This reply has been removed.
Elements of socialism, I think, are necessary. You could argue that having a police force is socialism. That fire departments are socialism. We must have socialist functions to protect the rights of the people. If we determine that health is a basic human right, then socialized health care would be necessary.
However, when it comes to places where efficiency is required, I think socialism is very bad. Socialism in business decreases competition, and therefore decreases efficiency and discourages excellence and advancement. Research would come to a standstill.
That is my short answer. My long answer is longer.
Certain words just bring out certain images in people. These are branded and are hard to “unbrand”.
Also there seems to be some confusion about the difference between socialism and national socialism.
Nothing. It’s just American Media blowing it out of proportion with their over-hyped democracy propaganda.
There is nothing wrong with it. Old, cranky republicans complain about it because they think that giving to the poor (gasp!) is a terrible thing and will lead to dictatorships. In ideal capitalism, the hard workers succeed, while the lazy ones fail. In true capitalism, the hard-working working class fails, and the rich, lazy corporate ******** succeed.
Well, not quite. In true capitalism, jobs that can only be occupied by few pay a lot. Could you be the CEO of a major company? Do you know anyone who could? Didn’t think so.
In order to get a CEO to work for them, they have to offer very high salaries.
It’s not how hard you work, it is how valuable you are. And CEOs are very rare and thus very valuable.
A lot of times, rich people get rich because of inheritance. MIA, do you know what socialism actually is? No fair looking it up now.
*Sigh*
Please, PLEASE don’t be condescending to me. Trust me, you don’t want to.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
*Sigh*
Please, PLEASE don’t be condescending to me. Trust me, you don’t want to.
lol
But the same applies to you.
Looking back, I suppose so.
Sorry about that. Got a bit carried away. I couldn’t be a CEO, that’s for sure.
Just posting so that this will actually register on my notices.
And to stir up the pot. People are “accusing” people of having socialistic views/policies/etc. (Obama comes to mind) Why is this phrased and treated the same way as “accusing” someone of committing a crime?
1. No competition: all classes of people have exactly the same wealth. Therefore, there is really no need to work harder than another. If one person carries more of the burden, or more responsibility - like a manager of a plant, or the head of a business - there is really no incentive to carry the needs of that particular position to its peak level.
2. Someone always takes over. There is a pinnacle; a peak representative of the society willing to bear the “brunt” of the blows for the “good of society.” In other words, it turns into a dictatorship very quickly. When the government is in charge, there’s no stopping the government’s control.
3. It has not worked anywhere it has been tried. The Soviet Union; Cuba; Communist China; North Korea; Vietnam - not one of these countries has succeeded without millions of deaths, outrageous numbers of starving citizens, or they just haven’t succeeded at all.
There is nothing wrong with socialism. But saying what is wrong with socialism without defining what you mean by socialism is hard. I suspect its the selfish terror that we may all be accounted for our actions or be responsible for others
MJF, I’m not defining it because I’m curious to see how others define it. That, and I don’t feel like watching people try to argue with me over the meaning of the word.
Fallen, you’re talking about Communism, not Socialism. True Socialism has never been reached, to my knowledge, as it never gets passed the Communism stage.
That being said, how do you feel about it, not as the presiding form of government, but in the cases like I mentioned? (Free health care being the easiest and most obvious example.) This has not only been tried, but last time I checked, most countries were using this system.
idk i was raised in a sick socialistopia so i wouldn’t know about the real socialism… i guess if the persons in charge were’nt so dumb it’d be owesome though…. i just hope i don’t get kidnapped for saying this here.
Health Care!!! ***rolls eyes***
If you want what Canada has, you don’t know what you are asking for. Canadian health care is government funded (actually by taxes). The local hospital used to provide full care and has now been reduced to what some call a band-aid clinic. It is very hard to keep doctors here because of that. We don’t even have a family doctor because about the time you learn to know one, he’s moving on. My daughter almost died at birth because some breathing apparatus they tried to use on her was put together wrong (lack of proper equipment). I also had a friend who broke his arm. He had to drive 4 hours to the nearest hospital that would take him in and still had to wait (in pain) 24 hours till a doctor saw him. Another friend who had his finger nearly severed had to drive 3 hours to a doctor that could deal with it. And we used to have a fully funtional hospital right here in town!!!!!!!!!
Socialistic health care? Ka-BOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave, you’d do well as to not assume to know my position in this until I share it, thank you.
Yoda wrote:
EVERYTHING….
LOL!
C’mon, Xeno! I would love to hear your opinion!!
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Dave, you’d do well as to not assume to know my position in this until I share it, thank you.
I said “IF that’s what you want” I didn’t say that is what you want.
I was just sharing what I’ve seen from my view point.
You will, Fallen. But I’m not ready for this to turn into an argument post just yet.
Well, in my mind, socialism is more of a category than a specific system.
Basically it is the idea that instead of the market controlling the questions of an economic system (What will be made? For whom will it be made? How will it be made? etc), the government does. It basically means, in a purely socialistic government, that the government gives a bakery, for example, flour and sugar and all of the ingredients it needs, demands a monthly quota of baked goods be made, and then gives those baked goods to the people it thinks needs them. Now, obviously this can’t be pure, so a currency may be distributed to give the people more choice. In this situation, the bakers are paid a certain amount, the price level for the goods are set, and they are up for purchase.
The trouble here is, supply and demand are interfered with. How can you be sure that people would want to be bakers if it is harder to be one than, say, a cashier, and you get paid the same?
It’s also ridiculously inefficient. If a baker doesn’t have to compete, why make quality goods? Why give good customer service? Why develop new and exciting pastries?
Socialism is a wonderful notion, but would never work out. It is too inefficient and everyone loses, in the end.
there is nothing wrong with it ,its only the people who think they know all the Answers what may think different.Socialism,true Socialism rewards the hard working People to .Not in our Society where the Bank Manager can get a $30 mill. wages a year and the worker gets just enough to feed his Family.Imagine a Country like China Having the American or European way of Life ! You need to build ten times more Jails for a Start Companies would go broke left and right because our CEO needs to get overpaid and under worked .I could write all day about socialism bet Thing write to your President to come whatever he may be…
Anonymous
#
1 year ago (1 hour, 3 minutes after post)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.
Look at it now…………………….
In BC Canada we have a system of auto insurance that was originally set by the Government and it works very well. If it works don’t try to fix it.
Most developed countries have socialized medicine and most of them work better than the US system. You have to compare the details of each system to see what will work best.
I’m in favour of regulated capitalism with some socialized subsystems.
I’m not going to say much about Mr Obama because I try not to get too emotionally involved in US politics… but in the UK we are currently run by a socialist Labour party, headed by the ever so lovely Gordon Brown…. BLECH… I’m sort of, wishy washy in my opinions. We have free health care in the UK provided by the NHS but I have major quiffs with the free service. Yes, prescriptions are free but the waiting lists are god awful. To see a doctor I now have to wait for a week and a half for an appointment with a general practitioner. That’s LONG. I have been waiting now to see an endocrinologist for five months and I still have another month to go. See, with institutions like the NHS which fall under socialistic ideals, there’s no motivation for the doctors. There’s no drive for them to provide a better service because they’re not paid a decent enough salary IMO. Whereas with privatisation (not that I don’t have firsthand experience… I’m too poor…) the doctors have an incentive to work hard and provide the best health care and they have room to expand. With the NHS there’s an ever looming ceiling of potential hanging over their heads. Anyway, I’m straying from the point. I don’t see a fault in the ideologies of socialism… it works for the most part in the UK. But you get problems like I have mentioned, you become a welfare state, reward lazy gits for not working, etc etc.
Wow… that was a long post.
Xeno Dragon wrote:
You will, Fallen. But I’m not ready for this to turn into an argument post just yet.
Ooo! An argument?! So many hints!
And who said anything about any arguing?? O:) Lol!
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
It’s also ridiculously inefficient. If a baker doesn’t have to compete, why make quality goods? Why give good customer service? Why develop new and exciting pastries?
Socialism is a wonderful notion, but would never work out. It is too inefficient and everyone loses, in the end.
That’s what I’m trying to convey in my post… and why I believe socialism doesn’t ultimately work.
When the government gives .8 trillion dollars to the banks, that’s called socialism. So or not so?
no not like Robin Hood, at least he gave back to the Poor.But here the rich get rewarded..
