The difference between capitalism and socialism in a nutshell

[The Rabbi]

Where did I say "life sucks?" I can't find that part

Paint gets defensive----forgive him

Paint gets pissed off at Americans who are as clueless about economics and they are about anything else that isn't football.

Yet Paint can't point to anything specific and what Paint said in that post didn't address anything I said. Does Paint get it now?

Paint is tired of people starting a thread who believe they know what they are talking about, when they don't.

Yet in post after post on said thread, Paint can't say why exactly it's wrong. Paint can only quote paraphrases demonstrating Paint's lack of knowledge of the English language and make sweeping statements. kaz was specific in the post for idiots like Paint who don't know what capitalism and socialism are. Maybe Paint could man up to the argument and stop his normal spamfest for all the threads Paint is in. Does Paint get it now?

Paint is on my ignore list for consistently posting wrong, ignorant, insulting and stupid crap. He is a waste of time.

 

[kaz]

The US is also a "Mixed Economy".

kaz
Why no link to the source?

Source? She pulled it from her ass...

Liberals like link wars, you don't like content. And stop staring at my ass.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Where did I say "life sucks?" I can't find that part

Socialism is "evil" in your mind but life under it doesn't suck? You really don't think this through now do you?

When you quoted "evil" that was a lie because you stated I used that term. Please be honest in the future and learn what quoting means.

I put it in quotes in this case to show that you didn't, meaning you didn't say that but you might as well have. It works both ways.

No, that is paraphrasing, you don't put quote marks around paraphrasing. You quote when it's my actual words. Since you obviously don't know basic English, stop being a bitch and Google it.

I am well of how it works. The quotes were used to set the word apart from the rest. I did not paraphrase or say "and as you like to say it's "evil". That would have been quoting you. When I say Americans believe themselves to "Christians", it means that they are not. When I say that you believe you have an understanding of "economics" it means that you do not.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Paint gets defensive----forgive him

Paint gets pissed off at Americans who are as clueless about economics and they are about anything else that isn't football.

Yet Paint can't point to anything specific and what Paint said in that post didn't address anything I said. Does Paint get it now?

Paint is tired of people starting a thread who believe they know what they are talking about, when they don't.

Yet in post after post on said thread, Paint can't say why exactly it's wrong. Paint can only quote paraphrases demonstrating Paint's lack of knowledge of the English language and make sweeping statements. kaz was specific in the post for idiots like Paint who don't know what capitalism and socialism are. Maybe Paint could man up to the argument and stop his normal spamfest for all the threads Paint is in. Does Paint get it now?

Paint is on my ignore list for consistently posting wrong, ignorant, insulting and stupid crap. He is a waste of time.

Little bunnies should run away, that's what they do when predators appear. I use fluffy bunnies to wipe my ass.

 

[Nosmo King]

There are aspects of Socialism that augment and safeguard the citizens without hampering Capitalism. That's what makes arguments against Socialism, like yours which presents either Communism (state control of industry) and Fascism (government directives to industry concerning production) utterly moot.

What "aspects" would those be? There really arent any, or many.

Social Security allows some measure of dignity and sustainabity in retirement, as does Medicare. Most of our citizens living in poverty are children, so WIC helps those who cannot help themselves. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome is the goal so Affirmative Action which permits groups without the social network of the majority find opportunities in higher education.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are aspects of Socialism that augment and safeguard the citizens without hampering Capitalism. That's what makes arguments against Socialism, like yours which presents either Communism (state control of industry) and Fascism (government directives to industry concerning production) utterly moot.

What "aspects" would those be? There really arent any, or many.

Social Security allows some measure of dignity and sustainabity in retirement, as does Medicare. Most of our citizens living in poverty are children, so WIC helps those who cannot help themselves. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome is the goal so Affirmative Action which permits groups without the social network of the majority find opportunities in higher education.

