Please stop buying these useless and false slogans at the Inept Slogan Store. China, a communist country, has poverty. Russia when it was a communist country had poverty. Or was that only the EVIL influence of those bad, bad countries practicing a capitalistic form of economy.
I appreciate that things can be better but the only chance people truly have of getting out of poverty and maintaining any freedom is the capital form of economy. I'll agree with you that governments could all be doing a better job providing a social safety net but that has nothing to do with capitalism.
Do you think those examples truly describe a socialist system or are they corrupt?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
are you serious? I already gave you an example. why did yasser arafat have a net worth of 300 million? why did saddam huessien have 197 palaces while there was an all out famine in most of Iraq during the time of sanctions after the first gulf war?
to answer your question, dictators and their inner circles are what make "governments" corrupt.
you're a smart chick, what would you ask such a question?
are you serious? I already gave you an example. why did yasser arafat have a net worth of 300 million? why did saddam huessien have 197 palaces while there was an all out famine in most of Iraq during the time of sanctions after the first gulf war?
to answer your question, dictators and their inner circles are what make "governments" corrupt.
you're a smart chick, what would you ask such a question?
Their self interest over the interest of others is what made them corrupt. What is that called again?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Pure capitalism is clumsy and catastrophically dangerous. Pure socialism is oppressive and, well, catastrophically dangerous. Mixed economies are the way to go, and have shown remarkable promise. Unfortunately, everyone has a different opinion about where we should spend the collective money generated by our "capitalist means to socialist ends" system. We generate billions on top of billions, yet rather than spend it on a functioning saftey net, rather than better subsidizing research into progressive, forward thinking technologies, we spend it on bombing the holy hell outta the sticks of the world like some drunken teenager in the woods with a box of M80s and a single match - then to stare in wonder at the resulting flames, 'cause he only brought one bucket of emergency water.
I simply support a more even distribution of wealth. If people had a more proportionate slice of the pie then we wouldn't see so many going without. Just because some capitalist do good deeds, doesn't change the fact that resources are being bought out from under people and used to best suit us instead of them (for our profits, which always come first). Like Nike paying as little as possible to it's workers while making billions of profits for themselves. The coersion you speak of is to provide for these people who are going without...since you claim we're already doing enough of this, what's your problem? The govt making you do something you claim to already be doing??The fact is there are millions of people going without not because they were coersed by their government to pay taxes and give people liveable wages but because they lack the buying power it takes to survive...less than $1 a day often. And it's not because of socialism that it's happening.
You recognize that the "little" Nike is paying people is typically more than they'd be making otherwise, right? Certainly many corporations, including Nike, engage in incredibly immoral employment practices in poor nations. However, those immoral practices are typically made possible by abandoning capitalistic principles, not employing them. Coerced or forced slave labor is not a capitalistic principle. However, paying someone $.03 a day for a job they willingly accept because $.03 a day is three times what they'd make otherwise is based on capitalistic principles.
If people had employed the standards you have regarding poor nations in the nations that are currently rich, we'd all be living by Cuban or Soviet standards and extreme poverty would be far worse than it is now. The fundamental problem with your views is that you see wealth as if it's some kind of limited, consumable commodity. The idea that wealth must be redistributed (in whatever fashion) for poverty (of whatever kind) to end is the same ideological error that has been made by every despot, socialist and greedy capitalist. If wealth were a limited consumable commodity, we would have run out of it a long time ago and this argument would be moot.
The default human condition is poverty. Each of us is born hungry, stupid, and cold. Only production gives us food, knowledge, and shelter. And the history of socialism in this context is so obvious that it baffles me why people cling to it. Time and time again socialism promotes anti-production. And time and time again capitalism demands production. Nations that refuse to produce or establish political systems that make production impossible fall into poverty like clockwork. And those the produce, and encourage production, see poverty disappear.
Their self interest over the interest of others is what made them corrupt. What is that called again?
being selfish. which has nothing to do with capitalism.
capitalism is not causing millions to stave in africa. the world pours billions of dollars into these countries. guess who benefits from it? corrupt dictators
Pure capitalism is clumsy and catastrophically dangerous. Pure socialism is oppressive and, well, catastrophically dangerous. Mixed economies are the way to go, and have shown remarkable promise. Unfortunately, everyone has a different opinion about where we should spend the collective money generated by our "capitalist means to socialist ends" system. We generate billions on top of billions, yet rather than spend it on a functioning saftey net, rather than better subsidizing research into progressive, forward thinking technologies, we spend it on bombing the holy hell outta the sticks of the world like some drunken teenager in the woods with a box of M80s and a single match - then to stare in wonder at the resulting flames, 'cause he only brought one bucket of emergency water.