Anonymous wrote:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.
Look at it now…………………….
Learn the difference between Communism and Socialism, friend.
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.Look at it now…………………….
Learn the difference between Communism and Socialism, friend.
I find that sometimes the difference between communism and socialism can be vague. I think that Communism is a type of Socialism, but I’m not sure about it, and please don’t quote me on that.
I like a Republic/Democracy
The people should have an impact on government and be under a free electoral system where the vote counts and the candidates are not bought off.
Anonymous
#
1 year ago (1 hour, 25 minutes after post)
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.Look at it now…………………….
Learn the difference between Communism and Socialism, friend.
SOCIALIST Rebublic!!!!!! It had strong elements of socialism and it did NOT work.
Anonymous wrote:
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.Look at it now…………………….
Learn the difference between Communism and Socialism, friend.
SOCIALIST Rebublic!!!!!! It had strong elements of socialism and it did NOT work.
You haven’t read Marx’s book, have you?
SoulRising wrote:
I like a Republic/Democracy
The people should have an impact on government and be under a free electoral system where the vote counts and the candidates are not bought off.
If only every vote were counted.
Well, political and economic systems are different. Aren’t we talking economies, not governments?
The labels of socialism, communism or capitalism don’t realy work any more.
We have to see the economy as a mathematical model of the flow of value through our societies. At this time we should be changing the models (both national and international) in directions that will lead us towards solutions to the obvious problems. The obvious problems are things like: The increasing gap between rich and poor. Child poverty. War. etc.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
Well, political and economic systems are different. Aren’t we talking economies, not governments?
Wherever people want to take it.
It’s my opinion that as a whole all large scale social engineering projects are destined to fail in the end. We have never come within a realistic measure of Utopia and I don’t think we ever will. It’s very easy to pick one side of the fence or the other regarding ’socialism vs capitalism’ and point out previous failures on both their parts (of which there are many on either side) that is if it is possible to distinguish between the failure of the idealistic system and the failure of the administration of the system. That said I think that most users on help.com live in hybrid systems, where they live in a government regulated capitalist system with social institutions so I guess it’s hard for anyone to properly judge what it’s like to live under either system.
Anyways to answer the question: I’m a little baffled as to why it would be a bad thing to be called socialist, it’s not a word generaly used politicaly in the UK (well, except by the socialist party.) I think anyone who has a true grasp of what socialism and capitalism are, both academicaly and historicaly would find a great many things both good and bad to say about both of them. Beyond that it’s all a matter of personal opinion, personaly I veer toward thinking socialism is the better system - but what do I know? Like I said I’ve never truly experienced either.
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.Look at it now…………………….
Learn the difference between Communism and Socialism, friend.
SOCIALIST Rebublic!!!!!! It had strong elements of socialism and it did NOT work.
You haven’t read Marx’s book, have you?
Karl Marx did not write that book Xeno Dragon, the concept was written by a man named Clinton Rosevelt and he sent it to Fredrick Engles (the clerk of a banker) in Austria it was a plan to take over a nation = how the “bank” system could rule the nation. It became the communist manifesto. They had to find somebody who had a collegic background to put the name on as an author and Karl Marx in England fit the bill, and he was not connected to the banks at the time. He took credit for this and was given credit for it from the media and in the public schools.
Well. Forgive me for reading the name off the book’s cover.
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Well. Forgive me for reading the name off the book’s cover.
It is the truth you just have been informed of it:) my friend, Xeno Dragon.
This is becoming an ego game, driven by hormones. I look at this in an objective problem solving mode.
socialism is a tenet of communism
jimreeve wrote:
This is becoming an ego game, driven by hormones. I look at this in an objective problem solving mode.
Socialism does not solve anything for the pigeons just the egalitarian society:)
jimreeve wrote:
This is becoming an ego game, driven by hormones. I look at this in an objective problem solving mode.
You’re welcome to contribute, comment, ignore, or simply observe.
SoulRising, do you believe in capitalism?
✰DeadCandy wrote:
SoulRising, do you believe in capitalism?
I believe in free enterprize.
Capitalism (is the whipping boy) it is doublespeak for greed and takes the blame off socialism. It is a form of enterprise but it is not quite free enterprise.
The GDP is merely a gross tally of products and services bought and sold, with no distinctions between transactions that add to well being, and those that deminish it.
The GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) is a new measure of the economic well being of a nation.
SoulRising wrote:
✰DeadCandy wrote:
SoulRising, do you believe in capitalism?
I believe in free enterprize.Capitalism (is the whipping boy) it is doublespeak for greed and takes the blame off socialism. It is a form of enterprise but it is not quite free enterprise.
I disagree. capitalism is capitalism. Greed is greed. Greed is when the greedy distort capitalism, and I believe greed is when capitalism weakens. When we lose pure capitalism is when the greed of the rich is quenched.
SoulRising wrote:
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.Look at it now…………………….
Learn the difference between Communism and Socialism, friend.
SOCIALIST Rebublic!!!!!! It had strong elements of socialism and it did NOT work.
You haven’t read Marx’s book, have you?
Karl Marx did not write that book Xeno Dragon, the concept was written by a man named Clinton Rosevelt and he sent it to Fredrick Engles (the clerk of a banker) in Austria it was a plan to take over a nation = how the “bank” system could rule the nation. It became the communist manifesto. They had to find somebody who had a collegic background to put the name on as an author and Karl Marx in England fit the bill, and he was not connected to the banks at the time. He took credit for this and was given credit for it from the media and in the public schools.
That is spelled Clinton Roosevelt, as you will see he later regretted what he had done.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
SoulRising wrote:
✰DeadCandy wrote:
SoulRising, do you believe in capitalism?
I believe in free enterprize.Capitalism (is the whipping boy) it is doublespeak for greed and takes the blame off socialism. It is a form of enterprise but it is not quite free enterprise.
I disagree. capitalism is capitalism. Greed is greed. Greed is when the greedy distort capitalism, and I believe greed is when capitalism weakens. When we lose pure capitalism is when the greed of the rich is quenched.
Free enterprize = it is free to enter and win the prize:)
Capitalism = Capital is under control of the few greedy:), “madam, I’m Adam”
SoulRising wrote:
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
SoulRising wrote:
✰DeadCandy wrote:
SoulRising, do you believe in capitalism?
I believe in free enterprize.Capitalism (is the whipping boy) it is doublespeak for greed and takes the blame off socialism. It is a form of enterprise but it is not quite free enterprise.
I disagree. capitalism is capitalism. Greed is greed. Greed is when the greedy distort capitalism, and I believe greed is when capitalism weakens. When we lose pure capitalism is when the greed of the rich is quenched.
Free enterprize = it is free to enter and win the prize:)Capitalism = Capital is under control of the few greedy:), “madam, I’m Adam”
You are distorting the word Capitalism just as Socialism is distorted.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
SoulRising wrote:
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
SoulRising wrote:
✰DeadCandy wrote:
SoulRising, do you believe in capitalism?
I believe in free enterprize.Capitalism (is the whipping boy) it is doublespeak for greed and takes the blame off socialism. It is a form of enterprise but it is not quite free enterprise.
I disagree. capitalism is capitalism. Greed is greed. Greed is when the greedy distort capitalism, and I believe greed is when capitalism weakens. When we lose pure capitalism is when the greed of the rich is quenched.
Free enterprize = it is free to enter and win the prize:)Capitalism = Capital is under control of the few greedy:), “madam, I’m Adam”
You are distorting the word Capitalism just as Socialism is distorted.
No you are distorting my words, “Madam, I’m Adam” I do not believe we play on the same team:)
I really have no idea if you are kidding or not.
Capitalism is having the factors of production controlled by the market. It is either the market, the government, or a traditional system. Capitalism is not greed, it is freedom. It runs on natural laws intrinsic to human nature.
How is selling short different from gambling and why isn’t it banned.
Actually, Xeno, true Communism has never been implemented either.
No thing that people make has ever been perfect or will ever be perfect.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
I really have no idea if you are kidding or not.
Capitalism is having the factors of production controlled by the market. It is either the market, the government, or a traditional system. Capitalism is not greed, it is freedom. It runs on natural laws intrinsic to human nature.
