Capitalism or Socialism
Which is the superior system?
Side Score: 114
Side Score: 125
The private sector can handle all of the jobs of the public sector, and it can do them much better with far more efficiency. This comes from the competitive nature of Capitalism. The government has no one to compete with. In fact, the government wants less consumers (as we see with how it treats the issue of immigration).
While privatization isn't perfect, it sure as hell beats leaving the government to do all the work.
What should be privatized? Well, most likely things not granted to government through the constitution (a well regulated militia... but we can still create mercenaries and private security firms).
As for entitlements that liberals constantly like to bitch about, merely create a voucher program. Instead of spending billions of dollars on countless infrastructures, use less than half of that money to cover the same things through a voucher program. Users of the vouchers will be able to choose which program works for them (given that the private sector is in control of those programs, such as education and healthcare). This would create competition within those realms (unlike subsidization, which only takes away incentive to compete).
I understand that my views are extreme... but in Capitalism vs. Socialism, I choose the extreme that doesn't give power to an unstoppable corporation (government).
The private sector can handle all of the jobs of the public sector, and it can do them much better with far more efficiency.
I'm sorry, but that statement is patently ridiculous.
Please work through how we get the US interstate system without the public sector doing it.
Or how we get a space program.
Or how we get a military you'd actually want to have protecting the nation.
I see you mentioned "vouchers"... do tell how we use "vouchers" to build the interstate system or the space program or the military and what the end result would be. Please. I'm all ears.
The public sector hired contractors, who are from the private sector, to build railways and the interstate system.
Now, I actually disagree with the public sector contracting private entities since it causes an unfair advantage towards some businesses over others. This is how monopolies are formed in the first place.
Now, I really don't see how any of what you said defined how "private sector is not as good as public sector". The military and space program? If you are referring to how the private sector could have the same results with mercenaries and privatized space exploration with far less money and resources used... i don't see how that helps your argument.
Please work through how we get the US interstate system without the public sector doing it.
Or how we get a space program.
Or how we get a military you'd actually want to have protecting the nation.
For the first paragraph: Roads would actually be maintained even better if they were privately owned. People would be competing for more traffic.
Second paragraph: First of all, I don't even want my taxes going to the space program. Second, I believe Obummer joined with Russia on the space program.
Third paragraph: Why on earth would you want to take orders from a pencil pushing political leader? People don't want to fight a war just because some bimbo tells them too. Military's would be competitive. Whoever had the best training, weapons, etc.
You do realize that much of what the military does is other than actual war fighting is accomplished through private contractors, right? Our weapons, contractors, our armor, contractors, our vehicles, contractors, maintenance, contractors, housing, contractors, admin, contractors and even some recruiting is done by contractors. The list goes on and on.
Is this a rebuttal?
First, big government gives out subsidies to oil companies. As well, the taxes are just passed unto the consumer.
Ideally, we would eliminate special taxes AND subsidies, leaving the market completely competitive and not raping towards consumers.
Well the sides are presented in a biased way, and I know for a fact you have no understanding of the underlying groundwork that socialism is founded on. Theft isn't the correct word to use for socialism as all product is the product of community. And rewards isn't the right word to use because capitalism by it's own foundation requires one to fail for the system to continue. The only reason I side with capitalism is because someone will always fail and be replaced, and that socialism is grounded on social theories for the most part, not economic theories.
The difference between the two systems mainly deals with how the wealth is distributed among the citizens. I must say that the is a socialist society pretending to be capitalist. If we were capitalist then why the wall street bailouts. This argument is generated to advantage the wealthy in the US. They want us to believe that we have a free economic system while they are spending their corporate welfare checks
For all the flaws of a capitalism system, remember that socialism is dependant upon humanity rejecting human nature itself- it assumes everyone will be able to equally share everything, and that just isn't in our nature. Someone will want something different, or want a different status, and the whole socialist system will collapse slowly but surely from there.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
I'm also technically getting someone else's hard efforts too aren't I? If I do his job, and he does mine, then everyone's getting along fine. What's the point in keeping my product if it's of no use to me, but completely useful for my neighbour? That's just plain greedy.
