Why Socialism will never work...

[Boss]

You threw me off with the "collective needs" wording.

It throws a LOT of people off... that's how the Socialists promote their Socialist system. They're only advocating Socialism to provide for our collective needs. But you see, this is because Socialism was created to be an alternative to kings and rulers, where the 'collective needs' were of little concern. This is why they must paint a picture and sell a narrative that things are hopeless without government stepping in to fix them.

WE don't have kings and rulers. We are not a feudal system. We have freedom and liberty... a Constitution... free markets and free enterprise. That means we can find our own solutions through self-government and things are never hopeless.

SO MANY of our problems could be resolved through private sector, free market capitalist approach. Let's look at education.... We could have a competitive system where price was set according to competition, supply and demand. The results would be better than what we have. Most people would not simply look for the cheapest alternative but the one which provides the most value. Great schools would flourish and do well, poor schools would fail and cease to exist. This pushes the standard constantly up. As the bottom schools fail, the standard becomes harder to meet for a great product. Free market competitive capitalists have an incentive to provide excellent education value at a reasonable cost.

 

[regent]

[QUOTE Those aspects of socialism were believed to be given to the states in the Constitution. All states had forms of socialism. (whatever socialism is) When the Great Depression hit, the states quickly ran out of money to feed hungry people, so the national government assumed that responsibility.

 

[Camp]

Red Herring. There are no pure "ism's". Combinations and blendings of all the major economic and social systems are used throughout the world. Anytime a pure system of capitalism, socialism, fascism or communism has been tried they have failed. Corporatism and capitalism proponents hate socialism blended into the system because it challenges the ideology corporatism which relates to a modern day form of feudalism and challenges the rule of plutocrats.

Bullshit. Pure capitalism has never failed.

Maybe it depends on an arbitrary definition of "fail", but it seems reasonable to include depressions, recessions and economic rescues by governments as being examples of failures.
What nation would you describe as having a pure capitalism system?

The depressions and recessions are almost all caused by government intervention. The last one is a classic example. "Economic rescue" is another name for crony capitalism. Government causes a financial panic and then it "rescues" it's favored crony capitalists, and then people like you blame it on capitalism.

All dogs have fleas. That doesn't mean the fleas are good for the dog.

Sounds like nonsense to me. All ideologies fail from human intervention, including capitalism. To blame it on "government" is just an evasion from contending with reality. You want the government to be responsible for the weaknesses of capitalism. When bad mortgage loans were you want to blame the government for allowing a corrupt system, but not the people who knew they were making bad loans in order to make commissions. It was the governments fault for allowing them to be crooks to your way of thinking.
You still haven't given an example of a pure capitalist nation.

 

[Slade3200]

In the housing situation, it wasn't the government mandates to provide affordable housing loans that caused the problem, it was a complete lack of responsibility from the lenders who gave out the loans...

They were ORDERED (aka: MANDATED) to give out the loans... they didn't have any choice in the matter! In a "free market system" they wouldn't have made the loans.

If we did things your way, right now, and dropped all oversight and regulations, the same thing could happen again... What then would protect us?

We need very limited oversight or regulation on free markets. As little as possible. Just enough to ensure public safety and prevent monopolization. To ensure fairness in the free market system and that it operates as it should.

What happens to the bridge that was built by the cheapest bidder when it falls apart and kills hundreds of people.

So should we not accept the cheapest bids? Should we say... bid, but make sure you're not the cheapest because that is going to be rejected because we're going to assume your cheap bridge will be unsafe? OR... maybe... we establish certain guidelines and conditions for safety that have to be met within the bid price?

They were ORDERED (aka: MANDATED) to give out the loans... they didn't have any choice in the matter! In a "free market system" they wouldn't have made the loans.
They were mandated to give a certain percentage of loans. They were not mandated to toss their ethics and fiscal responsibility out the window and be as reckless as they were. Not sure why you are standing up for these people... They do not deserve a pass on this.

We need very limited oversight or regulation on free markets. As little as possible. Just enough to ensure public safety and prevent monopolization. To ensure fairness in the free market system and that it operates as it should.
agreed

So should we not accept the cheapest bids? Should we say... bid, but make sure you're not the cheapest because that is going to be rejected because we're going to assume your cheap bridge will be unsafe? OR... maybe... we establish certain guidelines and conditions for safety that have to be met within the bid price?
You said the answer... guidelines and conditions for safety are necessary. This is the purpose of government oversight and regulation. It can and has been abused and overbearing in some instances and has also kept higher standards, safety, and protection for the people in other instances. It is a balancing act.

You need to go read the legislation again... they were mandated to make the loans... not a percentage. They were forbidden from considering their ethics or anything else...that's what a MANDATE means. You are ORDERED to do something, whether you want to do it, think it's wise to do it, have a different idea about it or what.... MANDATED means you HAVE to do it.... no choice. AGAIN.... THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

You said the answer... guidelines and conditions for safety are necessary. This is the purpose of government oversight and regulation. It can and has been abused and overbearing in some instances and has also kept higher standards, safety, and protection for the people in other instances. It is a balancing act.

I have never had any problem, and I don't think anyone who isn't insane has a problem, with having reasonable guidelines and safety measures or government oversight to ensure those measures are being followed. However, we must understand that "reasonable measures" can quickly become a slippery slope whereby corporatists can corrupt the free market system in order to favor their crony-capitalistic agenda. The LESS of this stuff we have, the better... generally speaking. Now... me calling for less regulation is somehow being perverted into the insane notion that we should have NO regulation or oversight on anything! It IS a balancing act and one we should always approach from the understanding that the less government interferes with free market capitalist forces, the better off the people are. The more we encroach on those principles, the more open we are to corruption, corporatism, unethical practices, cronyism and generally bad things for us, the individual.