Natural laws LMFAO:) You are joking:)!!!!!!!!!!!
Traditional system Are you talking about the “Federal Reserve System” LMAO:)
The economy is just an artifact, something that humans made. We made it and we can fix it.
Before we can begin redesigning the economy though, we need to decide what is wrong with it.
Replace the concept of “Externalities” with the concept of “Natural Capital”.
Vilén wrote:
Actually, Xeno, true Communism has never been implemented either.
Vilen this is so true:) Communism is a dream in a perfect world. The nearest approach to the bee swarm is found in socialism or communism:) The only difference is a variation of viewpoint as to what tactics and procedures should be used to bring it about.
Up until 1917, the words “socialism” and “communism” were used as synonymous and interchangeable terms. But incident to the Russian Revolution, they began to be used to distinguish between the Second International and the Third International. “Marx” misinterpreted the trend. He mistook the new tool of freedom as being tools of further oppression. He contended that capitalism, under the Machine Age, would devour an increasing share of the wealth and that the workingman would be reduced to pitiable destitution (America today).
jimreeve wrote:
How is selling short different from gambling and why isn’t it banned.
Why is investing in the economy different from gambling and why isn’t it banned? Oh wait…
SoulRising wrote:
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
I really have no idea if you are kidding or not.
Capitalism is having the factors of production controlled by the market. It is either the market, the government, or a traditional system. Capitalism is not greed, it is freedom. It runs on natural laws intrinsic to human nature.
Natural laws LMFAO:) You are joking:)!!!!!!!!!!!
Traditional system Are you talking about the “Federal Reserve System” LMAO:)
You MUST be joking. You can’t actually believe that capitalism is the rich winning out.
Capitalism is about the freedom to take risks. The freedom to price how you will– to aim short but safe or high but risky.
Capitalism is about competition. What system do you suggest, soul?
Labels like capitalism, socialism and communism are no longer relevent.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
jimreeve wrote:
How is selling short different from gambling and why isn’t it banned.
Why is investing in the economy different from gambling and why isn’t it banned? Oh wait…
SoulRising wrote:
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
I really have no idea if you are kidding or not.
Capitalism is having the factors of production controlled by the market. It is either the market, the government, or a traditional system. Capitalism is not greed, it is freedom. It runs on natural laws intrinsic to human nature.
Natural laws LMFAO:) You are joking:)!!!!!!!!!!!
Traditional system Are you talking about the “Federal Reserve System” LMAO:)
You MUST be joking. You can’t actually believe that capitalism is the rich winning out.
Capitalism is about the freedom to take risks. The freedom to price how you will– to aim short but safe or high but risky.
Capitalism is about competition. What system do you suggest, soul?
“Marx” misinterpreted the trend. He mistook the new tool of freedom as being tools of further oppression. He contended that capitalism, under the Machine Age, would devour an increasing share of the wealth and that the workingman would be reduced to pitiable destitution (America today).
Hmm…So what would you suggest?
As I said before, rarity of a commodity, even if that commodity is man hours, increases the price. Therefore, the jobs that can be filled by few must pay more.
Altering capitalism only results in a new, different forum of oppression, and makes everything so inefficient it’s ridiculous. When we find a fountain that spits out anything we need and does all of our work for us, then Socialism will work out. Until then, we have to do the work and the only fair way to distribute the goods and therefore the money is using supply and demand, bringing us back to the necessity of higher wages for CEOs.
Unless you have a solution that makes sure that goods are produced in an efficient way, and distributed equally to all.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
Hmm…So what would you suggest?
As I said before, rarity of a commodity, even if that commodity is man hours, increases the price. Therefore, the jobs that can be filled by few must pay more.
Altering capitalism only results in a new, different forum of oppression, and makes everything so inefficient it’s ridiculous. When we find a fountain that spits out anything we need and does all of our work for us, then Socialism will work out. Until then, we have to do the work and the only fair way to distribute the goods and therefore the money is using supply and demand, bringing us back to the necessity of higher wages for CEOs.
Unless you have a solution that makes sure that goods are produced in an efficient way, and distributed equally to all.
In proportion as capital is accumulated, the absolute share of the total production going to the capitalist increases, and the proportional share going to the capitalist decreases; both the absolute and proportional share of the total production going to the laborers increases. The reverse of this happens when capital is decreased.
Frederic Bastiat
It is a program of inducing capitalism to commit suicide, then stepping in and taking things over.
So if I understood that correctly, when the GDP goes up, the laborers win out? Interesting. Back in half an hour.
SoulRising wrote:
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
Hmm…So what would you suggest?
As I said before, rarity of a commodity, even if that commodity is man hours, increases the price. Therefore, the jobs that can be filled by few must pay more.
Altering capitalism only results in a new, different forum of oppression, and makes everything so inefficient it’s ridiculous. When we find a fountain that spits out anything we need and does all of our work for us, then Socialism will work out. Until then, we have to do the work and the only fair way to distribute the goods and therefore the money is using supply and demand, bringing us back to the necessity of higher wages for CEOs.
Unless you have a solution that makes sure that goods are produced in an efficient way, and distributed equally to all.
In proportion as capital is accumulated, the absolute share of the total production going to the capitalist increases, and the proportional share going to the capitalist decreases; both the absolute and proportional share of the total production going to the laborers increases. The reverse of this happens when capital is decreased.
Frederic Bastiat
It is a program of inducing capitalism to commit suicide, then stepping in and taking things over.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
So if I understood that correctly, when the GDP goes up, the laborers win out? Interesting. Back in half an hour.
Over time the laborers back breaks because of the disproportionate increase, again I believe we do not bat for the same team:)
SoulRising wrote:
SoulRising wrote:
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
Hmm…So what would you suggest?
As I said before, rarity of a commodity, even if that commodity is man hours, increases the price. Therefore, the jobs that can be filled by few must pay more.
Altering capitalism only results in a new, different forum of oppression, and makes everything so inefficient it’s ridiculous. When we find a fountain that spits out anything we need and does all of our work for us, then Socialism will work out. Until then, we have to do the work and the only fair way to distribute the goods and therefore the money is using supply and demand, bringing us back to the necessity of higher wages for CEOs.
Unless you have a solution that makes sure that goods are produced in an efficient way, and distributed equally to all.
In proportion as capital is accumulated, the absolute share of the total production going to the capitalist increases, and the proportional share going to the capitalist decreases; both the absolute and proportional share of the total production going to the laborers increases. The reverse of this happens when capital is decreased.
Frederic Bastiat
It is a program of inducing capitalism to commit suicide, then stepping in and taking things over.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
So if I understood that correctly, when the GDP goes up, the laborers win out? Interesting. Back in half an hour.
Over time the laborers back breaks because of the disproportionate increase, again I believe we do not bat for the same team:)
Just to clarify It is a program of inducing capitalism to commit suicide, then stepping in and taking things over (example: Larger banks buying up smaller banks for pennies on the dollar).
MIA, I don’t mean to be condescending, but have you never seen a poor or homeless person?
Do you know what the unemployment and homelessness rate in the USSR was? 0%. Now the USSR wasn’t perfect - don’t start taking cheap shots at me now. But in Russia today, poverty and homelessness are abundant.
Anonymous
#
1 year ago (3 hours, 43 minutes after post)
A bum is called a bum because he’s a bum. People that don’t work don’t deserve to have everything paid for. Lots of rich people are rich because they worked HARD, and spent carefully. The average American could be debt free and living just as well or better if he didn’t use credit. Save everything you pay in interest. Just takes a little longer to get things but better off in the end.
I understand disability is a different issue. I’m not referring to that.
Vilén wrote:
MIA, I don’t mean to be condescending, but have you never seen a poor or homeless person?
Do you know what the unemployment and homelessness rate in the USSR was? 0%. Now the USSR wasn’t perfect - don’t start taking cheap shots at me now. But in Russia today, poverty and homelessness are abundant.
Right on the money, I haven’t seen a poor or homeless person before.
Look, I’m not promoting pure capitalism in every facet of the government. I’m for universal health care(although one far different than the one currently proposed).
I am just saying that pure socialism is ridiculously inefficient and therefore doomed to collapse. Unworkable. The best thing for the economy as a whole is a free market.
SoulRising-You do not understand “selling short” as it is done in the futures market.