Side: Socialism legalized theft
You see, this was the problem with Marx's thinking, he assumed that everyone had equal ability, that nothing could possibly make anyone more productive than anyone else, that everyone deserved to be treated equally and that deep down, everyone wanted to give to the poor, because he said so. It doesn't work this way, in communism the hard-working feed the lazy, how does that work. The basic question is would ou rather live a rich man, with someone always better than him, or would you rather be poor, but have everyone around you also be poor.
There I changed it for the whiners. People pretending they don't show bias in their answers.....yea right.
Again different worldviews that divide....socialism/capitalism and what really made this country great. The values and principles that made people want to die for this country....where is the truth.
The past 50 years have been full of liberal elites who have been working hard to dismantle the morals of our nation. These elites mainly Democrats preach that there is nothing wrong with education...that money can't fix. They love multiculterism....all while tossing American culture out the window. They rewrite history, take God out of the equation relacing Him with secular humanism....and instead of capitalism...they love enviromentalism...socialism.
The American Dream came about because of capitalism and none of the above. The American Dream did not happen because the government had more control. The decades of evidence prove that when the state controls things....they run it into the ground. Government and private industry fail every time. ...because they work from different sides of the road. Private businesses, companies create wealth...and the governments responsiblity is to protect those persuing that dream. Private businesses make sure that every dollar has a return....and the government spends whatever it rakes in. Corporations are in bed with its shareholders and those who are buying the service and the government is in bed with the bureaucracy and special interst groups.....politicians and unions. And we have seen since Obama has taken office that the government meddles...just look at the Post Office...the car industry....health care. They love to tell us what we need,,,then regulate and redistribute the wealth as they see it. They redistbute to help the lazy and the unmotivated. Basically like I said when I started this debate.....they steal what we make. Not so with capitalism. It honors private ownership and freedom and responsiblity and it rewards those who WORK HARD something that socialism does not.
Here is a good article on why socialism fails.
"There I changed it for the whiners. People pretending they don't show bias in their answers.....yea right."
In their answers maybe, but not usually in the options.
"They rewrite history, take God out of the equation relacing Him with secular humanism....and instead of capitalism."
Because god is a negative impact to societal structure and with the variety of religions there is no respectful way to keep god in the mainstream of society. And you also fail to know that we are not a capitalist society. Far from it. We lack the brutal principles that make capitalism what it is.
Im not even going to waste my time on the other right wing bull you just posted.
".they steal what we make"
Actually all product is the result of community in socialism, so all product is the product of utilized social dependency. So it is not theft.
It obvious you don't understand the brutality of what actual capitalism calls for. I may be for it, but im surprised you and your "morals" would find such a system appealing.
Now for you link. I find it funny that the author tried to connect unrelated things, like executive communism and socialism, which couldn't be more different. Socialism is a form of money structure. One that has actually seen consistent decent success. Executive communism on the other hand has not. And like I have said elsewhere on this debate, no country has ever been allowed to follow true capitalism.
Why is god a negative impact? Because he tells us that killing is wrong, stealing is wrong? Because there is some form of morality with god and nothing without him...its subjective. God has always been in mainstream society. The largest religion in America is Christianity for crying out loud.
I agree that we lack capitalist principles...we have been taken over by humanists, who believe that we should be socialists.
It is theft if you pay the government almost half of what you make.
It is theft when you have to run your business the way the government wants you to run it. And they do this by restrictions. Socialism is a way of life...it has more to do with peoples lives than money.
Let me ask you this.....there is a family who is extremely poor who lives in your neighborhood. The husband can't work because he lost his job and the wife stays home to take care of their four children. They can't meet their bills. Would you support the government if they forced the neighbors to divide their bills and pay them? And for anyone that refused, they would face fines or jail.
Should you force someone to do something they don't want to do...even though that person needs help? Forcing someone to do this...is slavery. You hold to something you have no right to do. Who then is the victim?
However good the motive or act might be...its wrong. Obamas health plan forces people to purchase something they don't want to purchase.
They rewrite history, take God out of the equation relacing Him with secular humanism....and instead of capitalism...they love enviromentalism...socialism.