People say... Oh, you can't have unfettered free market capitalism! We've NEVER fucking had it! It has been "fettered" from Day One! The idea is to "fetter" it as little as possible and still keep people relatively safe and reasonably protect our environment. There is a HUGE difference between allowing a mining company to use water cannons to blast away mountains, changing water tables and causing environmental calamity... and preventing a multi-million dollar factory which might employ thousands from being constructed because the land is habitat for the endangered snail-darter.

I am with you on wanting less unnecessary regulation... As little as possible. I can not ignore the disastrous effects that private corporations have and can cause when they abuse their power. I understand and agree that regulations can be a driving factor in effecting execution and raising costs for businesses and to this effect we need to make sure the regulations are smart and effective. I can't excuse the what the bankers did to cause the housing bust, and I think it is inaccurate to blame it on the mandates. There are many other examples of this in our world...

Take Affirmative Action for example... Mandates made to help equality in the workplace. Companies may have been mandated to hire a certain % of minority groups however, that doesn't mean they had to hire EVERY minority person who applies. They still get to use their judgement and make smart decisions. It was the same way in the Mortgage game, they did not have to accept every loan application however, they abused the mandate and made a ton of money. Neither the government nor the bankers deserve the right to push responsibility to the other... They BOTH fucked up!

I'm not advocating affirmative action nor the housing mandates. I believe efforts need to be made to work on equality/human right issues that can only come from government mandates however we also need to keep the balance so we don't strangle the "free" market.

 

[Slade3200]

You threw me off with the "collective needs" wording.

It throws a LOT of people off... that's how the Socialists promote their Socialist system. They're only advocating Socialism to provide for our collective needs. But you see, this is because Socialism was created to be an alternative to kings and rulers, where the 'collective needs' were of little concern. This is why they must paint a picture and sell a narrative that things are hopeless without government stepping in to fix them.

WE don't have kings and rulers. We are not a feudal system. We have freedom and liberty... a Constitution... free markets and free enterprise. That means we can find our own solutions through self-government and things are never hopeless.

SO MANY of our problems could be resolved through private sector, free market capitalist approach. Let's look at education.... We could have a competitive system where price was set according to competition, supply and demand. The results would be better than what we have. Most people would not simply look for the cheapest alternative but the one which provides the most value. Great schools would flourish and do well, poor schools would fail and cease to exist. This pushes the standard constantly up. As the bottom schools fail, the standard becomes harder to meet for a great product. Free market competitive capitalists have an incentive to provide excellent education value at a reasonable cost.

We have a private school system that works for Pre K through college... Are you saying that these businesses are restricted through over-regulation or that they should take the place of the public school system?

 

[Boss]

You threw me off with the "collective needs" wording.

It throws a LOT of people off... that's how the Socialists promote their Socialist system. They're only advocating Socialism to provide for our collective needs. But you see, this is because Socialism was created to be an alternative to kings and rulers, where the 'collective needs' were of little concern. This is why they must paint a picture and sell a narrative that things are hopeless without government stepping in to fix them.

WE don't have kings and rulers. We are not a feudal system. We have freedom and liberty... a Constitution... free markets and free enterprise. That means we can find our own solutions through self-government and things are never hopeless.

SO MANY of our problems could be resolved through private sector, free market capitalist approach. Let's look at education.... We could have a competitive system where price was set according to competition, supply and demand. The results would be better than what we have. Most people would not simply look for the cheapest alternative but the one which provides the most value. Great schools would flourish and do well, poor schools would fail and cease to exist. This pushes the standard constantly up. As the bottom schools fail, the standard becomes harder to meet for a great product. Free market competitive capitalists have an incentive to provide excellent education value at a reasonable cost.

We have a private school system that works for Pre K through college... Are you saying that these businesses are restricted through over-regulation or that they should take the place of the public school system?

Uhm... Our public schools are failing on an embarrassing level. I don't know what GPA evaluations you are looking at or from what source, but ours is not among the greatest and brightest. Our schools are rife with absolute morons who send kids home for eating their pop tart into the shape of a pistol or an adolescent popping a Tylenol for her first menstrual period. In every academic category, the US trails the rest of the civilized world.

Every year, we go through this kabuki dance with liberals and conservatives bitching and complaining, posturing and fawning all over the same stupid issues of what schools should teach, what schools can't teach... who gets to decide on discipline levels... can we hand out condoms... can we teach homosexuality... can't use this flag... no, that's racist... can't teach any of that... what kind of books teachers can have on their desk... how many instances of "God" can one mention while on campus... no telling what all kinds of crazy shit in Common Core.... It's just INSANE... and it's all protected and tenured in for life... built-in raises... built-in pensions... we're paying for this circus. We average paying about $10k per student, per year, k-12.

Now.... Abolish the Department of Education. Send the money back to the States. Allow free market capitalist enterprises to offer education products. Call it Charter Schools... Learning Centers... Home School Associations.. whatever.. These educational entities operate as free market capitalists offering k-12 education. Consumers can choose who provides the quality and standard they want to accept for the price. They will have a voucher for what they would have paid in tax at the federal level. Education is now a standardized thing, we have criteria established for measuring level of achievement. There is no reason such a system wouldn't produce amazing results. In areas where these private education institutions aren't readily available, we can even afford to have a state-sponsored facility.

 

[Boss]

I am with you on wanting less unnecessary regulation... As little as possible. I can not ignore the disastrous effects that private corporations have and can cause when they abuse their power.

