Capitalism vs. Socialism

CorporateWhore

The rich are worth more, in economic terms, than the poor. In legal terms, every human life has equal value, though. I wouldn't want anyone to think I hate the poor.

When rich people invest their vast amounts of money, they do fail to give it directly to the poor through taxation or charity. But, when they invest it, they create wealth. This is more valuable to the poor than taxation or charity.

Because the economy is not a zero sum game, the size of overall wealth can be augmented. When rich people invest their money in the market, they create jobs and grow the economy for all. Even though their motivations are selfish, the result is a higher standard of living for all. Adam Smith talks about this when he explains the importance of a capitalist economy.

I have a serious problem understanding how socialism creates a similar standard of living when every attempt at making socialism work has proven a failure. If one were to judge the respective systems based on the scientific method, socialism would fail every time. I don't understand why anyone would advocate socialist policies. The standard of living in socialist nations is simply not as high as in america.

My point in writing this post is to start a dialogue about the rationale behind advocacy of socialism. If I am missing something, let's talk about it.

Ahnimus

The Rothschilds:

Estimated worth: $400,000 trillion or so.

Ahnimus

Let me articulate, it's not so much capitalism in it's entirety that is to blame.

It's the banks. Usury, or the act of lending money that does not belong to one's self at an interest. Is mostly to blame.

Say, I own a bank, you come in and put your money in that bank, because you pretty much have to have a bank, you can't get paid without one. Then I leave 10% of your money in my bank and lend the other 90% out to other people that nead the money. I charge those people 10% on what I lend them of your money. How is that fair to anyone but the bank?

So the bank is making money out of virtually nothing. The person borrowing the money is probably borrowing it because they are living in poverty or struggling just above that line. Now they are even more impoverished because they have to pay back 10%.

Another problem I have with banking. In order for me to get paid, I have to have a bank account. In order for me to have a bank account I have to pay bank fees. A couple of months ago my bank fees were $70. I've got it down quite a bit, but shit, I just want to spend my hard earned money.

CorporateWhore

Ahnimus wrote:

Let me articulate, it's not so much capitalism in it's entirety that is to blame.

It's the banks. Usury, or the act of lending money that does not belong to one's self at an interest. Is mostly to blame.

Say, I own a bank, you come in and put your money in that bank, because you pretty much have to have a bank, you can't get paid without one. Then I leave 10% of your money in my bank and lend the other 90% out to other people that nead the money. I charge those people 10% on what I lend them of your money. How is that fair to anyone but the bank?

So the bank is making money out of virtually nothing. The person borrowing the money is probably borrowing it because they are living in poverty or struggling just above that line. Now they are even more impoverished because they have to pay back 10%.

Another problem I have with banking. In order for me to get paid, I have to have a bank account. In order for me to have a bank account I have to pay bank fees. A couple of months ago my bank fees were $70. I've got it down quite a bit, but shit, I just want to spend my hard earned money.

You ever been to a checks cashed place? You don't need a bank in order to cash your check.

The bank charges a premium for keeping your money safe. Additionally, if you put your money in a savings plan, your investment grows without you doing any work either.

If people didn't put money in the bank, the economy would fall apart because inflation would cause their cash stash to decrease in value every year.

Ahnimus

CorporateWhore wrote:

You ever been to a checks cashed place? You don't need a bank in order to cash your check.

The bank charges a premium for keeping your money safe. Additionally, if you put your money in a savings plan, your investment grows without you doing any work either.

If people didn't put money in the bank, the economy would fall apart because inflation would cause their cash stash to decrease in value every year.

My problem is with fractional-reserve banking.

CorporateWhore

Ahnimus wrote:

My problem is with fractional-reserve banking.

Yeah but the FDIC guarantees that you can take your money out of the bank up to about $400,000 right?

Ahnimus

CorporateWhore wrote:

Yeah but the FDIC guarantees that you can take your money out of the bank up to about $400,000 right?

