Capitalism vs Socialism

[SassyIrishLass]

You corporate Socialists are destroying the country.

Go away attention drone. You're no capitalist, fckn fraud.

Everyone knows

 

[pknopp]

Go away attention drone. You're no capitalist, fckn fraud.

Everyone knows

Whatever I am doesn't change what you are. A corporate socialist pretending you are a capitalist.

 

[JGalt]

Who got billions from the taxpayers? The banks or the homeowners?

How would either of these fit into capitalism?

Oh look, Martha! It's another thread where poor schmucks blame the rich because they're such poor schmucks.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Whatever I am doesn't change what you are. A corporate socialist pretending you are a capitalist.

Dude sit down. Just sit down and stop annoying people

 

[pknopp]

Dude sit down. Just sit down and stop annoying people

I understand it annoys you to have to actually defend what you pretend to support.

 

[Curried Goats]

I have been and still am a capitalist, but the question must be asked, "If capitalism works so well, why then are there so many homeless resulting from capitalism run amok?" Why are our cities such a mess if capitalism works so well?

Part of the answer to those questions is the fact that we have capitalism run amok, crony capitalism, whatever you want to call it. Our corporations are run by "leaders" who do not know right from wrong.

You're missing the mark.

Capitalism itself doesn't care about homelessness. It doesn't purport to be a check on homelessness. It is essentially the economic manifestation of a philosiphical belief in radical individualism. Economically. Even the most ardent libertarians want to socialize security. The only people who don't are anarchists.

Socialism is basically the political and economic manifestation of the philosophical belief in mutually beneficial cooperation.

Neither one of these things, radical individualism and mutual cooperation, are inherently bad but unchecked they can lead to some unfortunate results that you may or may not care about depending on your political leanings.

Before capitalism your station was determined by the ruling social order. Most people were consigned to being peasant farmers. Radical individualism allows people to pursue their dreams. It also incentivizes innovation through competition. Where it fails is in checking exploitation of labor and the manipulation of markets. That's where a a commitment to mutually beneficial cooperation is essential. Innovation requires competition and competition determines winners and losers. All are necessary for the system to function and so all should benefit. Where socialism gets it wrong is in allowing those who have no desire to cooperate to benefit or from trying to equalize benefits so much that you stifle competition.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with inequality but there is something wrong if our economic system is indifferent to whether or not someone who works a full time job can afford a home, groceries, healthcare and to take a vacation time to time, while showing infinite deference to the wealth management of people who have benefitted so greatly from the system that they no longer have to labor or innovate because they can sit back and leach (not invest because that implies some vested interest in success) and exploit the people who do.

 

[sartre play]

Which Is Better: Socialism or Capitalism?

Some of my friends have questioned my past affiliation with the Democrat party. I understand the reason for their inquisitiveness. Nevertheless, let me say that there is no similarity between the party of old and the party of no...

www.americanthinker.com

the dems trying to bring almost total socialism to our shores. The govt controlling most means of production and distribution.

Not the truth,
What works best is a balance of power ,
Things that bring not only jobs and wealth for some, but also
Balanced by things that allow those of us who are not wealthy to maintain
or assist in gaining our goals.

 

[eagle7-31]

Not the truth,
What works best is a balance of power ,
Things that bring not only jobs and wealth for some, but also
Balanced by things that allow those of us who are not wealthy to maintain
or assist in gaining our goals.

From the article. Yes there is a role for govt

Having extolled the virtues of capitalism, I have to mention a few of its drawbacks. When you have unfettered capitalism with an exorbitant need for increased profits, some companies betray the well-being of their countrymen. This is what happened when many American firms closed their factories in the Midwest and relocated them to China to tap into a cheaper labor force. The drive to a higher profit margin also led some companies to share proprietary formulas and manuals with their Chinese counterparts that put the future well-being of Americans at risk. Americans got a clue to these dangers when most drugs needed to address the COVID pandemic were manufactured in China rather than in the United States. And some Americans from both of the major political parties favor illegal immigration as a means of cheap labor without giving any consideration to the depressed wages and lost job opportunities for legal immigrants and U.S. citizens.

 

[francoHFW]

Capitalism: Even playing field

Socialism: The masses suffers while the elites prosper

It's why Socialism has never worked

That's communism, dupe. Socialism is democratic capitalism, but fair. Every modern country but us. We need healthcare at least. .

 

[ralfy]

Each one needs the other.

 

[Ringo]

A challenge for ingenuity:

Some Dairy Alliance buys milk from farmers at $1 per gallon
Same Dairy Alliance sells milk to consumers at $4 per gallon

Which link (farmers, shareholders, consumers) should be deleted, to increase the benefit of the remaining two links?
0 seconds for thinking.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Capitalism: Even playing field

Socialism: The masses suffers while the elites prosper

It's why Socialism has never worked

A "Free Market" Means That the Clique That Inevitably Controls a Market Is Free to Do Whatever It Wants

False choice. Both alternatives are branches of the hereditary ruling class. Socialism's real appeal is to those who feel their Daddy's Money makes them Born to Rule. It was invented in the class-biased university, which was designed solely for those who live off a trust fund. So was Capitalism, which is Investor Supremacy for those who inherited enough money to buy stock-market ownership of businesses created by others.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I believe the phrase "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" was invented by idiots. Intelligence never gave birth to wealth. Wealth begets: greed, cynicism, vanity, lying, cunning, insolence, treachery, but not intelligence. Are scientists rich? And what intelligence they have...