Here are some of my suggestions to fix the broken economic model we now have: Raise the minimum wage. Redefine the GDP to more accurately indicate reality.
Replace the concept of externalities with the concept of “Natural Capital”.
Take some of the tax off of profit and put it on carbon and other bad things.
Regulate the stock and money markets to prevent the reoccurrence of this present
down turn.
Stop worshipping “The Economy”. Stop practicing “The Ends Justifies the Means”
where the ends is the GDP. Stop listening to the economists.
(Line the Economists up against a wall and fire them all.)
I’m with you jimreeve .Give me a Gun ill do it for everybody’s sake
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
Vilén wrote:
MIA, I don’t mean to be condescending, but have you never seen a poor or homeless person?
Do you know what the unemployment and homelessness rate in the USSR was? 0%. Now the USSR wasn’t perfect - don’t start taking cheap shots at me now. But in Russia today, poverty and homelessness are abundant.
Right on the money, I haven’t seen a poor or homeless person before.
Look, I’m not promoting pure capitalism in every facet of the government. I’m for universal health care(although one far different than the one currently proposed).
I am just saying that pure socialism is ridiculously inefficient and therefore doomed to collapse. Unworkable. The best thing for the economy as a whole is a free market.
Gentlemen and Ladies:), you speak as if this situation in the USA economically is an accident. This is a system of the “banks”. All is quite predictable and has run it’s course. It has happened to other countries throughout history and America is the most recent example. America (Wall Street for the gullible public) is exactly where the system of the “banks” ends, dollar deflated, large “banks” acquiring small banks (with real American property) for pennies on the dollar (real wealth), as in history before with many countries. Socialism is then sold to the public as the solution (examples: Economy stimulus packages, 700 billion bailout, socialized health care…). Who pays for all this? The American people, with the deflated dollar (printed by the USA at no cost to the bank “Federal Reserve System”(is a bank system), it is then charged back to the American people at the cost of 6% interest. The debt is never paid off only interest, the citizens economy goes bust, Socialism/Communism is sold as the solution.
The trend Frederic Bastiat, a brilliant economist, predicted in the division of the national product is just what happened under increased capital formation in the free market of the USA. But “Marx” and his followers where laboring under the Old World delusion of a static economy. It was inconceivable to them that “changes” in the “techniques” of production would bring far-reaching changes in other directions. They believed industrial capitalism to be the natural forerunner of SOCIALISM; that to bring about the world millenium they must concentrate, first of all, on highly developed capitalistic countries-using the processes of attrition, boring from within, fomenting dissension and class hatred (blame the rich), and promoting collective measures (economy stimulus checks, 700+++++ billion bailout, national healthcare, the list will go on….) through existing government agencies.
No, I don’t believe we are converting to socialism at all. If this was handled correctly, it would be an investment in the economy more than anything else. Of course, it will not be handled correctly, but it isn’t the beginnings of a conversion to socialism.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
No, I don’t believe we are converting to socialism at all. If this was handled correctly, it would be an investment in the economy more than anything else. Of course, it will not be handled correctly, but it isn’t the beginnings of a conversion to socialism.
In all fairness:), COMMUNISM recognizes human equality and the brotherhood of man-in theory at least. But it fails to recognize the “real nature of man”. To a communist, individuals are merely cells of a larger organism-the tribe, the people, society, the mass, Spartans called is “Sparta”; the villagers of Dukhagin called it the “Law of Lek”; Hegel and Treitschke called it “the State”; Karl Marx called it “Economic Necessity”; Lenin called it “the Dictatatorship of the Proletariat”; Mussolini called it “Immortal Italy”; Hitler, “the German Race”. But I tell you this, misguided benevolence of complete social and economic power ALWAYS leads to ruthless suppression of religious freedom , personal freedom, freedom of expression (“free speech” is increasingly controlled), and even freedom of thought (through federally funded public schools, policed publishers/all media for the masses).
SoulRising invited 60 users to read this post 1 year ago.
Well, in true socialism, the people really have no choice, do they?
Economic equality is a nice dream, but it can’t happen.
People have all of these dreams, like a world where we don’t outsource to china. But outsourcing to china is necessary. If we didn’t, our economy would suffer. Sure, Americans would have more jobs, but the price level of everything would go up.
But people still wag their fingers at outsources. Don’t they realize that outsourcing is more efficient for us? Efficiency is key to a good economy.
I can’t believe some people are saying there is NOTHING wrong with socialism!
This is how we learned about different economies in school:
World Economic Systems
by Author Identity Requested
FEUDALISM
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
PURE SOCIALISM
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.
BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you should need.
FASCISM
You have two cows. The government takes them both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.
PURE COMMUNISM
You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
RUSSIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
DICTATORSHIP
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
PURE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Yours neighbors pick somone to tell you who gets the milk.
BUREAUCRACY
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other one and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows. In triplicate.
ANARCHY
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors take the cows and kill you.
CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Socialism, would it not create a state of un-productive workers, in that, they would depend on government to take care of them.
In a capitalistic society, workers are more productive and happy. There is a domino effect as this should transcend into all areas of our lives. People who are happy make better parents, friends, etc.
Personally, don’t want government to make my decisions and provide for my well-being. That would take my pride alway as a productive free-thinking human being.
I can’t believe there are people saying NOTHING is wrong with capitalism!
Why is everyone buying into American propaganda?
From what it seems from the “cow” analogies, Communism is the best.
Capitalism is made for the Rich :You get the best Lawyer and he gets you FREE on Anything.The Worker has no Chance of getting this Lawyer.The greatest Criminals are right up the Top of governing a Country.Doesnt matter what country.Thats the Way it is nd thats the Way it will be.There is always a Buffer Zone to protect the Rich.Thats why we have a name for it REVOLUTION.
Felicity invited 1 user to read this post 1 year ago.
SoulRising wrote:
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.Look at it now…………………….
Learn the difference between Communism and Socialism, friend.
SOCIALIST Rebublic!!!!!! It had strong elements of socialism and it did NOT work.
You haven’t read Marx’s book, have you?
Karl Marx did not write that book Xeno Dragon, the concept was written by a man named Clinton Rosevelt and he sent it to Fredrick Engles (the clerk of a banker) in Austria it was a plan to take over a nation = how the “bank” system could rule the nation. It became the communist manifesto. They had to find somebody who had a collegic background to put the name on as an author and Karl Marx in England fit the bill, and he was not connected to the banks at the time. He took credit for this and was given credit for it from the media and in the public schools.
Soulrising, you are an idiot. Everybody knows that The Communist Manifesto was written in conjunction by Marx and Engles. Provide one peice of evidence to the contrary that isn’t some loony conspiracy website eh? As for socialism. Well, it is possible, and can be reached, arguably enriching the lives of all living in such a system. The three examples that spring to mind are: Sandonista era Nicuragura (Sabotaged illegaly by the US) Venesualia present day (Discredited by Neoliberal US) and Sweeden (a Socialist leaning democracy)
Vilén wrote:
From what it seems from the “cow” analogies, Communism is the best.
I don’t think it’s right that the government should force you to give something you own to someone else.
Barbyman wrote:
Capitalism is made for the Rich :You get the best Lawyer and he gets you FREE on Anything.The Worker has no Chance of getting this Lawyer.The greatest Criminals are right up the Top of governing a Country.Doesnt matter what country.Thats the Way it is nd thats the Way it will be.There is always a Buffer Zone to protect the Rich.Thats why we have a name for it REVOLUTION.
Captilism is so that everyone has the OPPORTUNITY to be rich.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
Well, in true socialism, the people really have no choice, do they?
Economic equality is a nice dream, but it can’t happen.
People have all of these dreams, like a world where we don’t outsource to china. But outsourcing to china is necessary. If we didn’t, our economy would suffer. Sure, Americans would have more jobs, but the price level of everything would go up.
But people still wag their fingers at outsources. Don’t they realize that outsourcing is more efficient for us? Efficiency is key to a good economy.
Prices would not go up if the “Federal Reserve System” would stop increasing the money supply (federal reserve notes) which is what causes inflation.
SoulRising wrote:
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
Well, in true socialism, the people really have no choice, do they?
Economic equality is a nice dream, but it can’t happen.