I find it hilarious to see someone talking about "taking God out of the equation" and championing capitalism in the same sentence.
Because , you know, Jesus was such a huge capitalist and all. I mean, the guy never stopped talking about the virtues of making as much money as you possibly could am I right?
""Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"
""People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
""No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
""If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Yeah... curse those liberals for ignoring God and not worshiping Capitalism!
Sheesh. Pick one or the other churchmouse, either you follow God or you follow Capitalism but don't pretend you can do both.
I'm going to say first that I'm definitely capitalism all the way. Now with that said,a part of me and most other people who choose capitalism is because of the fact that we're used to it. It's basically proven that people tend to always choose what they are the most used to because they fear what they do not understand or have no experienced. From the socialism that we have seen in places like China(And yes I'm aware that China is communist but it basically coincides with socialism) we know how dangerous socialism can be. But how can we be so sure that the same type of socialism would happen in America? As far as we know,our "socialism" might not go any further than losing private property(which admittedly is still pretty bad). I just think it's a good thing to keep an open mind about this situation but as I said,I'm a capitalist 100%. I like having freedom,rights,and liberty. I like making money and buying things for myself rather than making money for people who don't work. But that's just me,everyone has the right to their own opinion.
Bottom line: Socialism is for the people, not the Socialist. How many leaders of socialist nations adhere to the same restrictions and regulations they place upon the people? In a socialist society you are a subject, in a non-socialist society you are a citizen.
The difficult part of this debate is the fact that capitalism revolves around mostly economics and socialism more so, well social issues; hence (social)ism.
Granted, we are not entirely a capitalistic society, I doubt we have even allowed a free market to attempt to operate. It seems that every time the market showed any sign of instability the big hand of the government stepped in to try to correct it with out giving it a chance to correct itself.
No matter what form of government a nation has, there will always be an elite class that thinks of themselves as somehow above the rest. In a non socialist society the people are empowered to remove them and in the case of the US, we are empowered to remove the whole government should we so choose. I know of no socialist society that has that kind of power.
I have lived in Europe and seen socialism at work. German parents cannot name their children without first getting approval from "big brother". A government bureaucrat must first approve that name to ensure that the child will not be teased due to his name. Try going to a european hospital. Or how about your future beyond high school.
Look at history Rome was great because the invented and capitalism supports that. And again look at when the steam engine was created (Do to an inventor that made it) business was booming. And now look at Socialism. Mao in china took everything from farmer and put them under government control . People starved to death because of the low farms production.
Yes and when the iron curtain was lifted the entire world saw that the nigh-invulnerable engine of evil they were all fearing in fact had less food in all of Moscow than the the average american had in their pantry, after the first few years of communist rule everything was all down hill.
I think we've already established that the only point any socialist will ever have is a misquote from the bible (It never said "money is the root of all evil", but rather "the love of money is the root of many evils), and that it's based entirely on rejecting human nature, but what everyone seems to be ignoring is technology, so let's look at the Soviets' military advancements. First up we have the BTR-60, an armor troop transport, which they KNEW would be carrying people in warzones, which had a FREAKIN' SUNROOF, no roof, only a tarp and they had no technical reason to leave a roof out, they just weren't trying to limit casualties. The November class submarine, known for it's ability to spontaneously combust and it's reputation for putting out the fires by suffocating it's own crew. The 2B1 Oka atomic cannon, which was impossible to deploy, had no use on a battlefield, and would obliterate itself every time it fired. The Kirov, a ship which was never fired upon by anythin other than itself, it actually managed to torpedoe itself when it was tested, not one was ever sunk, because they were to afraid to fire and no one else thought it was worth the ammo. And finally, the Yak-38 Forger, the embodiement of every problem any plane has ever had. These were all put into production and meant to be used, proving that not only was the soviet government extremely poor at descision-making, but that they gave engineering jobs to people who are obvious not even qualified to face shelves.
They're better at different things and the question is too simple to allow that to be intelligently discussed, so technically I should abstain. But creating two debate position titles this ridiculously biased is so ridiculous I have to vote for socialism as a protest measure.
Side: Socialism legalized theft
Point, usually I do that actually. Should have thought to here.