Again... Private corporations don't abuse their power because they really don't have any power. Every private corporation is dependent upon the consumer. The consumer has all the power, always. What some private corporations do is, they purchase power by making political contributions. Sometimes, a whole lot of corporations go in together and do this. They become the preferred corporations because they have purchased the influence. This is not a problem about the corporation's power... this is a problem with elected representatives selling their power. The corporation is doing what it will naturally try to do if allowed.

Let's be clear here... Many people simply don't comprehend the nuance between Corporatism and Free Market Capitalism. Corporatism is a worse enemy to Free Market Capitalism than Socialism, Maoism, Fascism, Marxism or Communism. Because it pretends to be "Free Market" when it's anything BUT. Not only does it do great damage to actual free market endeavors it also provides the liberal left with the Socialist's examples of Capitalism Gone Bad.

 

[Slade3200]

You threw me off with the "collective needs" wording.

It throws a LOT of people off... that's how the Socialists promote their Socialist system. They're only advocating Socialism to provide for our collective needs. But you see, this is because Socialism was created to be an alternative to kings and rulers, where the 'collective needs' were of little concern. This is why they must paint a picture and sell a narrative that things are hopeless without government stepping in to fix them.

WE don't have kings and rulers. We are not a feudal system. We have freedom and liberty... a Constitution... free markets and free enterprise. That means we can find our own solutions through self-government and things are never hopeless.

SO MANY of our problems could be resolved through private sector, free market capitalist approach. Let's look at education.... We could have a competitive system where price was set according to competition, supply and demand. The results would be better than what we have. Most people would not simply look for the cheapest alternative but the one which provides the most value. Great schools would flourish and do well, poor schools would fail and cease to exist. This pushes the standard constantly up. As the bottom schools fail, the standard becomes harder to meet for a great product. Free market competitive capitalists have an incentive to provide excellent education value at a reasonable cost.

We have a private school system that works for Pre K through college... Are you saying that these businesses are restricted through over-regulation or that they should take the place of the public school system?

Uhm... Our public schools are failing on an embarrassing level. I don't know what GPA evaluations you are looking at or from what source, but ours is not among the greatest and brightest. Our schools are rife with absolute morons who send kids home for eating their pop tart into the shape of a pistol or an adolescent popping a Tylenol for her first menstrual period. In every academic category, the US trails the rest of the civilized world.

Every year, we go through this kabuki dance with liberals and conservatives bitching and complaining, posturing and fawning all over the same stupid issues of what schools should teach, what schools can't teach... who gets to decide on discipline levels... can we hand out condoms... can we teach homosexuality... can't use this flag... no, that's racist... can't teach any of that... what kind of books teachers can have on their desk... how many instances of "God" can one mention while on campus... no telling what all kinds of crazy shit in Common Core.... It's just INSANE... and it's all protected and tenured in for life... built-in raises... built-in pensions... we're paying for this circus. We average paying about $10k per student, per year, k-12.

Now.... Abolish the Department of Education. Send the money back to the States. Allow free market capitalist enterprises to offer education products. Call it Charter Schools... Learning Centers... Home School Associations.. whatever.. These educational entities operate as free market capitalists offering k-12 education. Consumers can choose who provides the quality and standard they want to accept for the price. They will have a voucher for what they would have paid in tax at the federal level. Education is now a standardized thing, we have criteria established for measuring level of achievement. There is no reason such a system wouldn't produce amazing results. In areas where these private education institutions aren't readily available, we can even afford to have a state-sponsored facility.

Appreciate the thoughts... Do you find value in the current public school districting structure? More specifically, its goal of combining a diversity of income classes and ethnicities within particular communities to create a more integrated experience for the students. Would you see a free market model including environments like this? Also, we do have private/charter schools that fit your free-market model... Do you agree with the model that these institutions follow and implement?

I agree with many of your points regarding the regulations on the public school system... My girl works in it and I see the strangle of the bureaucracy first hand... So I agree that reforms need to be made to empower schools and teacher to do their jobs and deal with less of the BS that they currently have to deal with.

 

[Slade3200]

I am with you on wanting less unnecessary regulation... As little as possible. I can not ignore the disastrous effects that private corporations have and can cause when they abuse their power.

Again... Private corporations don't abuse their power because they really don't have any power. Every private corporation is dependent upon the consumer. The consumer has all the power, always. What some private corporations do is, they purchase power by making political contributions. Sometimes, a whole lot of corporations go in together and do this. They become the preferred corporations because they have purchased the influence. This is not a problem about the corporation's power... this is a problem with elected representatives selling their power. The corporation is doing what it will naturally try to do if allowed.

Let's be clear here... Many people simply don't comprehend the nuance between Corporatism and Free Market Capitalism. Corporatism is a worse enemy to Free Market Capitalism than Socialism, Maoism, Fascism, Marxism or Communism. Because it pretends to be "Free Market" when it's anything BUT. Not only does it do great damage to actual free market endeavors it also provides the liberal left with the Socialist's examples of Capitalism Gone Bad.

In a perfect world I believe many of your statements would be true, however, we don't live in that kind of world. You have obviously done your homework and have shown an intelligent understanding of different forms of governing, I am a bit surprised that you don't recognize the abuses and flaws that have come from private institutions in our "free market". Yes some of the imperfections are caused by government interference, however, many are also do to abuse and corruption from business owners. In a perfect world the purpose of government, both in their regulations and social efforts would have much different results, anything in concept would have different results, but we don't live in a perfect world and problems will always arise from corruption. That goes for both our government and in our private sector.

To assume 100% of the problems come from one side is naive. Our nation started out very much on the capitalistic side with little government intervention. As problems arose, government intervened, sometimes intervention solved problems and sometimes it created problems. This is why an objective understanding and analysis is so important and why i must argue against the one sided proclamations that you present. As I mentioned before, I agree with much of what you say and appreciate I appreciate the discussion.