I have no idea. Sorry, I'm not an economist. :(

Just irked by the idea that one family can have a personal armageddon shelter and 25 kids grow up in an orphanage.

CorporateWhore

Ahnimus wrote:

I have no idea. Sorry, I'm not an economist. :(

Just irked by the idea that one family can have a personal armageddon shelter and 25 kids grow up in an orphanage.

Amen. I see that as a failure of morality instead of the economic system.

hippiemom

CorporateWhore wrote:

The rich are worth more, in economic terms, than the poor. In legal terms, every human life has equal value, though. I wouldn't want anyone to think I hate the poor.

When rich people invest their vast amounts of money, they do fail to give it directly to the poor through taxation or charity. But, when they invest it, they create wealth. This is more valuable to the poor than taxation or charity.

Because the economy is not a zero sum game, the size of overall wealth can be augmented. When rich people invest their money in the market, they create jobs and grow the economy for all. Even though their motivations are selfish, the result is a higher standard of living for all. Adam Smith talks about this when he explains the importance of a capitalist economy.

I have a serious problem understanding how socialism creates a similar standard of living when every attempt at making socialism work has proven a failure. If one were to judge the respective systems based on the scientific method, socialism would fail every time. I don't understand why anyone would advocate socialist policies. The standard of living in socialist nations is simply not as high as in america.

My point in writing this post is to start a dialogue about the rationale behind advocacy of socialism. If I am missing something, let's talk about it.

Define "socialism." Are you talking about what used to exist in the USSR, what exists today in much of Europe, or some other theoretical socialist society? The problem with most of the threads on socialism is that everyone is talking about something different ... if you're talking about the Soviet Union and I'm talking about Sweden, the dialogue isn't going to make a whole lot of sense.

Androgynous Mind

CorporateWhore, very well put. I have always tried to find the rationale that someone has for socialism, but could never find it either.

No system is perfect and Capitalism does have its flaws, but overall it is a powerful economic system that has made America the success it is today. Socialism cannot touch it.

sonicreducer

i said something pretty stupid here and erased it,...

bootlegger10

Ahnimus wrote:

Say, I own a bank, you come in and put your money in that bank, because you pretty much have to have a bank, you can't get paid without one. Then I leave 10% of your money in my bank and lend the other 90% out to other people that nead the money. I charge those people 10% on what I lend them of your money. How is that fair to anyone but the bank?

The bank charges 10% because it is taking on the risk of that loan not being paid back. The bank has other options instead of loaning (it could invest the money), so it would be foolish to just give the money away and not receive a return, except for principal payments. The bank then pays some of the 10% to its deposit holders as interest income. Plus the debtor gets the use of money he didn't have the day before to buy the house or car he needs. So, everybody is happy. Why be mad at the bank? I don't think i've seen anyone say, "Damn, I got a loan." Instead, they are usually thrilled as they finally bought their first house, or got a dependable car.

You want to buy a house? Well, good luck working for 20 years and saving up until you finally have enough to buy it straight up.

Interest is the fee for having something now. There is nothing wrong with it. You have $20,000 in cash, and want that $180,000 house, but don't want to pay interest, that's your problem. Quit hiding behind "Capitalism" or "Socialism." There are options.

mookie blaylock 10

hippiemom wrote:

Define "socialism." Are you talking about what used to exist in the USSR, what exists today in much of Europe, or some other theoretical socialist society? The problem with most of the threads on socialism is that everyone is talking about something different ... if you're talking about the Soviet Union and I'm talking about Sweden, the dialogue isn't going to make a whole lot of sense.

exactly hippiemom. too often people are confused about what they think socialist governments or sytems that have socialist tendencies are. scandinavian countries that use socialist systems consistently rank very high in standard of living and always higher than the US. the gap between rich and poor continues to grow at an alarming rate especially in the US, while systems used in countries like sweden, as you mentioned, maintain more of an equality that means you don't see too many people living on the streets and struggling to make a decent living...you don't see many people owning several hummers and luxury items either. it's quite a nice balance.

hippiemom

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

exactly hippiemom. too often people are confused about what they think socialist governments or sytems that have socialist tendencies are. scandinavian countries that use socialist systems consistently rank very high in standard of living and always higher than the US. the gap between rich and poor continues to grow at an alarming rate especially in the US, while systems used in countries like sweden, as you mentioned, maintain more of an equality that means you don't see too many people living on the streets and struggling to make a decent living...you don't see many people owning several hummers and luxury items either. it's quite a nice balance.