I agree, there could be a much better mix designed to protect those the system is currently shutting out. Money could be better spent benefiting everyone overall instead of benefiting those already at the top.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
being selfish. which has nothing to do with capitalism.
capitalism is not causing millions to stave in africa. the world pours billions of dollars into these countries. guess who benefits from it? corrupt dictators
These dictators are able to get the money how?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hehe...it's called socialism, abook. What are the poor going to give in return to those who deliver what you are demanding?
Once they are able they can better contribute to society. Do you expect something in return when you give charity? All I'm proposing is that people should have more equal access to resources and wealth. The gap is absolutely ridiculous. The poor won't be so poor. They'll have what they need to live. What do you want them to give back?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
because charities hand it to them in good confidence that it will be used correctly for the people. what the hell are you getting at?
The dictators are choosing to use the money for their own self interest instead of redistributing it to the people who need it the most. The dictators are using their power gained through wealth to decide who gets the money and who doesn't.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Once they are able they can better contribute to society.
Hehe...really??? This seems odd since, for example, we've redistributed billions into Africa without return. Hell, we've redistributed trillions into the poor in America, often times without return.
The funny thing about this is, if you actually believed it, you'd be describing employment. If you want to talk about money being given to the poor who in turn willingly agree to accept obligations to benefit society, then we'd be talking about reality.
Do you expect something in return when you give charity?
Of course. Why else would I give to charity?
All I'm proposing is that people should have more equal access to resources and wealth. The gap is absolutely ridiculous. The poor won't be so poor. They'll have what they need to live.
Is your problem with "the gap", or is your problem with "poverty"? Because socialism will do a great job eliminating the gap by reducing everyone to poverty.
What do you want them to give back?
Whatever is theirs, otherwise "give back" wouldn't make any sense.
You recognize that the "little" Nike is paying people is typically more than they'd be making otherwise, right? Certainly many corporations, including Nike, engage in incredibly immoral employment practices in poor nations. However, those immoral practices are typically made possible by abandoning capitalistic principles, not employing them. Coerced or forced slave labor is not a capitalistic principle. However, paying someone $.03 a day for a job they willingly accept because $.03 a day is three times what they'd make otherwise is based on capitalistic principles.
If people had employed the standards you have regarding poor nations in the nations that are currently rich, we'd all be living by Cuban or Soviet standards and extreme poverty would be far worse than it is now. The fundamental problem with your views is that you see wealth as if it's some kind of limited, consumable commodity. The idea that wealth must be redistributed (in whatever fashion) for poverty (of whatever kind) to end is the same ideological error that has been made by every despot, socialist and greedy capitalist. If wealth were a limited consumable commodity, we would have run out of it a long time ago and this argument would be moot.
The default human condition is poverty. Each of us is born hungry, stupid, and cold. Only production gives us food, knowledge, and shelter. And the history of socialism in this context is so obvious that it baffles me why people cling to it. Time and time again socialism promotes anti-production. And time and time again capitalism demands production. Nations that refuse to produce or establish political systems that make production impossible fall into poverty like clockwork. And those the produce, and encourage production, see poverty disappear.
See we'll never agree on this because of our opposite world views. I don't think self interest is the only motivation driving the world. I believe the quality of life for the world as a whole motivates just as many.
I see countries like Canada, Denmark, France who have a more socialist approach doing fine. I also see this capitalism not working out too well for us here at home. I don't see this system being able to maintain itself.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hehe...really??? This seems odd since, for example, we've redistributed billions into Africa without return. Hell, we've redistributed trillions into the poor in America, often times without return.
The funny thing about this is, if you actually believed it, you'd be describing employment. If you want to talk about money being given to the poor who in turn willingly agree to accept obligations to benefit society, then we'd be talking about reality.
Of course. Why else would I give to charity?
Is your problem with "the gap", or is your problem with "poverty"? Because socialism will do a great job eliminating the gap by reducing everyone to poverty.
Whatever is theirs, otherwise "give back" wouldn't make any sense.
What do you expect back from your charity?
How would a more socialist system cause all this abundant wealth you speak of to disappear suddenly?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
How would a more socialist system cause all this abundant wealth you speak of to disappear suddenly?
By handing it out for consumption and preventing its replacement, of course. Why do you think people in Cuba have to bring their own gauze to their surgeries? Why do you think people in Soviet Russia starved to death? Why do you think staple food shortages are now hitting Venezuela? Why do you think per-capita GDPs in socialistic nations fall or grow at much slower rates than capitalistic nations with similar geographical and economic starting points?
Socialism damns wealth. It co-opts it without providing rewards to those who create it, and it seperates the ends of human survival and happiness from their means. It's like asking why a garden doesn't grow when you block out the sunlight and salt the earth.