People have all of these dreams, like a world where we don’t outsource to china. But outsourcing to china is necessary. If we didn’t, our economy would suffer. Sure, Americans would have more jobs, but the price level of everything would go up.
But people still wag their fingers at outsources. Don’t they realize that outsourcing is more efficient for us? Efficiency is key to a good economy.
Prices would not go up if the “Federal Reserve System” would stop increasing the money supply (federal reserve notes) which is what causes inflation.
Oh, all right. I’m sure a widespread economic crisis wouldn’t affect the economy at all if we left it alone.
You detest capitalism but then complain when they increase regulation?
Anonymous wrote:
A bum is called a bum because he’s a bum. People that don’t work don’t deserve to have everything paid for. Lots of rich people are rich because they worked HARD, and spent carefully.
I have to disagree with that, the average hard working person didn’t start off with nothing, they started off with a house, clothes and food and were given an education. They then progressed and got more, I don’t doubt that they worked hard and were prudent with their resources but they didn’t make somthing out of nothing.
This was brought home to me when I became homeless, my parents chucked me out. I was looking for acomodation. The housing prices in the UK meant that my monthly rent for a studio flat in my area was about half my take home pay (so the first months rent and deposit would have been about six weeks pay.) Six weeks is a long time to live in your car, as I found, it was winter and freezing. I got only one or two hours sleep a night, I was showering at my bosses house and got a back problem from sleeping curled up on the back seat so I couldn’t do as much overtime as I would have liked. I looked and felt like a ‘bum’ I lost all self respect and lets face it I was lucky, my boss put up with me while I was getting myself sorted, I at least had a car to sleep in and I had a job. It could very easily have gone the wrong way, if I didn’t have the car, if I had lost my job, if my boss wasn’t so understanding or if others hadn’t put themselves out for me I would be just another one of those nameless people derided by society as a waste of space. In lots of cases it’s not about not wanting to work, it’s about being trapped in a downward spiral. Okay, you don’t like ‘bums’ would you hire one? Most people wouldn’t, that’s why they don’t have jobs - not rocket science. Once society dislikes you and you dislike yourself what hope is there for you?
steff wrote:
Vilén wrote:
From what it seems from the “cow” analogies, Communism is the best.
I don’t think it’s right that the government should force you to give something you own to someone else.
If you’re not giving anything, why shouldn’t they? Anyway, they’re not “forcing you to give” anything, you ARE the government, and you’re sharing everything.
Vilén wrote:
steff wrote:
Vilén wrote:
From what it seems from the “cow” analogies, Communism is the best.
I don’t think it’s right that the government should force you to give something you own to someone else.
If you’re not giving anything, why shouldn’t they? Anyway, they’re not “forcing you to give” anything, you ARE the government, and you’re sharing everything.
Not quite. Not everyone is the government in socialism or communism. The people are forced to give just as taxes are forced today.
In socialism you don’t own anything, from the goods you produce to the house you live in. That’s not the way I want to live. In capitalism, money is a representation of goods or services produced. In socialism, money is a representation of existing.
Vilén wrote:
steff wrote:
Vilén wrote:
From what it seems from the “cow” analogies, Communism is the best.
I don’t think it’s right that the government should force you to give something you own to someone else.
If you’re not giving anything, why shouldn’t they? Anyway, they’re not “forcing you to give” anything, you ARE the government, and you’re sharing everything.
I liked Communism best too :)
I just feel like when living in Communism, things are just… pointless. I mean, if you look back after living in a Communist or Socialist government, what have you achieved? What have you done? You’ve worked, and been provided for in return. But what do you own? It’s as if your entire world could be swept away in a moment… Because nothing is yours. You depend completely on the government.
Yes, in socialism, the government is the people. Look it up.
Vilén wrote:
Yes, in socialism, the government is the people. Look it up.
Yes, in theory. Do you ever see that being applied? Perhaps in a community of under 200 people socialism could work like that. Above that, though, it would have to representative. Can you imagine every citizen taking on governmental administrative duties?
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
Vilén wrote:
Yes, in socialism, the government is the people. Look it up.
Yes, in theory. Do you ever see that being applied? Perhaps in a community of under 200 people socialism could work like that. Above that, though, it would have to representative. Can you imagine every citizen taking on governmental administrative duties?
Not yet.
Dave #1 wrote:
Health Care!!! ***rolls eyes***
If you want what Canada has, you don’t know what you are asking for. Canadian health care is government funded (actually by taxes). The local hospital used to provide full care and has now been reduced to what some call a band-aid clinic. It is very hard to keep doctors here because of that. We don’t even have a family doctor because about the time you learn to know one, he’s moving on. My daughter almost died at birth because some breathing apparatus they tried to use on her was put together wrong (lack of proper equipment). I also had a friend who broke his arm. He had to drive 4 hours to the nearest hospital that would take him in and still had to wait (in pain) 24 hours till a doctor saw him. Another friend who had his finger nearly severed had to drive 3 hours to a doctor that could deal with it. And we used to have a fully funtional hospital right here in town!!!!!!!!!
Socialistic health care? Ka-BOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is only one person’s experince. Canadian heath care is very good for me. I currently have no insurance or work benefits. I am pregnant and I will get to have my baby at the hospital for FREE!!!
When my kid is sick I never have to consider if I have the money to pay to get help. I don’t. I get to go to the Dr. for FREE!!!
In fact, the government will pay me 60% of my working wage to stay home with my own baby for a whole year and then guarantee the me my job back at the end of that time.
Yeah, Canada is more socialist. (I vote NDP!!!) I believe in education and health care for everyone, not just those who can afford it.
And as for taking from the rich and giving to the poor, in theory, it is a good idea.
Unfortunately, people are selfish. Why work for what you can get for free? Why not go in to the dr. at the slightest sniffle if it is free? Those people clog up the system for the rest of us.
Some people have no pride/work ethic/good values and don’t care about being responsible. That is the problem with socialism.
If no one was selfish and irresponsible then socialism would work, I think.
Capitalism is for everyone to become rich???I have tried it with Racehorses ,after 25 years i found out its not what you know but who.I have tried it with Music and i found out its not what you know but who. Don’T give me that Line anonymous for everyone….
Anonymous
#
1 year ago (1 day, 13 hours after post)
Barbyman wrote:
Capitalism is for everyone to become rich???
Who said that? To become rich, you have to take someone else’s riches.
Anonymous wrote:
Barbyman wrote:
Capitalism is for everyone to become rich???
Who said that? To become rich, you have to take someone else’s riches.
In other words, the goal of someone who supports Capitalism is, “to become richer than everybody else as fast as possible so you can be the best”
TRue socialism has only been attained by few. As soon as it gets support someone exploits it. So what does that say about our human race?
MJF wrote:
SoulRising wrote:
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.Look at it now…………………….
Learn the difference between Communism and Socialism, friend.
SOCIALIST Rebublic!!!!!! It had strong elements of socialism and it did NOT work.
You haven’t read Marx’s book, have you?
Karl Marx did not write that book Xeno Dragon, the concept was written by a man named Clinton Rosevelt and he sent it to Fredrick Engles (the clerk of a banker) in Austria it was a plan to take over a nation = how the “bank” system could rule the nation. It became the communist manifesto. They had to find somebody who had a collegic background to put the name on as an author and Karl Marx in England fit the bill, and he was not connected to the banks at the time. He took credit for this and was given credit for it from the media and in the public schools.
Soulrising, you are an idiot. Everybody knows that The Communist Manifesto was written in conjunction by Marx and Engles. Provide one peice of evidence to the contrary that isn’t some loony conspiracy website eh? As for socialism. Well, it is possible, and can be reached, arguably enriching the lives of all living in such a system. The three examples that spring to mind are: Sandonista era Nicuragura (Sabotaged illegaly by the US) Venesualia present day (Discredited by Neoliberal US) and Sweeden (a Socialist leaning democracy)
MJF, let me see, you weren’t taught it in the Federally funded public schools? You didn’t find it in the 50 some odd “Text” books published for the CIA every year to be used for public education? Why is that? It didn’t exist on the 1st page your Google search returned. MJF don’t call me an idiot and then expect me to work for you:) Do your own research, but then again, that would require some unbiased skill.
That reply.
+50 to your Smackdown rating.
Requires Level 40
Not saying you’re right or wrong, I’m just saying I felt that from here.