(I'm still going against Capitalism just because real, unrestricted free market Capitalism with a capital "C" is too volatile and economically hazardous. People who talk about things like the invisible hand of the market taking care of everything tend to overlook that that hand is perfectly fine crushing you under it's thumb to move the market to an equilibrium point. They act like if we just got out of it's way it would create some kind of economic utopia like a benevolent deity or something)
You do realize that employment depends on more than just effort, but also on numerous other factors?
Further more, you do realize that some jobs don't pay enough to allow for even a full-time worker to earn a decent living?
7.25 X 40 X 4 = 1160 A month to live on, if you don't have kids its barely doable in some areas.
You suck to, churchmouse.
Thank you for pronouncing your ignorance again by making an obviously biased debate.
Capitalism is partially the reason for our current recession, because giant, fat corporate fuckers thought it would be fun to RAPE THE STOCK MARKET by taking a bunch of unnecessary risks that would allow them to acquire more money that they will never use.
You think capitalism gives people rewards? That it just up and gives people rewards? Bullshit. My senior citizen father has worked all his life and nearly to death over and over again. He made a few mistakes like any other person, but he still did nothing but work. He still hasn't been able to retire. Why? Because a giant capitalist corporation has enslaved him.
That's some reward, huh? Enslavement.
The only reward he's gotten is Social Security, which most can agree is a SOCIALIST CONCEPT.
Now, start arguing in that ignorant Republican way when you have no hope of winning, please. I will wipe the floor with you for acting like capitalism is amazing and perfect and socialism kills women and children by just existing.
Side: Capitalism Sucks
"You suck to, churchmouse."
"Capitalism is partially the reason for our current recession, because giant, fat corporate fuckers thought it would be fun to RAPE THE STOCK MARKET by taking a bunch of unnecessary risks that would allow them to acquire more money that they will never use."
That would be accurate..........if we were an actual capitalist state. We are not. We have a Frankenstein of a system in place that hasn't yet made up its mind of where it stands. We present ourselves as a capitalist state, but capitalism is just like communism in that it has never had a chance to to be used in it's original state. Capitalism isn't to blame for the recession, ill planning and care of the economy is to blame.
"Because a giant capitalist corporation has enslaved him."
You list a seemingly sad story, but fail to mention the exact problem he faces with retirement. We can't give sympathy without details.
" which most can agree is a SOCIALIST CONCEPT."
Debatable, but whether or not it is is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is a harm to the economy when not privatized(which isn't a socialist concept).
" I will wipe the floor with you for acting like capitalism is amazing and perfect and socialism kills women and children by just existing."
I will agree again that churchmouse has no ground for going to these areas of thought.
Our corporatism allows for only the reckless, sinister, and dishonorable succeed. There are no exceptions. The rich in our system always ruin people's lives to get to the top. This is okay up until a certain point, because up until a certain point, natural selection is acceptable for businesses.
But in our system, people not only have the ability to fail, they have the ability to succeed more and continue to rape the less lucky and more morally naive of everything they know and love. Like you. Someone who is so eloquently brainwashed into thinking corporatism is perfect that you will likely either be raped or be the rapist. Nice choice, isn't it?
Actually dumbass that shows you how stupid you and your grandfather were, who forced him to work there? and why didn't he quit his job and get a different one where he could retire? Are you retarded? Look at my arguement with (gcomeau) above your comment and read the whole damn thing that should save me some time with you.
Actually dipshit, that shows how stupid you are for not writing an argument specifically tailored to combat me. I'm not going to go looking for some shit you wrote. Whoever I am, I'm not the other person you were arguing with, so don't be a lazy twat and just write a real argument against me. I do it all the time, since I'm not so narcissistic as to expect people I insult to go looking for my previous arguments with other people they aren't related to.
Father, not grandfather.
Who forced him? The corporation. I know you like to believe that our system of corporatism allows for freedom, but ever since the first robber barons first came into existence, all of that potential for freedom vanished. There is no freedom under corporate fascism; not when giant companies can sneeze in the general direction of a small town and instantly rape it of all it's well-being.