Canada, Denmark and France are "doing fine" with "socialism", while America is "not working" with "capitalism".
Can you elucidate the standards and facts upon which these contentions are based?
Ah yes, the ever condescending attitude to views that you don't share. Glad I could give you a chuckle.
I'm saying that just because a system is more socialist...that doesn't mean the country is doomed to poverty.
In America, even the middle class is having a hard time finding good jobs even with college, they can't afford health insurance, they wait to get treatment until they can't avoid it any longer and they use the er instead of being able to afford preventative measures before it got out of control, so many jobs are being outsourced, we no longer produce our own goods, we import waaay more than we export. The rich are profiting off everyone but the country is losing ground.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
By handing it out for consumption and preventing its replacement, of course. Why do you think people in Cuba have to bring their own gauze to their surgeries? Why do you think people in Soviet Russia starved to death? Why do you think staple food shortages are now hitting Venezuela? Why do you think per-capita GDPs in socialistic nations fall or grow at much slower rates than capitalistic nations with similar geographical and economic starting points?
Socialism damns wealth. It co-opts it without providing rewards to those who create it, and it seperates the ends of human survival and happiness from their means. It's like asking why a garden doesn't grow when you block out the sunlight and salt the earth.
I don't think the only reason people produce is for self interest...I've already said as much. The reward is happiness, like you say...living in a society where people have more access to this abundant wealth. People will produce things out of kindness and yearning for a better world...not just selfishness. I know you won't see this.
The examples you gave are examples of corruption getting in the way of socialism.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm saying that just because a system is more socialist...that doesn't mean the country is doomed to poverty.
You are 100% correct. What you don't list, however, is how "more socialist" you want society to be. The reason I laughed at the dichotomy you presented is because the socialistic difference between America, Canada, France and Denmark are mostly quite small. While America's economic practices are far more capitalistic, we have incredibly pervasive systems of governmental supports and altruistic charity networks they don't have. Furthermore, the socialized systems of those nations (and our own) are all propped up by capitalistic endeavors in the first place.
In America, even the middle class is having a hard time finding good jobs even with college, they can't afford health insurance, they wait to get treatment until they can't avoid it any longer and they use the er instead of being able to afford preventative measures before it got out of control, so many jobs are being outsourced, we no longer produce our own goods, we import waaay more than we export. The rich are profiting off everyone but the country is losing ground.
Funny that you mention health care. Why do you think health care suddenly is so expensive and difficult to acquire here in America?
I don't think the only reason people produce is for self interest...I've already said as much.
Saying it doesn't make it true.
The reward is happiness, like you say...living in a society where people have more access to this abundant wealth. People will produce things out of kindness and yearning for a better world...not just selfishness. I know you won't see this.
So my desire to be happy isn't selfish?? I don't understand that.
If people will produce things out of kindness, why don't you make me a hat? Or better yet, why won't you just make me 1,000,000 hats so I can give them out to my friends? You're not unkind are you?
The examples you gave are examples of corruption getting in the way of socialism.
What's the difference???? What's your definition of "corrupt"?
The dictators are choosing to use the money for their own self interest instead of redistributing it to the people who need it the most. The dictators are using their power gained through wealth to decide who gets the money and who doesn't.
Comments
what makes them corrupt?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Do you think those examples truly describe a socialist system or are they corrupt?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
to answer your question, dictators and their inner circles are what make "governments" corrupt.
you're a smart chick, what would you ask such a question?
Their self interest over the interest of others is what made them corrupt. What is that called again?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ambition?
http://www.despair.com/ambition.html
cross the river to the eastside
You recognize that the "little" Nike is paying people is typically more than they'd be making otherwise, right? Certainly many corporations, including Nike, engage in incredibly immoral employment practices in poor nations. However, those immoral practices are typically made possible by abandoning capitalistic principles, not employing them. Coerced or forced slave labor is not a capitalistic principle. However, paying someone $.03 a day for a job they willingly accept because $.03 a day is three times what they'd make otherwise is based on capitalistic principles.
If people had employed the standards you have regarding poor nations in the nations that are currently rich, we'd all be living by Cuban or Soviet standards and extreme poverty would be far worse than it is now. The fundamental problem with your views is that you see wealth as if it's some kind of limited, consumable commodity. The idea that wealth must be redistributed (in whatever fashion) for poverty (of whatever kind) to end is the same ideological error that has been made by every despot, socialist and greedy capitalist. If wealth were a limited consumable commodity, we would have run out of it a long time ago and this argument would be moot.