Xeno Dragon wrote:
Not saying you’re right or wrong, I’m just saying I felt that from here.
I aim to please:)
Anonymous
#
1 year ago (1 day, 17 hours after post)
felt as a stab in the solar plexus
Anonymous
#
1 year ago (1 day, 18 hours after post)
Barbyman wrote:
Capitalism is for everyone to become rich???I have tried it with Racehorses ,after 25 years i found out its not what you know but who.I have tried it with Music and i found out its not what you know but who. Don’T give me that Line anonymous for everyone….
The key word was OPPORTUNITY.
Just my opinion, broadly..
Capitalism is an extension of natural selection which allows for systematic control of the intellectually weaker members of our species, while not inhibiting reproduction.
In the most extreme cases, a large underclass eventually results in a backlash (e.g., the People’s Republic) because.. well who the hell wants to be oppressed and do all the heavy lifting? Socialism is an attempt to find a balance between anarchy and unbridled capitalism or despotism. An unintended consequence of a strong social safety net is a lessening of competition and productivity. Ironically, when taken to it’s worst–communist revolution–it’s a social adaptation, another example of survival of the fittest. What the underclass couldn’t achieve by cleverness it gains by force of numbers.
(Now to offend everyone) I have a hunch that those who lean to the left are either 1. the wealthy who inherited their wealth and have guilt, 2. the wealthy who obtained their money easily by celebrity, good fortune or extraordinary talent, 3. the poor who don’t particularly enjoy serving fast food, picking fruit and cleaning the nastier parts of rich people’s houses, 4. people with healthy consciences, 5. lazy people, 6. open-minded people who are influenced by their association with one of the previous groups.
Those who lean to the right are either 1. rich people who worked hard to get what they have, and thus don’t want to share it, 2. middle-income people who don’t want to see what small comforts they have diminished, 3. racial-majority poor (aka white trash, although I personally don’t think that any human being is trash, admittedly with possible exceptions) who think that they are better than minorities and who fear change to the status quo, 4. people whose religious organizations have been politically allied with the wealthy, and are thus indoctrinated with similar views, 5. a**holes naturally inclined not to share with others because of genetics or socially-ingrained selfishness.
All conjecture of course.
Can’t wait for you to open the similar post you’re working on X.
Vilén wrote:
From what it seems from the “cow” analogies, Communism is the best.
Hey Vilen, that might sound nice but its a deadend street. Maybe you don’t know much about cows but they only milk so long until they need a bull! LOL
After a while they will just dry up if they don’t give birth again! :)
Anonymous wrote:
Barbyman wrote:
Capitalism is for everyone to become rich???
Who said that? To become rich, you have to take someone else’s riches.
You are wrong.
There is not a limited amount of riches.
When a farmer grows his crop, he isn’t stealing the money he sells it for from anyone else. He earned that money, and NO ONE loses when he makes that crop. He contributes to the GDP, meaning, effectively, that he grew the economy, and then took most of the portion he grew.
Unless you get your money through nefarious means, this is what you are doing. Increasing the GDP, and then taking most of the GDP you increased. That’s it.
That’s why they call it “making money”; You are literally creating money.
Some very rich people have gotten rich by speculating in realestate. Speculation creats nothing.
Hmm… I suppose. Speculation does take advantage of the fact that properties will increase in value in the future. (or decrease, I suppose).
However, people are perfectly happy to pay for those houses at the new price. If they bought it at the lower price before, they were obviously taking a risk, or else the original owner kept it.
You could very easily lose as much money as you can gain in speculation.
So, no it does not create more wealth. It is taking a gamble and winning the profit from the loser of the gamble, being the new buyer if the house becomes overpriced, or the seller if it was under priced before.
Look at Warren Buffet!! the greatest Speulater on this Planet .Did he Build Anything?Did he create Anything?Nothing just a Leach lurking in the dark and when its THE MOMENT “POUNCING” .
Investment =/= pouncing.
If people need capital, they need capital. Warren Buffet helps things to grow, and makes a lot of money in the process.
Investing in mutual funds, for example, is GOOD for the economy. Investing capital helps things grow.
When disasters happen, whether they are natural or man made(war), the GDP goes up as a result of the required recovery and cleanup. The Exxon spill in Alaska caused the GDP of the State to grow by an extra 3%/year for a few years following.
Things like increasing crime rates and increasing automobile accident rates also make the GDP go up.
Alternative Economists are working on redefining the GDP.
GPI or the Genuine Progress Indicator can be found by googleing “What’s wrong with the GDP”
NB. I think the basic theory of capitalism is good because it contains negative feedback loops. All systems require negative feedback loops to keep opperating.
Democracy also has negative feedback loops.
Dictatorships have no feed back.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
Elements of socialism, I think, are necessary. You could argue that having a police force is socialism. That fire departments are socialism. We must have socialist functions to protect the rights of the people. If we determine that health is a basic human right, then socialized health care would be necessary.
However, when it comes to places where efficiency is required, I think socialism is very bad. Socialism in business decreases competition, and therefore decreases efficiency and discourages excellence and advancement. Research would come to a standstill.
That is my short answer. My long answer is longer.
I believe that there is a difference between social work and socialism, I believe that Fire departments and the like are not socialist, but rather social works.
I agree with Adam that socialism decreases competition, efficiency and discourages excellence and advancement. Also based on history true socialism doesn’t work, it’s one of those things that sounds good on paper, it just doesn’t work in practice, especially in the area of Government.
When a Government has control of a nations finances to acheive “fairness”, balance of power is shifted from citizen control to Government control.
More Government control leads corruption and also leads to restriction of Rights in other areas such as Military control of citizens by its Government as has been shown in History of Socialist Governments.
Which in this election should be a concern, because of Obama’s gun voting record, the NRA gives him an F rating on Gun rights and they are concerned that if elected our Right to Bear Arms will be in jeopardy.
Madam, I’m Adam wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Barbyman wrote:
Capitalism is for everyone to become rich???
Who said that? To become rich, you have to take someone else’s riches.
You are wrong.
There is not a limited amount of riches.
When a farmer grows his crop, he isn’t stealing the money he sells it for from anyone else. He earned that money, and NO ONE loses when he makes that crop. He contributes to the GDP, meaning, effectively, that he grew the economy, and then took most of the portion he grew.
Unless you get your money through nefarious means, this is what you are doing. Increasing the GDP, and then taking most of the GDP you increased. That’s it.
That’s why they call it “making money”; You are literally creating money.
“
Farmers creating money LMAO:) The US Government prints “notes” then gives them to the “Federal Reserve System” at no cost, the “Federal Reserve System” charges 7.02% (updated) interest compounded (called “inflation”) to the American people.
“Free Enterpise” not Capitalism is called hope, without it there eventually is no will to go on. The well spring of the human spirit is progress. Progress towards good. If people are not allowed to reap what they sow there is no justice and there is no hope. The free enterprise of early America was an amazing time, when a man could invent and keep the rewards for which he worked and could own and posses “Unleinable” (original wording of the Constitution of the United States) not “Unalienable” land for his home. Free Enterprise created the light bulb, recorded sound (created in Italy but released in America because of FREEDOM), telephone, motorized cars, airplanes, computers, the internet…FREEDOM IS THE OPPOSITE OF SOCIALISM where men and women thrive and with it the world also profits.
Here’s my view on some of this. (even if its wacky)
Too many people today are too far removed from the basis of civilization. It seems to me that agriculture is pretty much the basis for civilization. “The weeds are high where corn don’t grow”. If food is not available at a certain place, (Neptune) you have no life there. Too many of the above arguments are based on people doing speculating, stock market, real estate, etc. That is one way to get rich in today’s world but not the only.
So, I get up at 6:00 every morning to milk my cow, rain or shine, hot or cold. I’m out there, sweating, or slogging through mud, or wading through snow, (varies with time of year) going to the barn to milk my cow. I’m out at six in the evening doing the same thing. Its already dark and cold but it needs done. I feed the beef cows and fight with wet gloves and cold hands, frozen water troughes, etc. During calving season, I’m up every few hours in the dark and cold, checking the cows, assisting any that need help. During the summer I walk miles, fixing fence, getting in stray cows, checking to be sure there is sufficient pasture. I could go on and on.