 

[regent]

You threw me off with the "collective needs" wording.

It throws a LOT of people off... that's how the Socialists promote their Socialist system. They're only advocating Socialism to provide for our collective needs. But you see, this is because Socialism was created to be an alternative to kings and rulers, where the 'collective needs' were of little concern. This is why they must paint a picture and sell a narrative that things are hopeless without government stepping in to fix them.

WE don't have kings and rulers. We are not a feudal system. We have freedom and liberty... a Constitution... free markets and free enterprise. That means we can find our own solutions through self-government and things are never hopeless.

SO MANY of our problems could be resolved through private sector, free market capitalist approach. Let's look at education.... We could have a competitive system where price was set according to competition, supply and demand. The results would be better than what we have. Most people would not simply look for the cheapest alternative but the one which provides the most value. Great schools would flourish and do well, poor schools would fail and cease to exist. This pushes the standard constantly up. As the bottom schools fail, the standard becomes harder to meet for a great product. Free market competitive capitalists have an incentive to provide excellent education value at a reasonable cost.

We have a private school system that works for Pre K through college... Are you saying that these businesses are restricted through over-regulation or that they should take the place of the public school system?

Uhm... Our public schools are failing on an embarrassing level. I don't know what GPA evaluations you are looking at or from what source, but ours is not among the greatest and brightest. Our schools are rife with absolute morons who send kids home for eating their pop tart into the shape of a pistol or an adolescent popping a Tylenol for her first menstrual period. In every academic category, the US trails the rest of the civilized world.

Every year, we go through this kabuki dance with liberals and conservatives bitching and complaining, posturing and fawning all over the same stupid issues of what schools should teach, what schools can't teach... who gets to decide on discipline levels... can we hand out condoms... can we teach homosexuality... can't use this flag... no, that's racist... can't teach any of that... what kind of books teachers can have on their desk... how many instances of "God" can one mention while on campus... no telling what all kinds of crazy shit in Common Core.... It's just INSANE... and it's all protected and tenured in for life... built-in raises... built-in pensions... we're paying for this circus. We average paying about $10k per student, per year, k-12.

Now.... Abolish the Department of Education. Send the money back to the States. Allow free market capitalist enterprises to offer education products. Call it Charter Schools... Learning Centers... Home School Associations.. whatever.. These educational entities operate as free market capitalists offering k-12 education. Consumers can choose who provides the quality and standard they want to accept for the price. They will have a voucher for what they would have paid in tax at the federal level. Education is now a standardized thing, we have criteria established for measuring level of achievement. There is no reason such a system wouldn't produce amazing results. In areas where these private education institutions aren't readily available, we can even afford to have a state-sponsored facility.

It seems education will be standardized by not only using the same measure of achievement for each student, but by spending the same amount of dollars spent on each student's education? .

 

[Rustic]

Socialism is for quitters...

 

[healthmyths]

My reason for this thread was to share the reasoning why socialist agenda would ultimately lead to the demise of a civilization.
Socialists believe that almost all society ills can be cured with socialist actions.
"Single Payer health" for example. Sounds good but the reality is a completely single payer system with no incentives for the individual eventually stifles innovation.
Single payer also means everyone is treated the same when in reality all humans are not equal in all aspects. That's why I gave the example of Ezekiel Emmanuel
architect of Obama care who believes by age 75 a person's expenses for health services are too much for the output that 75 year achieves. In other words he
like ultimately all socialists believe the individual should be subservient to the group. The problem with that is who makes the decisions, i.e. a group of elites that
determine if my societal output is not worth the expense?
And this is just one example of a socialist's point of view...except when they become 75!

 

[Boss]

I am with you on wanting less unnecessary regulation... As little as possible. I can not ignore the disastrous effects that private corporations have and can cause when they abuse their power.

Again... Private corporations don't abuse their power because they really don't have any power. Every private corporation is dependent upon the consumer. The consumer has all the power, always. What some private corporations do is, they purchase power by making political contributions. Sometimes, a whole lot of corporations go in together and do this. They become the preferred corporations because they have purchased the influence. This is not a problem about the corporation's power... this is a problem with elected representatives selling their power. The corporation is doing what it will naturally try to do if allowed.

Let's be clear here... Many people simply don't comprehend the nuance between Corporatism and Free Market Capitalism. Corporatism is a worse enemy to Free Market Capitalism than Socialism, Maoism, Fascism, Marxism or Communism. Because it pretends to be "Free Market" when it's anything BUT. Not only does it do great damage to actual free market endeavors it also provides the liberal left with the Socialist's examples of Capitalism Gone Bad.

In a perfect world I believe many of your statements would be true, however, we don't live in that kind of world. You have obviously done your homework and have shown an intelligent understanding of different forms of governing, I am a bit surprised that you don't recognize the abuses and flaws that have come from private institutions in our "free market". Yes some of the imperfections are caused by government interference, however, many are also do to abuse and corruption from business owners. In a perfect world the purpose of government, both in their regulations and social efforts would have much different results, anything in concept would have different results, but we don't live in a perfect world and problems will always arise from corruption. That goes for both our government and in our private sector.

To assume 100% of the problems come from one side is naive. Our nation started out very much on the capitalistic side with little government intervention. As problems arose, government intervened, sometimes intervention solved problems and sometimes it created problems. This is why an objective understanding and analysis is so important and why i must argue against the one sided proclamations that you present. As I mentioned before, I agree with much of what you say and appreciate I appreciate the discussion.