He didn't quit his job because he couldn't. There was no other establishment that would hire a senior citizen of his veteran skill for a pay that would allow him to support my mother after me and my brother grew up. That's because there are no longer any small businesses wealthy enough to pay him a salary he needs since all of the businesses were raped nearly to death by corporations.
Simply, because of corporatism, he has no choice to but to keep his job. He has no other options, and he had even less options then that once the recession started.
Now, once again, I will politely tell you to go fuck yourself. If you think you can argue with me AND use insults, you will at least do it respectfully and do some writing. If you can't do that, then you're a lazy, arrogant coward.
Capitalism is not perfect but at least it allows freedom. Where is the freedom when the government tells you how you will make money and how much you will keep? When the government takes all your money to support people who mainly are moochers....how is that freedom?
People enslave themselves...we do not need to government to do it for us.
We have the choice of what jobs we want to do, what education we will get and we determine how hard we will work to get what we want.
The government HAS NO RIGHT TO REDISTIRBUTE TAXPAYER MONEY TO THE POOR or anyone else....there should be no free anything for anyone but the handicapped, the mentally disabled. Sure we should take care of people, we should be compassionate in times of need, but that does not mean take from the rich and give to the poor. We always have relied on kind and generous people who dontate to help out. Look at the donations that poured out after Katrina. We are a generous people and we not only take care of our own but send billions all over the world helping them when they need it. Government does not always need to come to the aid of everyone.
You look at our economic crisis today...look at the collapse of the housing market. Why did this happen? It never would have collapsed under free market capitalism. The government should have no involvement in homeownership at all. Today the manipulation is happening from the goverment across the board. Regulations. Regulations. Regulations. We should solve our problems not from the top down but from the bottom up. Get the government politicians OUT...and put the power with the business owners. Get out of the car industry. Look at what happened to the US Postal Service when the government took over. Amtrak is so successful aren't they?
And look at our failing public, government controlled schools....that would get a lot better with a voucher system in place. COMPETITION........not so with socialism. Today they are costly disaster areas run by teachers they can't get rid of because of unions...who wont reform. Government is bad for education. But its the only way to control the masses and that is what socialism does. Its what Obama wants to do. His buddy Willie Ayers (communist and American hater, murderer) gave a speech alongside Chavez and said something to the point that education is the force of revolution. Its the perfect place to indocrinate kids. So our schools today support an agenda...that tips its hat towards socialism. They care more about holding a kids hand and telling him grades don't matter when he fails a test than to actually educate. I heard the other day that the majority of high school kids could not even locate Iraq on a map.
"Capitalism is not perfect but at least it allows freedom."
Not necessarily. Capitalism dictates business and money flow. Laws are still extreme variables.
"Where is the freedom when the government tells you how you will make money and how much you will keep?"
That is not socialism.
"People enslave themselves...we do not need to government to do it for us."
True, but socialism doesn't depend on the government any more then the system we have in place now does.
"We have the choice of what jobs we want to do, what education we will get and we determine how hard we will work to get what we want.
Nothing you just listed is absent in socialism.
"The government HAS NO RIGHT TO REDISTIRBUTE TAXPAYER MONEY TO THE POOR or anyone else"
Tax payer money belongs to the government, nothing in our laws say they can't choose to redistribute it.
"there should be no free anything for anyone but the handicapped, the mentally disabled."
You are assuming socialism hands you a get a of jail free whenever you get want card. It doesn't.
"We always have relied on kind and generous people who dontate to help out. Look at the donations that poured out after Katrina."
Donations are not present in one system and not the other. And in a true capitalist state, people are even less likely to donate money, just so you know.
"You look at our economic crisis today...look at the collapse of the housing market. Why did this happen? It never would have collapsed under free market capitalism"
That's because under a capitalist state housing markets would be separated into local areas and wouldn't be dependent on each other. Such a state would be hard to set up with such a large population.
"Today the manipulation is happening from the goverment across the board. Regulations. Regulations. Regulations."
Because our system sucks.
" COMPETITION........not so with socialism."
Socialism has competition in it too. You are quite ignorant of its structure.