Ahhhhhhhhh! The life of a farmer! I’m not complaining. I love it. (I do have a full time job besides.)
But if you are too much of a wimp to experience what I described above, and choose to make your living sitting at a computor, in an office, air conditioned in the summer, heated in the winter, why should you have the fruits of my labour without paying me properly for it? I know, office jobs give stress too, (I have one). But why shouldn’t a person be able to reap the benefits of his own work? There are many people who are “well off” because of their own sweat and labour. I do acknowledge that some people with disabilities could not be farmers.
Enough said for now. Thanks for taking time to read it. :)
Wow, this is getting a little hot… I’m unsubscribing; I’m getting a bit tired of this.
No heat on my part! Just friendly interchange. Sorry if it sounded like I was attacking your view, Soul! I had no such intentions! I was not pointing at any one in particular. Just stating my thoughts after an overview of the whole post. :)
SoulRising wrote:
“Free Enterpise” not Capitalism is called hope, without it there eventually is no will to go on. The well spring of the human spirit is progress. Progress towards good. If people are not allowed to reap what they sow there is no justice and there is no hope. The free enterprise of early America was an amazing time, when a man could invent and keep the rewards for which he worked and could own and posses “Unleinable” (original wording of the Constitution of the United States) not “Unalienable” land for his home. Free Enterprise created the light bulb, recorded sound (created in Italy but released in America because of FREEDOM), telephone, motorized cars, airplanes, computers, the internet…FREEDOM IS THE OPPOSITE OF SOCIALISM where men and women thrive and with it the world also profits.
Soul: You seem to be very emotional about this subject. Your writing is full of push button words. I, on the other hand, see “Economics” as a mathematical model of the flow of value through our societies.
One thing I can see very clearly as I read these posts is that “It takes all kinds”
Or in my words “This complex society, we have built, requires diversity of mind.”
We need people who can drive a truck loaded with gasoline and never make a mistake.
We need people who can nurture and teach. We need managers and bean counters.
It is only now, later in my life, I realise that we need artists.
Problem solvers are different from perfectionists.
Test my hypothesis by imagining a world with only people like you.
Dave #1 wrote:
No heat on my part! Just friendly interchange. Sorry if it sounded like I was attacking your view, Soul! I had no such intentions! I was not pointing at any one in particular. Just stating my thoughts after an overview of the whole post. :)
What are you talking about I loved reading your story, you are a true American who believes in Freedom:) Are you talking about what Vilen said? wtf
Vilén wrote:
Wow, this is getting a little hot… I’m unsubscribing; I’m getting a bit tired of this.
jimreeve wrote:
SoulRising wrote:
“Free Enterpise” not Capitalism is called hope, without it there eventually is no will to go on. The well spring of the human spirit is progress. Progress towards good. If people are not allowed to reap what they sow there is no justice and there is no hope. The free enterprise of early America was an amazing time, when a man could invent and keep the rewards for which he worked and could own and posses “Unleinable” (original wording of the Constitution of the United States) not “Unalienable” land for his home. Free Enterprise created the light bulb, recorded sound (created in Italy but released in America because of FREEDOM), telephone, motorized cars, airplanes, computers, the internet…FREEDOM IS THE OPPOSITE OF SOCIALISM where men and women thrive and with it the world also profits.
Soul: You seem to be very emotional about this subject. Your writing is full of push button words. I, on the other hand, see “Economics” as a mathematical model of the flow of value through our societies.
I’m sorry if my Passion disturbs you jimreeves:) I just love what America stands for Freedom not Socialism. I’m outta here:) Happy Halloween! I think I’ll go howl at the moon. Awwwwwooooooooooooooooo:)
Though I must point out that Freedom and Socialism are not mutually exclusive. They’re not really even on the same overall plane.
I just want to add my .02 — that the success of any system in providing a healthy structure for a majority of the citizenry in any country is dependent upon two things: first, that it coincides with the cultural persepctives of its consituents and that those consituents who see to its maintenance are moral.
The problem with capitalism in the US is that many of those who have power now have a “as much as the market can bear” mindset that does not consider how the resulting inflation will harm the overall good. The problem with socialism in some countries is that the common good is not always held above the need to maintain a balance of power.
I would argue that very few systems of government are inherently evil/wrong or good/right. Rather the question is whether they are appropriate for particular countries and whether the persons who have power within those systems are moral ( that is seeking the good of all).– this is fengshuisweetheart… I’m not longging in tonight… just passing through…
This account has been deactivated.
I think most of the people that were called socialists in the USA have turned out to save the country in presidents… nothing is wrong with it, even in its purest form, but some people cannot live without excelling, and socialism presents problems to them
There is not necessarily anything wrong with socialism. It just that when the “communist party” took over in russia in 1917 (roundabout year, not positive on actually year), it was suppose to be socialism and they became our enemies and eventually it did not work. Every one associates it with this event leading into the USSR and communism causing everyone to be afraid of it.
A lot of socialist ideas are great. Most of them would work within the world but because of the bad things associated, no one will adopt them.
The other problem is that socialism is all about equality. Most humans want competition and to be able to prove themselves as the “better” person. In a “TRUE” socialist economy, everyone is equal, no matter the amount their business makes. They all have the same healthcare, same money, same everything, there is no differences between you and anybody else.
I have long thought it strange that evangelical Christians adhere pretty stringently to the political right, at least in the US. Following the death of Jesus, his earliest followers in Jerusalem met and shared all of their possessions. Those who owned properties sold them and used the proceeds to meet the needs of all. Of course they were not building a nation-state, but they were building something. At what point did the socialist tendencies of early Christians fade away? And why does the group that adheres to literal accuracy in the Bible ignore that period? (Or what excuse is used to dismiss it?)
Dave #1 wrote:
Here’s my view on some of this. (even if its wacky)
Too many people today are too far removed from the basis of civilization. It seems to me that agriculture is pretty much the basis for civilization. “The weeds are high where corn don’t grow”. If food is not available at a certain place, (Neptune) you have no life there. Too many of the above arguments are based on people doing speculating, stock market, real estate, etc. That is one way to get rich in today’s world but not the only.
So, I get up at 6:00 every morning to milk my cow, rain or shine, hot or cold. I’m out there, sweating, or slogging through mud, or wading through snow, (varies with time of year) going to the barn to milk my cow. I’m out at six in the evening doing the same thing. Its already dark and cold but it needs done. I feed the beef cows and fight with wet gloves and cold hands, frozen water troughes, etc. During calving season, I’m up every few hours in the dark and cold, checking the cows, assisting any that need help. During the summer I walk miles, fixing fence, getting in stray cows, checking to be sure there is sufficient pasture. I could go on and on.
Ahhhhhhhhh! The life of a farmer! I’m not complaining. I love it. (I do have a full time job besides.)
But if you are too much of a wimp to experience what I described above, and choose to make your living sitting at a computor, in an office, air conditioned in the summer, heated in the winter, why should you have the fruits of my labour without paying me properly for it? I know, office jobs give stress too, (I have one). But why shouldn’t a person be able to reap the benefits of his own work? There are many people who are “well off” because of their own sweat and labour. I do acknowledge that some people with disabilities could not be farmers.
Enough said for now. Thanks for taking time to read it. :)
Well, we live in a world where 1 person can feed hundreds of people. Not everyone needs to be a farmer in this efficient world.
But that is not to say that our jobs aren’t as important as yours!
The reason we make money is because we create goods and services that are worth money to someone else. And if it is worth that money, people will pay it!
If your good or service is valuable, people will buy it, and you are therefore contributing to the economy. It may not seem like an office worker is contributing to the economy, but he gives a good or service to his employer, who uses that to sell things to other people, who obviously put value on that good or service. Therefore, the office worker is creating, or helping to create, more valuable goods and services for the people to use, just as the farmer is.
Most people don’t exploit the system, they contribute to it, farmer or not.