I always enjoy discussing this topic with people who keep an open mind and are respectful. Thank you for your kind words. I don't recognize abuses and frauds of a free market capitalist system because there aren't many such examples. You said there are but no real examples are given and there is a reason. Whenever it's truly free market capitalism, the corruptions are mitigated through competition. There is no "perfect" system where no one ever breaks the law or does anything unethical... don't get me wrong. But in a true free market environment, the objective is to provide a satisfactory product to your customer and hope they return for more of what you're offering. Your competition is trying to offer your customer a better value.. a lower price.. some incentive to try their product instead. There is no room for greedy corrupt assholes in that scenario... they generally lose.

When free markets are allowed to function as they are intended to, they do so flawlessly. I have a store with a gallon of milk which I value less than the $4.50 in your pocket. You have $4.50 you value less than the gallon of milk in my store... so we agree to mutually trade with each other in a voluntary exchange we both consider beneficial. It is when we introduce government mandates or interference with the mechanisms of free markets, that we get failures and shortcomings. When you come in my store with a gun pointed at my head... which is essentially what backing by government power is... and tell me that you want my gallon of milk but you think you should be entitled to it for free... well, that's a different kind of system from a free market.

Government intervention into free market capitalism is always detrimental to the system. It turns parts of it into socialist-capitalist or corporatist style system... not free market. In order to have a true free market, governments should get out of the way as much as possible. Let free market capitalism work and it will work... people will be prosperous... consumers will be happy... it's mutually beneficial and voluntary exchange of goods and services. Win-win-win!

 

[Slade3200]

I am with you on wanting less unnecessary regulation... As little as possible. I can not ignore the disastrous effects that private corporations have and can cause when they abuse their power.

Again... Private corporations don't abuse their power because they really don't have any power. Every private corporation is dependent upon the consumer. The consumer has all the power, always. What some private corporations do is, they purchase power by making political contributions. Sometimes, a whole lot of corporations go in together and do this. They become the preferred corporations because they have purchased the influence. This is not a problem about the corporation's power... this is a problem with elected representatives selling their power. The corporation is doing what it will naturally try to do if allowed.

Let's be clear here... Many people simply don't comprehend the nuance between Corporatism and Free Market Capitalism. Corporatism is a worse enemy to Free Market Capitalism than Socialism, Maoism, Fascism, Marxism or Communism. Because it pretends to be "Free Market" when it's anything BUT. Not only does it do great damage to actual free market endeavors it also provides the liberal left with the Socialist's examples of Capitalism Gone Bad.

In a perfect world I believe many of your statements would be true, however, we don't live in that kind of world. You have obviously done your homework and have shown an intelligent understanding of different forms of governing, I am a bit surprised that you don't recognize the abuses and flaws that have come from private institutions in our "free market". Yes some of the imperfections are caused by government interference, however, many are also do to abuse and corruption from business owners. In a perfect world the purpose of government, both in their regulations and social efforts would have much different results, anything in concept would have different results, but we don't live in a perfect world and problems will always arise from corruption. That goes for both our government and in our private sector.

To assume 100% of the problems come from one side is naive. Our nation started out very much on the capitalistic side with little government intervention. As problems arose, government intervened, sometimes intervention solved problems and sometimes it created problems. This is why an objective understanding and analysis is so important and why i must argue against the one sided proclamations that you present. As I mentioned before, I agree with much of what you say and appreciate I appreciate the discussion.

I always enjoy discussing this topic with people who keep an open mind and are respectful. Thank you for your kind words. I don't recognize abuses and frauds of a free market capitalist system because there aren't many such examples. You said there are but no real examples are given and there is a reason. Whenever it's truly free market capitalism, the corruptions are mitigated through competition. There is no "perfect" system where no one ever breaks the law or does anything unethical... don't get me wrong. But in a true free market environment, the objective is to provide a satisfactory product to your customer and hope they return for more of what you're offering. Your competition is trying to offer your customer a better value.. a lower price.. some incentive to try their product instead. There is no room for greedy corrupt assholes in that scenario... they generally lose.

When free markets are allowed to function as they are intended to, they do so flawlessly. I have a store with a gallon of milk which I value less than the $4.50 in your pocket. You have $4.50 you value less than the gallon of milk in my store... so we agree to mutually trade with each other in a voluntary exchange we both consider beneficial. It is when we introduce government mandates or interference with the mechanisms of free markets, that we get failures and shortcomings. When you come in my store with a gun pointed at my head... which is essentially what backing by government power is... and tell me that you want my gallon of milk but you think you should be entitled to it for free... well, that's a different kind of system from a free market.

Government intervention into free market capitalism is always detrimental to the system. It turns parts of it into socialist-capitalist or corporatist style system... not free market. In order to have a true free market, governments should get out of the way as much as possible. Let free market capitalism work and it will work... people will be prosperous... consumers will be happy... it's mutually beneficial and voluntary exchange of goods and services. Win-win-win!

Your scenario may be accurate when applied in a consumer based market place, however, we are talking about a Nation so there are many other elements that factor in. The greed and corruption isn't aimed at the consumers but rather the competition and has an effect on the community as a whole. For example, we were discussing a public school system vs. a private school system. I have no doubt that the free-market approach to our school system would be a disaster. In one aspect, as you mentioned, competition would help drive higher wages for some teachers and would improve the quality of education for some students, these would be the top performers. But what would happen to the poor when they now have to pay for their childs education? Their children would either not go to school or they would all go to the cheapest schools. The better teachers would go to the higher paying schools and the wealthy families would send their kids to those schools. You would end up with the rich reaping all the benefits and the poor receiving a much lower quality of education. Combine that with the distribution of wealth in this country and the fact that the poor far outnumber the rich, you end up fostering a system that keeps feeding a small part of the population and the poor majority suffer.

