral judgements. They just sell the shit.

You buy a piece of shit that gets half your family killed in an accident? Is it really the manufacturers fault or did you not know that it was piece of shit to begin with.

Of course you did. But you're gonna run to Dewey, Cheatum and Howe two seconds after they take you off the respirator. And we both know it

Own a business, run a business, hire and fire..... Then talk to me about where the real greed in this Country is.

The real greed is those that feel entitled to money they didn't earn.

I also didn't oppose all safety, I gave specific examples of some that can hurt us.

Been a business owner for 28 years now so I don't need to come up to speed on it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Are safety standards for automobiles Fascist in your eyes?.

I would say so in some regards. People are dying because big government leans on auto makers to get X amount of miles per. Since they can only push current technology so far they often meet the regulations by lightening the bodies. There are a report this morning on the three most fatal cars, all small econ-cruisers.

ALSO, I had a GMC Jimmy once. They had to have some versions meet the mileage standards to sell the body, normally a 4.0 liter motor. They did it by stuffing a 2.6 in it. It was too small. Mine died like they all did, engine was toast. So that means I had to spend resources on getting another auto and someone had to build another auto, all because the one I had died prematurely.

So the bureaucrats and supporters of this nonsense can feel good about themselves but they are killing people and costing us lots of money. Small price to pay I guess.

Sometimes it is helpful to sit back understand Human Nature.

This is a good time to look at it....

(most of this rant is aimed at the general public, not at you personally)

If the government didn't step in and make Safety Standards universal, guess what would happen?

Some Auto Manufactures would omit safety equipment in order to meet a price point.... IOW, they could sell them more cheaply.

The socialists (and idiots, same-same) among us will automatically, without thought, blame the Big Corporations for their 'Greed and Avarice' when the truth is.... It is just the opposite.

It is the CONSUMER who would make the choice to buy the cheapest car for the cheapest price REGARDLESS of the onboard safety equipment.

By mandating that ALL manufacturers put certain safety equipment on ALL of their models, the goobermint takes the choice out of the hands of the public.

Corporations just make what people want, they don't make moral judgements. They just sell the shit.

You buy a piece of shit that gets half your family killed in an accident? Is it really the manufacturers fault or did you not know that it was piece of shit to begin with.

Of course you did. But you're gonna run to Dewey, Cheatum and Howe two seconds after they take you off the respirator. And we both know it

Own a business, run a business, hire and fire..... Then talk to me about where the real greed in this Country is.

And the same folks who think safety features on cars make for an undue burden on car makers will then turn around and call for tort reform to eliminate what they see as 'frivolous' lawsuits.

The people deserve no protection, but the makers sure do.

LOL. Thanks for the retardo viewpoint.

 

[Edgetho]

I also didn't oppose all safety, I gave specific examples of some that can hurt us.

Been a business owner for 28 years now so I don't need to come up to speed on it.

More people need to listen to business owners. But they won't.

Not as long as we have lying scumbag politicians willing to steal money from them and give it to losers willing to vote dimocrap.

Who's greedier and more likely to steal? A business or the general public?

You leave your wallet in a business, out of reach of the public, and I'll give you ten to one odds it gets returned to you intact.

Drop your wallet in the street and tell me the odds of it coming back to you -- At all, much less intact.

I'll venture a guess....... 1 in 100. Tops.

 

[kaz]

Different ways of going for shares of the same pie.

One based on ambition, another on envy.

Not quite, in capitalism you're going for more pie, in socialism you're going for a bigger slice of a smaller pie.

 

[kaz]

Different ways of going for shares of the same pie.

One based on ambition, another on envy.

One based on greed, and one on human decency

Socialism is pure greed, that's for sure. Capitalism is based on mutual respect where you respect the property of others, and they respect your property, so I see your point

 

[Billy000]

I have never met any liberal who wanted the government to take over the economy. You people have no concept what liberalism is.

Neither do you. It is a feeling, not a political party.

There is no definition of it except in your mind.

I believe I am very liberal. You may not believe that I am, but I am.

You are among the same people that believe that you (goobermint) should have the power to bend people to your will by force if necessary.

I don't believe in that.

Who's more liberal?

I am

Libertarianism is a flawed, unstable philosophy and libertarians are not smart enough to realize it.

 

[kaz]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Fairly basic. The truth is the best countries, with the highest level of upward mobility for its citizens enjoy a healthy mix of collectivist, and capitalist ideals. Capitalism run amuck is every bad as socialism run amuck.

I'm not clear, are you referring to the government checks I referred to on capitalism or are you referring to wanting collectivism blended in?

 

[Billy000]

Different ways of going for shares of the same pie.

One based on ambition, another on envy.

One based on greed, and one on human decency

Socialism is pure greed, that's for sure. Capitalism is based on mutual respect where you respect the property of others, and they respect your property, so I see your point

Oh please capitalism isn't greedy? Because of capitalism a couple dozen of the richest people own half of the world's wealth and the middle class here is shrinking.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Capitalism, well regulated and with assistance for the unfortunate, IS freedom and fair. Koch capitalism is unfair, polluting, the ruin of the non-rich, and in the end of the economy. See sig pp1...

Socialism is just good capitalism. NOT COMMUNISM, hater dupe.

 

[kaz]

Different ways of going for shares of the same pie.

One based on ambition, another on envy.

One based on greed, and one on human decency

Socialism is pure greed, that's for sure. Capitalism is based on mutual respect where you respect the property of others, and they respect your property, so I see your point

Oh please capitalism isn't greedy? Because of capitalism a couple dozen of the richest people own half of the world's wealth and the middle class here is shrinking.

Capitalism is keeping what you earned, socialism is taking what someone else earned with force. The greed in that dynamic is clear.

 

[westwall]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Fairly basic. The truth is the best countries, with the highest level of upward mobility for its citizens enjoy a healthy mix of collectivist, and capitalist ideals. Capitalism run amuck is every bad as socialism run amuck.

I'm not clear, are you referring to the government checks I referred to on capitalism or are you referring to wanting collectivism blended in?

The best governments (for the people) are careful blends of collectivist and capitalist systems. Nothing will ever be perfect, and there will always be abuses, but for the majority of the citizens involved, those are the governments that work best.

 

[westwall]

OP- Capitalism, well regulated and with assistance for the unfortunate, IS freedom and fair. Koch capitalism is unfair, polluting, the ruin of the non-rich, and in the end of the economy. See sig pp1...

Socialism is just good capitalism. NOT COMMUNISM, hater dupe.

No, it's not.

 

[kaz]

I'm not clear, are you referring to the government checks I referred to on capitalism or are you referring to wanting collectivism blended in?

The best governments (for the people) are careful blends of collectivist and capitalist systems. Nothing will ever be perfect, and there will always be abuses, but for the majority of the citizens involved, those are the governments that work best.

So what in your mind justifies government taking property by force from one citizen and giving it to another citizen? I'm thinking to earn the total support of the citizen who was given someone else's property.