I agree Adam. I guess part of my point is that the most important thing to sustaining life is food and water. If we enter a second depression, and every one stops driving cars, stops using electricity, stops using the telephone, etc. they will still need to eat. Yet people who try to make a living producing food (farming) are nearly run into the dirt and can hardly make a living at it while people working with “non-essentials” make millions. They have lost sight of the really important things in life. They want cheap food and complain about the price but then turn around and spend thousands on TV’s, clothing (that will be out of style next year) and many other things they COULD do without.( I would rather give up this computor than my food!)
sansceriph wrote:
I have long thought it strange that evangelical Christians adhere pretty stringently to the political right, at least in the US. Following the death of Jesus, his earliest followers in Jerusalem met and shared all of their possessions. Those who owned properties sold them and used the proceeds to meet the needs of all. Of course they were not building a nation-state, but they were building something. At what point did the socialist tendencies of early Christians fade away? And why does the group that adheres to literal accuracy in the Bible ignore that period? (Or what excuse is used to dismiss it?)
Well, there is a difference between custom and law.
Dave #1 wrote:
I agree Adam. I guess part of my point is that the most important thing to sustaining life is food and water. If we enter a second depression, and every one stops driving cars, stops using electricity, stops using the telephone, etc. they will still need to eat. Yet people who try to make a living producing food (farming) are nearly run into the dirt and can hardly make a living at it while people working with “non-essentials” make millions. They have lost sight of the really important things in life. They want cheap food and complain about the price but then turn around and spend thousands on TV’s, clothing (that will be out of style next year) and many other things they COULD do without.( I would rather give up this computor than my food!)
Ah, well your food is going to be gone tomorrow as well. :D
Most farming today is done on large scale… I think I read that one farmer provides for 100 people. Gone are the days where “How do I get food” was the biggest worry of the American people. We’ve gone past that, and now the question is “How do I get a good house” and “How do I get that new TV”.
Thing is, we are getting more efficient, and that means that we can put more value into non-essential things.
I’m no prophet but the day may well be coming when we are again saying, “Where will my food come from?” Mark my words well and remember “Dave on help.com” when this is happening. :) No longer will it be “good House” but simply “shelter”, And “TV? I just want some food!”
I’d rather be the little farmer with a few cows than the office expert in downtown NYC. :)
Dave #1 wrote:
I’m no prophet but the day may well be coming when we are again saying, “Where will my food come from?” Mark my words well and remember “Dave on help.com” when this is happening. :) No longer will it be “good House” but simply “shelter”, And “TV? I just want some food!”
I’d rather be the little farmer with a few cows than the office expert in downtown NYC. :)
I certainly hope you’re wrong, sir.
I agree with you to a point, though. Food is certainly the base of our society. If farmers didn’t grow it as efficiently as they do now, we would be ages behind. That is really the reason our economy is a success: The farmers do their jobs so well (of course with quite a bit of help from modern technology. :D) that more of the population can work on other things. We wouldn’t have nearly as many man-hours to spend on the non-essentials if it weren’t for our farmers, and so I salute you!
And if the days come when “Where will my food come from” will be a problem, then that will certainly be a bad day for advance and progress.
I only read , maybe, 3 replies , but I’ll answer your original post.
Ideally, Communists are also socialists, although this is mostly not the case.
Socialism= a system that is for the SOCIETY
Socialism, in itself is nothing bad at all.It’s when social classes would be “equal” and everyone would benefit the same amount , etc, so that everyone can be happy. In fact, socialism is an idealistic system and it would work perfectly ,in a perfect world. An Utopia which is something unattainable in the “real” world, because people will always want to be “better” than others, richer, greedier, more selfish. This is inevitable, it leads to power-hungry dictators proclaiming themselves “socialists” or “communists” when they’re exactly the opposite.
Just my opinion though :)
The way I see it, socialism would work as an economic system as well as evolution would work without death.
Which is to say, not at all.
Sure Socialism works. I works in New Zealand, it works just fine for
them. Who really wants to settle just for political democracy? What’s
wrong with having economic democracy too? I mean look at America, Capitalism
here goes and falls on it’s face, then the government wants to bail out
Wall street so they can save capitalism from it’s self, then some of the
ignorant populace call that “Socialism”. So absurd. Now that’s State run
Capitalism. So now just what’s wrong with having economic democracy too?
So last week while us Americans were in our voting booths casting our
vote for the leader of our country, did even one of us even think for a
moment “**** I’d sure like to have had a say on the bailout”?
Or was I the only one?
outskirts wrote:
Sure Socialism works. I works in New Zealand, it works just fine for
them. Who really wants to settle just for political democracy? What’s
wrong with having economic democracy too? I mean look at America, Capitalism
here goes and falls on it’s face, then the government wants to bail out
Wall street so they can save capitalism from it’s self, then some of the
ignorant populace call that “Socialism”. So absurd. Now that’s State run
Capitalism. So now just what’s wrong with having economic democracy too?
So last week while us Americans were in our voting booths casting our
vote for the leader of our country, did even one of us even think for a
moment “**** I’d sure like to have had a say on the bailout”?
Or was I the only one?
Brilliant point.
New Zealand is a market economy…?
Sure, there are many socialist facets to it, but it’s still capitalism at work.
Granted, it’s much more socialist that we are. But it’s not socialism, it’s a very small amount of socialism in a largely capitalist economy.
I think when socialism is implemented, it can only be done in small amounts. Pure socialism isn’t seen very often. I think there’s a big difference between giving the workers (or simply the population at large) control over the factors of production and helping people in need.
Well, here’s a thought… what if full communistic economic policies were implemented in a small, third-world country? Everyone would have a job, and it would certainly kick-start the economy, making it possible for them to build up their infrastructure sufficiently enough for democracy and capitalism to be introduced a decade or so later.
also, it depends on if you’re referring to real socialism, or Obama’s “Socialist” policies. 2 very different things.
Well, part of the point of this post is to question, even if his policies ARE Socialist, why is it a bad thing?
His policies arent socialist by definition. he just wants to spread money around, the ultimate goal of socialism is that nothing belongs to anyone, and everything belongs to the government
I know. It’s more a matter of “No, he’s not a Socialist… but so what if he was?”
ok, if he was then nothing would belong to you. especially not the things you bought with your own money. Anything you ever worked hard to get would belong to everyone. Your house would be government property. Your food would be taken from you, made into a bad soup, and you would then be forced to stand in line for hours to eat the soup made out of your food. you dont choose where you work or get educated, the government does that for you. You dont decide where you live, the government does that as well.
*=Adam=* wrote:
New Zealand is a market economy…?
Sure, there are many socialist facets to it, but it’s still capitalism at work.
Your right they’re not completely socialist, the point I was trying to make
is that they have good social programs and is a example of a Socialist direction.
Xeno Dragon wrote:
I know. It’s more a matter of “No, he’s not a Socialist… but so what if he was?”
Your right, he’s not a Socialist, if Obama was I would have voted for him.
I think taxes, in themselves, are socialist to a degree. After all, it’s saying that some of your hard earned money isn’t yours, it’s the government’s. So that’s something to think about.
The government itself IS socialism, no?
Only when they get to reap the benefits.
Well, even if they spent it well on roads, energy programs, schools, etc., it’s still socialism, isn’t it?
I’m just giving examples that socialist functions =/= socialism. There’s a huge difference between the government employing some socialist functions to help the needy and giving them the right to all we own.
Which is exactly what the republicans were trying to do when they called Obama’s policies socialist. They’re just as socialist as the very idea of the government is, and tying his policies to the economic system that is socialist just isn’t correct.
The United States of America is a Republic. It is only a Democracy to the uneducated.
The Proper Role of Government is to Protect Equal Rights, Not Provide Equal Things.
I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the “Republic”
For which it [the flag] stands…
Did you believe this pledge was removed from Public School because of the separation between church and state:)?
A Democracy requires full participation of the masses of people, this has never worked because people become occupied w/daily tasks, they do not study the issues, they do not take the time to participate fully (Greeks used democratic mass-participation in their government of their city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny).
Fools expect to be taken care of, fools expect their education to be spoon fed to them by following a government approved curriculum.
Wake up America, there is blood on the streets and Socialism is knocking at the door, Democracy is one step closer.
Educate yourself and save The United States of America. The Burden of Debt is as Destructive to Freedom as a bullet. Friendship with all, Alliances with none. A Free People will not survive unless they stay strong. A Free People cannot Survive as a Republic without a Broad Program of General Education. Roll up your sleeves:)
Pongo
Vilén
FallenStar124
lazy
MortallyWounded
jimreeve
Former_User
steff
Rotech927
Florimouse
Cell
Sans
fengshuisweethear
Mat6974
Anonymous