Similarly the same thing will and does happen with private businesses and that is why there have been actions to prevent monopolies... Once a company dominates the marketplace they can forcefully block the opportunities for the little guys to prosper. We see this with Walmart's coming in and shutting down all the mom and pop shops in our local communities that can't afford to compete. The bigger picture shows this with the competition we are getting from over seas production... American companies can't compete and we are losing jobs.

Like we discussed earlier, it is about a balance. I think we should work towards a free market capitalistic society as much as we can, but also recognize the necessity of the social programs and government regulations. Yes, they can be smarter and more efficient, many are in need of reform... However, we shouldn't be dismissing them all together.

 

[Boss]

You threw me off with the "collective needs" wording.

It throws a LOT of people off... that's how the Socialists promote their Socialist system. They're only advocating Socialism to provide for our collective needs. But you see, this is because Socialism was created to be an alternative to kings and rulers, where the 'collective needs' were of little concern. This is why they must paint a picture and sell a narrative that things are hopeless without government stepping in to fix them.

WE don't have kings and rulers. We are not a feudal system. We have freedom and liberty... a Constitution... free markets and free enterprise. That means we can find our own solutions through self-government and things are never hopeless.

SO MANY of our problems could be resolved through private sector, free market capitalist approach. Let's look at education.... We could have a competitive system where price was set according to competition, supply and demand. The results would be better than what we have. Most people would not simply look for the cheapest alternative but the one which provides the most value. Great schools would flourish and do well, poor schools would fail and cease to exist. This pushes the standard constantly up. As the bottom schools fail, the standard becomes harder to meet for a great product. Free market competitive capitalists have an incentive to provide excellent education value at a reasonable cost.

We have a private school system that works for Pre K through college... Are you saying that these businesses are restricted through over-regulation or that they should take the place of the public school system?

Uhm... Our public schools are failing on an embarrassing level. I don't know what GPA evaluations you are looking at or from what source, but ours is not among the greatest and brightest. Our schools are rife with absolute morons who send kids home for eating their pop tart into the shape of a pistol or an adolescent popping a Tylenol for her first menstrual period. In every academic category, the US trails the rest of the civilized world.

Every year, we go through this kabuki dance with liberals and conservatives bitching and complaining, posturing and fawning all over the same stupid issues of what schools should teach, what schools can't teach... who gets to decide on discipline levels... can we hand out condoms... can we teach homosexuality... can't use this flag... no, that's racist... can't teach any of that... what kind of books teachers can have on their desk... how many instances of "God" can one mention while on campus... no telling what all kinds of crazy shit in Common Core.... It's just INSANE... and it's all protected and tenured in for life... built-in raises... built-in pensions... we're paying for this circus. We average paying about $10k per student, per year, k-12.

Now.... Abolish the Department of Education. Send the money back to the States. Allow free market capitalist enterprises to offer education products. Call it Charter Schools... Learning Centers... Home School Associations.. whatever.. These educational entities operate as free market capitalists offering k-12 education. Consumers can choose who provides the quality and standard they want to accept for the price. They will have a voucher for what they would have paid in tax at the federal level. Education is now a standardized thing, we have criteria established for measuring level of achievement. There is no reason such a system wouldn't produce amazing results. In areas where these private education institutions aren't readily available, we can even afford to have a state-sponsored facility.

It seems education will be standardized by not only using the same measure of achievement for each student, but by spending the same amount of dollars spent on each student's education? .

We have international standards for educational achievement regardless of money spent. One has nothing to do with the other. Institutions of higher education have prerequisites that have to be met. The approach as to how we get from Point A to Point B is the question. Our current system is failing... on pretty much every conceivable level. It's shameful with the amounts of money we're spending.

The cry from the liberal left is always regarding the poor and less fortunate inner-city kids... they won't have these bright new free market capitalists schools... they'll have the beat up crappy state school. No one would want to invest in a Charter School up in da hood. Well... tough shit. What about the white kid who lives an hour away from the nearest school in Wyoming? There are going to be some people who won't benefit as much from a free market educational system.

The good thing about having the free market schools is they will pressure the state schools to keep pace. Think about how much better the US Postal service got at delivering parcels when UPS and FedEx came along? It was amazing... you once couldn't rely on them to get your parcel across a few states without losing it or sending it to Hawaii first... Things arrived broken, if they ever made it at all... you'd go down to complain but that took standing in line for hours only to be shrugged off by some cold hearted postal worker who didn't give two shits. Here comes private sector competition and viola... suddenly, they are having to compete for business and it's a different product. The same would happen with public schools... they would have to shape up to maintain standards.

Let's also remember that our nation as a whole is very benevolent with regard to our education. Hundreds and thousands of corporate entities devote billions upon billions each year in various kinds of education outreach... community partnerships... scholarships... targeted for at-risk... etc., etc., etc. The opportunity for a quality education is going to be there. As ALWAYS... the impetus is on the pupil and their desire to learn.

 

[Slade3200]

You threw me off with the "collective needs" wording.

It throws a LOT of people off... that's how the Socialists promote their Socialist system. They're only advocating Socialism to provide for our collective needs. But you see, this is because Socialism was created to be an alternative to kings and rulers, where the 'collective needs' were of little concern. This is why they must paint a picture and sell a narrative that things are hopeless without government stepping in to fix them.

WE don't have kings and rulers. We are not a feudal system. We have freedom and liberty... a Constitution... free markets and free enterprise. That means we can find our own solutions through self-government and things are never hopeless.

SO MANY of our problems could be resolved through private sector, free market capitalist approach. Let's look at education.... We could have a competitive system where price was set according to competition, supply and demand. The results would be better than what we have. Most people would not simply look for the cheapest alternative but the one which provides the most value. Great schools would flourish and do well, poor schools would fail and cease to exist. This pushes the standard constantly up. As the bottom schools fail, the standard becomes harder to meet for a great product. Free market competitive capitalists have an incentive to provide excellent education value at a reasonable cost.