Yeah OK.
Social Security robs people from one generation and delivers meager subsistence to another. People would be much better off if they could take their deductions and cost average into mutual funds.
Medicare is an enormous expensive scam that has driven medical costs sky high for everyone.
WIC is a payoff to big agriculture. We would do better just giving cash payments to people truly in need and letting them buy the groceries they want.
Affirmative action means forcing companies and schools to hire or admit less qualified minorities, who often go on to failure.
So every program you've named has basically had the opposite effect of whatever its stated intent was. People would have been better off without all of them, taking advantage of free market alternatives.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Let's try and track this back from the Capitalism = Good, all other systems = Bad: Economic systems

It won't take you long to read it, so do.

 

[Moonglow]

capitalism is great until monopolies arise and kill small business...

 

[Nosmo King]

There are aspects of Socialism that augment and safeguard the citizens without hampering Capitalism. That's what makes arguments against Socialism, like yours which presents either Communism (state control of industry) and Fascism (government directives to industry concerning production) utterly moot.

What "aspects" would those be? There really arent any, or many.

Social Security allows some measure of dignity and sustainabity in retirement, as does Medicare. Most of our citizens living in poverty are children, so WIC helps those who cannot help themselves. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome is the goal so Affirmative Action which permits groups without the social network of the majority find opportunities in higher education.

Yeah OK.
Social Security robs people from one generation and delivers meager subsistence to another. People would be much better off if they could take their deductions and cost average into mutual funds.
Medicare is an enormous expensive scam that has driven medical costs sky high for everyone.
WIC is a payoff to big agriculture. We would do better just giving cash payments to people truly in need and letting them buy the groceries they want.
Affirmative action means forcing companies and schools to hire or admit less qualified minorities, who often go on to failure.
So every program you've named has basically had the opposite effect of whatever its stated intent was. People would have been better off without all of them, taking advantage of free market alternatives.

Your solution omits one crucial fact. Most people are stuck in low wage jobs because the wealthy job creators want more for themselves than the larger community. Without disposable income, folks spend on sustenance and do not have the means to enter the mutual fund world of the Hamptons and Beverley Hills.

 

[The Rabbi]

capitalism is great until monopolies arise and kill small business...

Which doesnt happen.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are aspects of Socialism that augment and safeguard the citizens without hampering Capitalism. That's what makes arguments against Socialism, like yours which presents either Communism (state control of industry) and Fascism (government directives to industry concerning production) utterly moot.

What "aspects" would those be? There really arent any, or many.

Social Security allows some measure of dignity and sustainabity in retirement, as does Medicare. Most of our citizens living in poverty are children, so WIC helps those who cannot help themselves. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome is the goal so Affirmative Action which permits groups without the social network of the majority find opportunities in higher education.

Yeah OK.
Social Security robs people from one generation and delivers meager subsistence to another. People would be much better off if they could take their deductions and cost average into mutual funds.
Medicare is an enormous expensive scam that has driven medical costs sky high for everyone.
WIC is a payoff to big agriculture. We would do better just giving cash payments to people truly in need and letting them buy the groceries they want.
Affirmative action means forcing companies and schools to hire or admit less qualified minorities, who often go on to failure.
So every program you've named has basically had the opposite effect of whatever its stated intent was. People would have been better off without all of them, taking advantage of free market alternatives.

Your solution omits one crucial fact. Most people are stuck in low wage jobs because the wealthy job creators want more for themselves than the larger community. Without disposable income, folks spend on sustenance and do not have the means to enter the mutual fund world of the Hamptons and Beverley Hills.

I dont know what solution you're referring to.
Show me someone with a W2 job who is not paying into Social Security. Only people at the very top are exempt from it.

 

[Moonglow]

capitalism is great until monopolies arise and kill small business...

Which doesnt happen.

sure buddy, sure....and there is no such thing as a hostile takeover...

 

[Nosmo King]

There are aspects of Socialism that augment and safeguard the citizens without hampering Capitalism. That's what makes arguments against Socialism, like yours which presents either Communism (state control of industry) and Fascism (government directives to industry concerning production) utterly moot.