Big Hack Attack

The actuality is "If you're so smart, why haven't you made the rich richer?" Submitting to slave education turns High IQs into economic sissies, pushovers who will easily undergo a second submission as Cash Cows for Corporate Cowboys. The worst Grand Larceny is corporate patents. Superior minds create everything and get hardly any of its value back. They bake the cake and get thrown the crumbs.

So, if we ever put the MEN back into Mensa, the new motto will be, "If you're so smart, why haven't you made the rich poorer?" And you know they can, and only they can.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

A challenge for ingenuity:

Some Dairy Alliance buys milk from farmers at $1 per gallon
Same Dairy Alliance sells milk to consumers at $4 per gallon

Which link (farmers, shareholders, consumers) should be deleted, to increase the benefit of the remaining two links?
0 seconds for thinking.

The Nobility With No Ability

Those who inherit ownership of the Dairy Alliance. That is the link which causes the gouging, not greed.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What? Homeless is tied to savings and loan? Lol that's a far reach

The Black Night Was Hired by the White Night

The few aware people on the Netrix will notice that the despicable homeless riffraff are presented as alternative heroes to the Capitalists. So anyone who claims that such feral trash are victims of Wall Street looters has been programmed to actually make the GreedHeads look good in comparison.

 

[francoHFW]

The Black Night Was Hired by the White Night

The few aware people on the Netrix will notice that the despicable homeless riffraff are presented as alternative heroes to the Capitalists. So anyone who claims that such feral trash are victims of Wall Street looters has been programmed to actually make the GreedHeads look good in comparison.

This is the failure of Reaganism. Need to tax the rich again and invest in housing and especially low income housing so we can bring rents down so people can afford apartments again, brainwashed functional moron.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So you're trying to tell me that homelessness is caused by banking and savings & loan companies fraudulently offering loans to people they knew would never be able to pay them back?

Whose fault would that be? The banks for loaning them the money, or the deadbeats who didn't make their mortgage payments?

Actually, the mortgage crisis that brought on the recession under GW, was caused by a Democrat Congress who mandated laws that loans should be handed out like candy. And GW stupidly went along with them, which is why we Republicans no longer support RINO bastards like GW.

Pity Party for Plutocratic Parasites

Another Low-IQ media interpretation that the "helpless" bankers, whose Party controlled the government, were victims.

These were flipper loans. The bankers wanted their borrowers to default so they could then seize the previously worthless property, evict the tenants, tear the shacks down, and replace it with highly lucrative upscale apartments for Yuppy singles.

 

[francoHFW]

Go away attention drone. You're no capitalist, fckn fraud.

Everyone knows

Socialists in the real world are for Democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net, in fact every modern country but us is Socialist in policy. We need health care for all at least to join the club. We have a terminal conflation of communism and socialism in the public mind. It's English, language of super capitalism for centuries.

 

[PeterPilot]

You're missing the mark.

Capitalism itself doesn't care about homelessness. It doesn't purport to be a check on homelessness. It is essentially the economic manifestation of a philosiphical belief in radical individualism. Economically. Even the most ardent libertarians want to socialize security. The only people who don't are anarchists.

Socialism is basically the political and economic manifestation of the philosophical belief in mutually beneficial cooperation.

Neither one of these things, radical individualism and mutual cooperation, are inherently bad but unchecked they can lead to some unfortunate results that you may or may not care about depending on your political leanings.

Before capitalism your station was determined by the ruling social order. Most people were consigned to being peasant farmers. Radical individualism allows people to pursue their dreams. It also incentivizes innovation through competition. Where it fails is in checking exploitation of labor and the manipulation of markets. That's where a a commitment to mutually beneficial cooperation is essential. Innovation requires competition and competition determines winners and losers. All are necessary for the system to function and so all should benefit. Where socialism gets it wrong is in allowing those who have no desire to cooperate to benefit or from trying to equalize benefits so much that you stifle competition.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with inequality but there is something wrong if our economic system is indifferent to whether or not someone who works a full time job can afford a home, groceries, healthcare and to take a vacation time to time, while showing infinite deference to the wealth management of people who have benefitted so greatly from the system that they no longer have to labor or innovate because they can sit back and leach (not invest because that implies some vested interest in success) and exploit the people who do.

I understand and agree with most of your points. Your post reminds me of what Adam Smith noted in Wealth Of Nations, that open market capitalism can function only with a moral and ethical society.

That implies that the leaders of capitalism, the capitalists themselves, must be moral and ethical. That is where we have failed. Of course there have always been homeless people, hobos and such after the Great Depression (another example of capitalism/banking failures), but it seems that after the debacle in 2008 they are now everywhere. I live in Florida where the weather suits their clothes, to borrow from the song and movie.

If capitalist leaders and bankers do not care at all about their fellow citizens, can those leaders be described as moral and ethical? I say no.

 

[PeterPilot]

It's a ridiculous question. You don't understand homelessness either

Just another left turd trying to blame everything on anything you don't like

What's to understand about homelessness? Please enlighten.