We have a private school system that works for Pre K through college... Are you saying that these businesses are restricted through over-regulation or that they should take the place of the public school system?

Uhm... Our public schools are failing on an embarrassing level. I don't know what GPA evaluations you are looking at or from what source, but ours is not among the greatest and brightest. Our schools are rife with absolute morons who send kids home for eating their pop tart into the shape of a pistol or an adolescent popping a Tylenol for her first menstrual period. In every academic category, the US trails the rest of the civilized world.

Every year, we go through this kabuki dance with liberals and conservatives bitching and complaining, posturing and fawning all over the same stupid issues of what schools should teach, what schools can't teach... who gets to decide on discipline levels... can we hand out condoms... can we teach homosexuality... can't use this flag... no, that's racist... can't teach any of that... what kind of books teachers can have on their desk... how many instances of "God" can one mention while on campus... no telling what all kinds of crazy shit in Common Core.... It's just INSANE... and it's all protected and tenured in for life... built-in raises... built-in pensions... we're paying for this circus. We average paying about $10k per student, per year, k-12.

Now.... Abolish the Department of Education. Send the money back to the States. Allow free market capitalist enterprises to offer education products. Call it Charter Schools... Learning Centers... Home School Associations.. whatever.. These educational entities operate as free market capitalists offering k-12 education. Consumers can choose who provides the quality and standard they want to accept for the price. They will have a voucher for what they would have paid in tax at the federal level. Education is now a standardized thing, we have criteria established for measuring level of achievement. There is no reason such a system wouldn't produce amazing results. In areas where these private education institutions aren't readily available, we can even afford to have a state-sponsored facility.

It seems education will be standardized by not only using the same measure of achievement for each student, but by spending the same amount of dollars spent on each student's education? .

We have international standards for educational achievement regardless of money spent. One has nothing to do with the other. Institutions of higher education have prerequisites that have to be met. The approach as to how we get from Point A to Point B is the question. Our current system is failing... on pretty much every conceivable level. It's shameful with the amounts of money we're spending.

The cry from the liberal left is always regarding the poor and less fortunate inner-city kids... they won't have these bright new free market capitalists schools... they'll have the beat up crappy state school. No one would want to invest in a Charter School up in da hood. Well... tough shit. What about the white kid who lives an hour away from the nearest school in Wyoming? There are going to be some people who won't benefit as much from a free market educational system.

The good thing about having the free market schools is they will pressure the state schools to keep pace. Think about how much better the US Postal service got at delivering parcels when UPS and FedEx came along? It was amazing... you once couldn't rely on them to get your parcel across a few states without losing it or sending it to Hawaii first... Things arrived broken, if they ever made it at all... you'd go down to complain but that took standing in line for hours only to be shrugged off by some cold hearted postal worker who didn't give two shits. Here comes private sector competition and viola... suddenly, they are having to compete for business and it's a different product. The same would happen with public schools... they would have to shape up to maintain standards.

Let's also remember that our nation as a whole is very benevolent with regard to our education. Hundreds and thousands of corporate entities devote billions upon billions each year in various kinds of education outreach... community partnerships... scholarships... targeted for at-risk... etc., etc., etc. The opportunity for a quality education is going to be there. As ALWAYS... the impetus is on the pupil and their desire to learn.

Your example with the US Postal service was a great example of how free market can lift standards in the market place. We are seeing the same thing with Uber and Air BnB in their respected industries, I think it is a great thing. We need to add more areas of competition of this nature in the health care industry to help do the same. Regarding the school situation. There were over half a dozen private schools in the town I grew up in. I see charter schools and alternative education schools in every city as well as trade schools for career training... I think the private sector is already in our education system and it is a good, healthy thing that should be supported.

Point is there I see value and necessity in both, I will always continue to support the free market over government as long as the free market is working... ie. Uber / Air bnb... However, I will also support government regulation where I see abuse, like we've seen our banking, energy and agricultural industries. You may attribute all issues to over-regulation but I just don't agree. Lets just hope the next administration can clean up some of these horrible trade deals and get our industry back on track. It is a crucial time to do so. Many reforms need to be made but also smart investments. This election is definitely going to go down as a prominent one in our history books!

 

[Boss]

You may attribute all issues to over-regulation but I just don't agree.

Well you don't agree because you keep being told by the socialists that we need more government solutions to fix the problems and that is what you've come to accept as the truth. As I have demonstrated, there is nothing corrupt or unfair about pure free market capitalism. The corruption happens when government interferes and removes free market mechanics. You are trying to fix the problems of too much government interference with more government interference and what happens is, the problem is never fixed... it continues to get worse with each passing "fix" you implement.

We have to start returning to free market, private sector solutions for our problems rather than assuming government can fix everything. The more government does to fix things the more freedom we lose and the more fucked up things get.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment. Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"social ownership"... means no one owns anything right.
"democratic control of the means of production"... means we all would vote on production.

First of all has "socialism" been successful and if so why isn't the whole world a "socialistic state"?

Examples:
Denmark population: 5,707,251
Denmark has a wide range of welfare benefits that they offer their citizens. As a result, they also have the highest taxes in the world. Equality is considered the most important value in Denmark. Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less.
Health Care?
Their system resembles the AAA service because waiting lists as the rationing mechanism. Because everyone has access to healthcare, patients wait longer times for treatment. Social equality is highly valued in Danish society so citizens readily accept this form of rationing. - See more at: Healthcare problems are universal

Canada population: 35,344,962
Like the Netherlands, Canada also has mostly a free market economy, but has a very extensive welfare system that includes free health and medical care. Canadians remain more open-minded and liberal than Americans, and Canada is ranked as one of the best top five countries to live in by the United Nations and the Human Development Index (HDI) rankings.
Health care?
In 2013, nearly 42,000 Canucks left their homeland to avoid long wait times and inferior care that plagues their centralized health system.