The default human condition is poverty. Each of us is born hungry, stupid, and cold. Only production gives us food, knowledge, and shelter. And the history of socialism in this context is so obvious that it baffles me why people cling to it. Time and time again socialism promotes anti-production. And time and time again capitalism demands production. Nations that refuse to produce or establish political systems that make production impossible fall into poverty like clockwork. And those the produce, and encourage production, see poverty disappear.
capitalism is not causing millions to stave in africa. the world pours billions of dollars into these countries. guess who benefits from it? corrupt dictators
I agree, there could be a much better mix designed to protect those the system is currently shutting out. Money could be better spent benefiting everyone overall instead of benefiting those already at the top.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hehe...it's called socialism, abook. What are the poor going to give in return to those who deliver what you are demanding?
These dictators are able to get the money how?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
are you saying if ppl help the less-able then the less-able owe the able?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Once they are able they can better contribute to society. Do you expect something in return when you give charity? All I'm proposing is that people should have more equal access to resources and wealth. The gap is absolutely ridiculous. The poor won't be so poor. They'll have what they need to live. What do you want them to give back?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The dictators are choosing to use the money for their own self interest instead of redistributing it to the people who need it the most. The dictators are using their power gained through wealth to decide who gets the money and who doesn't.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And ambition and the opportunities to do what you want with those ambitions fits best in a capitalist system.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hehe...really??? This seems odd since, for example, we've redistributed billions into Africa without return. Hell, we've redistributed trillions into the poor in America, often times without return.
The funny thing about this is, if you actually believed it, you'd be describing employment. If you want to talk about money being given to the poor who in turn willingly agree to accept obligations to benefit society, then we'd be talking about reality.
Of course. Why else would I give to charity?
Is your problem with "the gap", or is your problem with "poverty"? Because socialism will do a great job eliminating the gap by reducing everyone to poverty.
Whatever is theirs, otherwise "give back" wouldn't make any sense.
Of course. Is this shocking?
See we'll never agree on this because of our opposite world views. I don't think self interest is the only motivation driving the world. I believe the quality of life for the world as a whole motivates just as many.
I see countries like Canada, Denmark, France who have a more socialist approach doing fine. I also see this capitalism not working out too well for us here at home. I don't see this system being able to maintain itself.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
alot of you are on her case about it.
thats fucked up when that takes place.
its pritty weak.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
What do you expect back from your charity?
How would a more socialist system cause all this abundant wealth you speak of to disappear suddenly?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The dichotomy here is funny.
Canada, Denmark and France are "doing fine" with "socialism", while America is "not working" with "capitalism".
Can you elucidate the standards and facts upon which these contentions are based?
i am glad i am not like you.
no offense intended.
in return you can say the same thing to me.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Happiness.
By handing it out for consumption and preventing its replacement, of course. Why do you think people in Cuba have to bring their own gauze to their surgeries? Why do you think people in Soviet Russia starved to death? Why do you think staple food shortages are now hitting Venezuela? Why do you think per-capita GDPs in socialistic nations fall or grow at much slower rates than capitalistic nations with similar geographical and economic starting points?
Socialism damns wealth. It co-opts it without providing rewards to those who create it, and it seperates the ends of human survival and happiness from their means. It's like asking why a garden doesn't grow when you block out the sunlight and salt the earth.
Ah yes, the ever condescending attitude to views that you don't share. Glad I could give you a chuckle.
I'm saying that just because a system is more socialist...that doesn't mean the country is doomed to poverty.
In America, even the middle class is having a hard time finding good jobs even with college, they can't afford health insurance, they wait to get treatment until they can't avoid it any longer and they use the er instead of being able to afford preventative measures before it got out of control, so many jobs are being outsourced, we no longer produce our own goods, we import waaay more than we export. The rich are profiting off everyone but the country is losing ground.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I don't think the only reason people produce is for self interest...I've already said as much. The reward is happiness, like you say...living in a society where people have more access to this abundant wealth. People will produce things out of kindness and yearning for a better world...not just selfishness. I know you won't see this.
The examples you gave are examples of corruption getting in the way of socialism.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You are 100% correct. What you don't list, however, is how "more socialist" you want society to be. The reason I laughed at the dichotomy you presented is because the socialistic difference between America, Canada, France and Denmark are mostly quite small. While America's economic practices are far more capitalistic, we have incredibly pervasive systems of governmental supports and altruistic charity networks they don't have. Furthermore, the socialized systems of those nations (and our own) are all propped up by capitalistic endeavors in the first place.
Funny that you mention health care. Why do you think health care suddenly is so expensive and difficult to acquire here in America?
Saying it doesn't make it true.
So my desire to be happy isn't selfish?? I don't understand that.
If people will produce things out of kindness, why don't you make me a hat? Or better yet, why won't you just make me 1,000,000 hats so I can give them out to my friends? You're not unkind are you?
What's the difference???? What's your definition of "corrupt"?