What "aspects" would those be? There really arent any, or many.

Social Security allows some measure of dignity and sustainabity in retirement, as does Medicare. Most of our citizens living in poverty are children, so WIC helps those who cannot help themselves. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome is the goal so Affirmative Action which permits groups without the social network of the majority find opportunities in higher education.

Yeah OK.
Social Security robs people from one generation and delivers meager subsistence to another. People would be much better off if they could take their deductions and cost average into mutual funds.
Medicare is an enormous expensive scam that has driven medical costs sky high for everyone.
WIC is a payoff to big agriculture. We would do better just giving cash payments to people truly in need and letting them buy the groceries they want.
Affirmative action means forcing companies and schools to hire or admit less qualified minorities, who often go on to failure.
So every program you've named has basically had the opposite effect of whatever its stated intent was. People would have been better off without all of them, taking advantage of free market alternatives.

Your solution omits one crucial fact. Most people are stuck in low wage jobs because the wealthy job creators want more for themselves than the larger community. Without disposable income, folks spend on sustenance and do not have the means to enter the mutual fund world of the Hamptons and Beverley Hills.

I dont know what solution you're referring to.
Show me someone with a W2 job who is not paying into Social Security. Only people at the very top are exempt from it.

Here

There are aspects of Socialism that augment and safeguard the citizens without hampering Capitalism. That's what makes arguments against Socialism, like yours which presents either Communism (state control of industry) and Fascism (government directives to industry concerning production) utterly moot.

What "aspects" would those be? There really arent any, or many.

Social Security allows some measure of dignity and sustainabity in retirement, as does Medicare. Most of our citizens living in poverty are children, so WIC helps those who cannot help themselves. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome is the goal so Affirmative Action which permits groups without the social network of the majority find opportunities in higher education.

Yeah OK.
Social Security robs people from one generation and delivers meager subsistence to another. People would be much better off if they could take their deductions and cost average into mutual funds.
Medicare is an enormous expensive scam that has driven medical costs sky high for everyone.
WIC is a payoff to big agriculture. We would do better just giving cash payments to people truly in need and letting them buy the groceries they want.
Affirmative action means forcing companies and schools to hire or admit less qualified minorities, who often go on to failure.
So every program you've named has basically had the opposite effect of whatever its stated intent was. People would have been better off without all of them, taking advantage of free market alternatives.

Your solution omits one crucial fact. Most people are stuck in low wage jobs because the wealthy job creators want more for themselves than the larger community. Without disposable income, folks spend on sustenance and do not have the means to enter the mutual fund world of the Hamptons and Beverley Hills.

I dont know what solution you're referring to.
Show me someone with a W2 job who is not paying into Social Security. Only people at the very top are exempt from it.

I have a job. I file taxes. I do not contribute to Social Security. I am not at the very top.

 

[Coyote]

In a nutshell: pure capitalism is an economic system with no moral compass and a view of workers as nothing more than machinary, pure socialism is an economic system with no individual incentives to do better, improve productivity or create something new.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

Different ways of going for shares of the same pie.

One based on ambition, another on envy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

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. Like all human systems no system is perfect, which you would understand if you actually understood the fucking things, which none of you do!

And it's not a pie, since that has limits and it doesn't. Wealth can create even more wealth. Economic activity can create even more economic activity. It's not a zero-sum game but you don't know what the fuck is either now do you my little morons? You have no idea why spreading the wealth actually makes more wealth, you've just been told that's a bad thing and in reality it's not a bad thing at all. When you don't do that, that's when your economy collapses, but you also don't know why that happens either now do you?

 

[AceRothstein]

 

[The Rabbi]

What "aspects" would those be? There really arent any, or many.

Social Security allows some measure of dignity and sustainabity in retirement, as does Medicare. Most of our citizens living in poverty are children, so WIC helps those who cannot help themselves. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome is the goal so Affirmative Action which permits groups without the social network of the majority find opportunities in higher education.