The report from the free-market Fraser Institute found that 41,838 Canadians became “medical tourists” in 2013 and sought care outside of their hockey-loving country. While there were slightly fewer people fleeing the Canadian health system in 2013 than the previous year, the number leaving still amounts to nearly one percent of medical patients in Canada.

“Canadians may leave for a number of reasons including a lack of available resources or appropriate technology, a desire to return more quickly to their lives, to seek out superior quality care, or perhaps to save their own lives or avoid the risk of disability,” Nadeem Ismail, director of health policy studies at the Fraser Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Report: Tens of thousands fled socialized Canadian medicine in 2013

Sweden population 9,640,000
Sweden has a large welfare system, but due to a high national debt, required much government intervention in the economy. In Norway, the government controls certain key aspects of the national economy, and they also have one of the best welfare systems in the world, with Norway having one of the highest standards of living in all of Europe. Norway is not a member of the European Union.

Health care?
Swedish was once a health care model for the world. But that is hardly the case anymore.

This is not primarily due to the fact Sweden has become worse - rather it is the case that other countries have improved faster.

That Sweden no longer keeps up with those countries is largely due to its inability to reduce its patient waiting times, which are some of the worst in Europe, as the latest edition of the Euro Health Consumer Index (EHCI) revealed in Brussels on Monday.
'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'


Notice anything in common with these three? Add their entire population and less then 1/6th the USA!

Now that is "single payer" health care systems at their finest as defined by "socialism"!

Pure Socialism probably wouldn't be successful until humans are "ready" for it. Will they ever be? It's hard to say. In a way "socialism" has worked, in feudal societies where the king controlled everything. They weren't great, but they functioned within their time.

Could it happen again? Sure it could. Probably won't. I'm never going to be ready for full on socialism. Denmark, Sweden etc aren't fully socialist states in the first place, they're part socialist. And so is the USA. So...

 

[Slade3200]

You may attribute all issues to over-regulation but I just don't agree.

Well you don't agree because you keep being told by the socialists that we need more government solutions to fix the problems and that is what you've come to accept as the truth. As I have demonstrated, there is nothing corrupt or unfair about pure free market capitalism. The corruption happens when government interferes and removes free market mechanics. You are trying to fix the problems of too much government interference with more government interference and what happens is, the problem is never fixed... it continues to get worse with each passing "fix" you implement.

We have to start returning to free market, private sector solutions for our problems rather than assuming government can fix everything. The more government does to fix things the more freedom we lose and the more fucked up things get.

It sounds to me like you've been reading some Ayn Rand, great author and provoker of thought but not without flaw... Just like capitalism. Another great thinker of our time, Al Einstein had some opinions on the matter:

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights....

...Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. ~Einstein, Monthly Review Article May 1949

I don't agree with everything that Al mentions as I believe he is focusing a little too much on the dark side, however he does bring up some valid points. Nothing is without flaw. Flaws lead to abuse and corruptions which ultimately lead to issues that need to be dealt with. It is the nature of life, business, and our government. We need to consider what we've learned from history and implement the systems with their flaws being considered, focusing on the useful elements and protecting against the problems. Pure capitalism doesn't always benefit the all the people, only those who play its game, Survival of the fittest as I mentioned before. This inherently is its flaw.

 

[Boss]

You may attribute all issues to over-regulation but I just don't agree.

Well you don't agree because you keep being told by the socialists that we need more government solutions to fix the problems and that is what you've come to accept as the truth. As I have demonstrated, there is nothing corrupt or unfair about pure free market capitalism. The corruption happens when government interferes and removes free market mechanics. You are trying to fix the problems of too much government interference with more government interference and what happens is, the problem is never fixed... it continues to get worse with each passing "fix" you implement.

We have to start returning to free market, private sector solutions for our problems rather than assuming government can fix everything. The more government does to fix things the more freedom we lose and the more fucked up things get.

It sounds to me like you've been reading some Ayn Rand, great author and provoker of thought but not without flaw... Just like capitalism. Another great thinker of our time, Al Einstein had some opinions on the matter:

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights....

...Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. ~Einstein, Monthly Review Article May 1949

I don't agree with everything that Al mentions as I believe he is focusing a little too much on the dark side, however he does bring up some valid points. Nothing is without flaw. Flaws lead to abuse and corruptions which ultimately lead to issues that need to be dealt with. It is the nature of life, business, and our government. We need to consider what we've learned from history and implement the systems with their flaws being considered, focusing on the useful elements and protecting against the problems. Pure capitalism doesn't always benefit the all the people, only those who play its game, Survival of the fittest as I mentioned before. This inherently is its flaw.

Okay, so now... you avoid the topic of free market capitalism and the point that in it's purest form it isn't corrupt or unfair... and you start criticizing Ayn Rand and promoting Albert Einstein as an economic philosopher. I'm not going to apologize for sounding like Ayn Rand and Albert Einstein is a noted physicist who didn't even get physics right sometimes. Having been raised in a Nationalist Socialist system, he is hardly an expert on free market capitalism. Much of what he is ranting about in the article you posted is what I am calling "corporatism" or socialist-capitalism. We went through this, it's nothing at all like free market capitalism.

The only "flaw" with free market capitalism, if you can call it a flaw, is that it can't be tinkered with to be improved by government.