"But its the only way to control the masses and that is what socialism does. "
It seems to me that you have executive communism in mind. Almost nothing you are saying applies to socialism.
"Its what Obama wants to do"
Oh here we go with the right wing bull.
"They care more about holding a kids hand and telling him grades don't matter when he fails a test than to actually educate."
I personally don't think grades matter either, I believe in a completely individualized education, which unfortunately is not really achievable with such a large population.
"I heard the other day that the majority of high school kids could not even locate Iraq on a map."
Because kids these days are stupid, a lot as a result of things passed by the republicans who ran the mentality that a higher grade scores meant smarter kids, and to achieve that they made the tests easier. Real smart right?
Our country's corporatism does not allow for freedom. The freedom isn't taken away by the government, the freedom is taken away by the corporations... the rich people themselves.
When the government takes all your money to support people...
Moochers wouldn't exist without the rich and their corporations taking what they don't need. Our system allows the extremely rich to exist, and therefore is allows the extremely poor to exist.
People enslave themselves...
The government naively allows our system to exist the way it is, meaning that both the government and the people allow people to be enslaved. But ultimately, WHY ARE YOU ACTING LIKE SLAVERY IS GOOD FOR ANY REASON?
We have the choice of what jobs we want to do...
No we don't... not in all cases. If you knew what giant corporations have done to some small communities, you'd see that you are incorrect.
The government HAS NO RIGHT...
Well, since the poor are poor because of the rich, I see it's only fair that the wealth of the rich be redistributed to the poor. There is a certain threshold of wealth in which you will never spend another sent of money for the rest of you and your family's life. Once the rich reach this threshold of wealth, all of their remaining wealth should be given to people who need it. If they don't give it to them and they never use this excess money, they are just hording money that could be used to help the economy and the needy. If you firmly believe that the rich deserve to horde money that they will never use, especially since they had to ruin the lives of hundreds of people to obtain it, then I'm sorry to say that such a belief is fascist and immoral.
Donations are nice, but the problem is that the rich corporate cats that decide go past the wealth threshold do so because they are greedy and glutenous and want more of what they don't need. If they want to take what they don't need and make people suffer, I see no reason why the government can't enact justice and reallocate these horded funds back to the poor people they raped it from in the first place.
So, why SHOULDN'T the government come to the aid of people who need it? I see it only logical, since it's their job to make us happy and keep us safe.
You look at our economic crisis today...
Our current (actually previous) crisis was caused by a war we shouldn't have fought and couldn't pay for, but was also caused by giant corporations like ENRON molesting the stock market and general market with their risks and illegal advantages.
Regulations. Regulations. Regulations...
What are you talking about? Corporations still control our entire economy. The government still has too little a role in it, just short of stopping corporations from outright murdering each other with hit men and security forces. I don't know what makes you think the government is controlling the market even a little, especially considering all of the obvious bribes that have been made to Congress in the past 11 years. The little things Obama has done for the market during his term hasn't done scant shit in comparison to the power giant corporations still have over it. The only way the government would have control would be if Obama has declared war against corporatism, which he won't, because he's naive, unfortunately.
Obama bailed out the car companies because if he hadn't, WE WOULD HAVE BECOME A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY!
I'm not surprised you said that though; it had a denseness to it that was unmistakably you.
And look at our failing public, government controlled schools...
You can't have your cake and eat it to. We have public and a private school program so that parents have the freedom to choose to have their children to compete by sending them to a public school. This way, parents can have their children either get the normal treatment of a public school, or they can spend more money and take the risk of putting their children forward in the job market. That's capitalist enough.
If we have a universal voucher system, nothing will be solved whatsoever. Either one, all private schools will become the new public schools, or two, public schools will tighten the prerequisites for attending them and stop more people from going to them. Either way, nothing will be accomplished. If you want to improve education, improve all of the public schools. The purpose of private schools is nonexistence if everyone had the ability to attend them.
I'm not going to reply to the rest of your last paragraph, because it's all complete cockery. Anyone who believes that the president has a socialist agenda is not worth finishing responding to. Have fun in your fantasy world for me, okay? I'll enjoy the day some Democrat, Obama or not, performs yet another stupendous feat akin to getting us out of the Great Depression. You brainwashed fascist.