Yeah OK.
Social Security robs people from one generation and delivers meager subsistence to another. People would be much better off if they could take their deductions and cost average into mutual funds.
Medicare is an enormous expensive scam that has driven medical costs sky high for everyone.
WIC is a payoff to big agriculture. We would do better just giving cash payments to people truly in need and letting them buy the groceries they want.
Affirmative action means forcing companies and schools to hire or admit less qualified minorities, who often go on to failure.
So every program you've named has basically had the opposite effect of whatever its stated intent was. People would have been better off without all of them, taking advantage of free market alternatives.

Your solution omits one crucial fact. Most people are stuck in low wage jobs because the wealthy job creators want more for themselves than the larger community. Without disposable income, folks spend on sustenance and do not have the means to enter the mutual fund world of the Hamptons and Beverley Hills.

I dont know what solution you're referring to.
Show me someone with a W2 job who is not paying into Social Security. Only people at the very top are exempt from it.

Here

What "aspects" would those be? There really arent any, or many.

Social Security allows some measure of dignity and sustainabity in retirement, as does Medicare. Most of our citizens living in poverty are children, so WIC helps those who cannot help themselves. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome is the goal so Affirmative Action which permits groups without the social network of the majority find opportunities in higher education.

Yeah OK.
Social Security robs people from one generation and delivers meager subsistence to another. People would be much better off if they could take their deductions and cost average into mutual funds.
Medicare is an enormous expensive scam that has driven medical costs sky high for everyone.
WIC is a payoff to big agriculture. We would do better just giving cash payments to people truly in need and letting them buy the groceries they want.
Affirmative action means forcing companies and schools to hire or admit less qualified minorities, who often go on to failure.
So every program you've named has basically had the opposite effect of whatever its stated intent was. People would have been better off without all of them, taking advantage of free market alternatives.

Your solution omits one crucial fact. Most people are stuck in low wage jobs because the wealthy job creators want more for themselves than the larger community. Without disposable income, folks spend on sustenance and do not have the means to enter the mutual fund world of the Hamptons and Beverley Hills.

I dont know what solution you're referring to.
Show me someone with a W2 job who is not paying into Social Security. Only people at the very top are exempt from it.

I have a job. I file taxes. I do not contribute to Social Security. I am not at the very top.

Kewl story, bro.

 

[Edgetho]

The reason there is no standard definition of 'socialism' is really quite simple....

There has never been a successful socialist economy.

Capitalism defined is fairly easy because we have shining examples of it all over the World.

Free Market Capitalism is too often confused with 17th, 18th and 19th Century State-Sponsored Corporatism.

The two aren't related in any way. None at all, really.

For idiot 'socialists' living in the past, they make comparisons of today's modern Free Market Capitalism based on 17th Century Corporatism. Which is idiotic..... But, then again, so is socialism.

It doesn't work.

Ever been to Sweden? I have.

It does suck. It really does. (when I was there 20 years ago) An entire Country filled with depressed, suicidal Citizens who can only hide their unhappiness through heavy doses of alcohol and Janteloven.

But at least the Swedes realized their mistakes and are trying to work themselves out of them.

Right now, Sweden is considered far more business-start-up-friendly than the United States and is real close in the ease of doing business.

Ranking of economies - Doing Business - World Bank Group

socialism sucks. It has failed in every instance it has ever been tried

 

[The Rabbi]

In a nutshell: pure capitalism is an economic system with no moral compass and a view of workers as nothing more than machinary, pure socialism is an economic system with no individual incentives to do better, improve productivity or create something new.

Well no.
No economic system has a moral compass. People have a moral compass.
Capitalism produces opportunities for people to do better for themselves, and in doing so they do better for others as well.
Socialism produces opportunities for poltiicians and bureaucrats to dole out favors to their friends,cronies, and supporters.
Socialism fails every single time. Capitalism succeeds every single time.