I don't think these threads that attempt to compare socialism with capitalism are ever very clear. There is no pure capitalist or socialist society anywhere to discuss. The U.S. has elements of socialism ... our farm policy, for example, is socialist in the extreme ... and there are certainly capitalistic elements in European society, so there is no clear dividing line. I'd rather see a thread comparing the U.S. to a particular country so we'd all know exactly what we were talking about, rather than using these imprecise labels that don't fit any country.

sonicreducer

so should the US become more socialist when it comes to professional athletes and musicians and actors who make serious bank,...

haha, healthcare tax for britney spears

mookie blaylock 10

hippiemom wrote:

I don't think these threads that attempt to compare socialism with capitalism are ever very clear. There is no pure capitalist or socialist society anywhere to discuss. The U.S. has elements of socialism ... our farm policy, for example, is socialist in the extreme ... and there are certainly capitalistic elements in European society, so there is no clear dividing line. I'd rather see a thread comparing the U.S. to a particular country so we'd all know exactly what we were talking about, rather than using these imprecise labels that don't fit any country.

very good points.

surferdude

I'm all for a capitalist economic system and a socialist form of governance. To me that's the best of both worlds.

lukin2006

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

exactly hippiemom. too often people are confused about what they think socialist governments or sytems that have socialist tendencies are. scandinavian countries that use socialist systems consistently rank very high in standard of living and always higher than the US. the gap between rich and poor continues to grow at an alarming rate especially in the US, while systems used in countries like sweden, as you mentioned, maintain more of an equality that means you don't see too many people living on the streets and struggling to make a decent living...you don't see many people owning several hummers and luxury items either. it's quite a nice balance.

Them being ranked higher than the US has a lot to do with the health care of those countries.

lukin2006

surferdude wrote:

I'm all for a capitalist economic system and a socialist form of governance. To me that's the best of both worlds.

Thats kind of what we have here in Canada, but it does have it's pitfalls, for example we pay higher taxes than the US but we get health care in return, now the downfall with that is if you do not have a doctor you probably will not have one in the very near future, wait times for elective surgery are very long.

mookie blaylock 10

beemster wrote:

Them being ranked higher than the US has a lot to do with the health care of those countries.

yes, that is part of it. again, that is a result a more socialized form of government.

if i'm not mistaken, the US ranks last among so-called "developed" countries in terms of the gap between wealthy and poor. the ten percent of americans with the highest incomes earn 15 times more than the bottom ten percent. it's only getting worse. i believe the gap is widening here in canada as well. it's a scary thing, and it's a determining factor in the standard of living in nations as well.

CorporateWhore

hippiemom wrote:

I don't think these threads that attempt to compare socialism with capitalism are ever very clear. There is no pure capitalist or socialist society anywhere to discuss. The U.S. has elements of socialism ... our farm policy, for example, is socialist in the extreme ... and there are certainly capitalistic elements in European society, so there is no clear dividing line. I'd rather see a thread comparing the U.S. to a particular country so we'd all know exactly what we were talking about, rather than using these imprecise labels that don't fit any country.

There are certainly degrees of capitalism and socialism in many societies. The democratic socialist countries of europe are farther left on the scale compared to american capitalism. Indeed, we have some socialist policies in America, but I am apt to argue that even those are unnecessary.

So, my definition for socialism is thus: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

I don't think any of the means of production or distribution should be owned collectively or by a centralized government. I don't think the government should help plan or control the economy in any way.

For example, I believe that social security is a socialist policy. I also believe that is has proven to be a failure.