You ignorant bastard. The reason we are in this shit hole is the government putting its overly sized nose into the private sector. Go back and take economics.
And please explain these Risks taken by capitalist.
As for your Father, embrace the horror and stop your whining. That is my advice to you.
And what type of capitalism are you talking about? State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Mercantilism, Intervention Capitalism, or are you blaming free market capitalism? FREE?
Oh and while your at it. Explain to me what you think capitalism even means?
What kind of world do you want to live in?
I'm ignorant? Really now? That's odd, considering you obviously don't realize that the government has never had any amount of power over corporatism to the point of effecting it even a little bit. Go back and look at history.
In fact, you have everything reversed. We're in this economic shit hole because of fat corporate cats bribing politicians the last 11 years into doing absolutely nothing about them taking more and more and more from the market.
Risks taken by corporations: stock market gambling, hording, staying afloat only on the labor of the Middle Class, exploitation of loopholes, bribing Congress, etc...
Right, OH! I HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW MY FAMILY IS SUFFERING UNJUSTLY UNDER A HORRIBLY FLAWED SYSTEM. That is so realistic and such a good argument. Thank you, dickstain. For the record, I can complain if I want, because I choose to fight against what's unjust as opposed to just sitting around getting raped by economic criminals.
I'm talking about corporatism, which I will refer to it as from now on when talking to you and certain others. I heard a very good terminology point from a friend of mine, pointing out that we are not a capitalist country in the first place. Thusly, I'm actually complaining about our sham of a capitalist system: corporatism. I have been being told we had capitalism for so many years that the definition in my mind was scewed into believing that our shitty system was in fact capitalism. I'm glad that that notion is incorrect.
What world do I want to live in? A just world, of course. Where nobody is too wealthy and nobody is too poor, where everyone gets along and there is world peace. But I can't imagine that world ever being achievable if you're going to sit here asking as stupid a question as 'what kind of a world do you want to live in?'
History speaks for itself, communism cannot work, it's just simple human nature. Look at the soviet union, they were a communist regime, and what happened to their economy, it destroyed itself. Humans work to benefit themselves, in capitalism they benefit from working, in communism, they don't, they are expected to work for the sake of working, as such in communism people do not work hard, because they know they can float by without lifting a finger, and everyone else wants a free ride, so they stop working as well. Because no one's working, no one's making anything, so no one gets anything, because there is nothing to get. It's been known since the dawn of civilization that no one works for the sake of working.
capitalism has the plus value and is given to the boss for your labor the working class doesn't get as much as the first class even though they put more time and effort. In socialism you work for yourself and the community. Socialism is less selfish and greedy and as a matter of fact, socialist countries have lower unemployment rates than capitalist countries.
"Legalized theft" doesn't show it in a good light like "rewards"...
Still, it wouldn't be theft, if everything produced is publicly owned, who are you stealing from? You would technically be stealing from yourself as well as everyone else. There should be enough 'x' to supply the entire nation anyway, so nobody loses anything.
Side: Socialism legalized theft
What you make you should keep. My business might make more than yours does...why divide it equally? Where is the freedom in that?
We should look to other nations that have crumbled under this system. Capitalism drives economies...maybe thats why ours is so bad today.
" My business might make more than yours does...why divide it equally? Where is the freedom in that?"
Socialism doesn't divide it up at all. It simply equates taxes. You will still make more money then your competitor.
"We should look to other nations that have crumbled under this system. "
No, they haven't.
Cuba is easily one of the best examples right now, though under a communist regime. With an effective planned economy, generally great universal health care and an impressive literacy rate, it's doing quite well for itself. Hell, they even have the best carbon output ratio.
You don't get it do you, we're not talking about theft like stealing someone's wallet, we're talking about theft of skill, of labor, of the sweat on a man's brow. Also, by it's vary nature socialism doesn't reward anyone, that's the whole point of socialism, you get everything for nothing. Socialism is the belief that there's an infinite anoumt of sandwiches and homes just coming into existance when someone's hungry. Both socialism and classical liberalism have the same problem, they don't know why we have jobs in the first place.