thank you both for a "reasonable" conversation and for reminding me why i normally stay away from the train wreck in the first place. it's not worth arguing over. you have your opinions and insults, i have my opinion, but i have not insulted either of you.
most agree that depression is a part of living in a place where part of the year involves living with very little sunlight.
you're off the topic and obviously grasping at straws to demean a place that has a higher standard of living than the US.
Actually, I foud this quite insulting on two fronts: 1) 'grasping at straws', when I am stating facts, and 2) just being wrong. But I do like the way you tried to take the high ground there. Very white of you.
thank you both for a "reasonable" conversation and for reminding me why i normally stay away from the train wreck in the first place. it's not worth arguing over. you have your opinions and insults, i have my opinion, but i have not insulted either of you.
Yea man, insults suck no matter how they are flavored.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That's good. I suppose it goes without saying that insults are intended to do harm, regardless of their delivery.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Actually, I foud this quite insulting on two fronts: 1) 'grasping at straws', when I am stating facts, and 2) just being wrong. But I do like the way you tried to take the high ground there. Very white of you.
Enjoy your vacation
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
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.
Then is public education socialist? Education is just as much a product as retirement security. The only difference (referring to this post) is that it is not operated by a "central government" but many local governments. Nevertheless, while you can get private education (as you can w/retirement), most people are educated publicly at some point in their lives, K-college.
Personally, I think this is an example of wise socialism. You may not like everything about the public schools, but in concept, do you think there should be? Without them, you'd have poor people not able to go to school and some parents not sending kids to school because they'd rather put a three-season porch on the back of the house. The market fails when this happens, hence public schools.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
Then is public education socialist? Education is just as much a product as retirement security. The only difference (referring to this post) is that it is not operated by a "central government" but many local governments. Nevertheless, while you can get private education (as you can w/retirement), most people are educated publicly at some point in their lives, K-college.
Personally, I think this is an example of wise socialism. You may not like everything about the public schools, but in concept, do you think there should be? Without them, you'd have poor people not able to go to school and some parents not sending kids to school because they'd rather put a three-season porch on the back of the house. The market fails when this happens, hence public schools.
I'm down with public schools, but I'd say society gets much more benefit from education than from social security. SS is meant as a safety net while education is meant to make our students able to provide for themselves.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I'm down with public schools, but I'd say society gets much more benefit from education than from social security. SS is meant as a safety net while education is meant to make our students able to provide for themselves.
Well, there's that and the fact that social security is going to be non-existant when we retire. I mean, education had better be around a little longer.
I think there is a continuism between capitalism and socialism. Pure capitalism assumes that the market never fails. Pure socialism takes away all incentive to be productive. I am of the opinion that market failures can be corrected without taking away the incentive. For all the belly-aching about taxes being to high for the rich, as far as I can tell, it is still quite possible to be rich and accumlate tons of wealth.
I think that just about anything the government gets their hands on is socialism, such as provision of the miltary.
In theory, people want what's best for themselves economically and otherwise. So even though economic theory does not account for environmental damage, people will be hesitant to patronize those that pollute because they care about the environment. In theory, meat producers will not be able to sell diseased meat, so we don't need USDA regulations. In theory, people will be hesitant to patronize places that have child labor or unsafe working conditions, so we do not need OSHA or labor laws.
In theory. Problem is, in this huge world, we can't always know how much environmental damage the pork industry is doing or what products are produced by people working 19 hours a day in shoddy conditions. So we create laws to protect workers from this kind of treatment, and to regulate beef (which probably could cost 3 cents less and only be a little more dangerous) and to protect the environment. And, like public schools, it's all socialistic in nature. And I'll take it.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
I'm down with public schools, but I'd say society gets much more benefit from education than from social security. SS is meant as a safety net while education is meant to make our students able to provide for themselves.
That's fine. I was kinda actually trying to bring us to a simple agreement: The market fails and government sometimes intervenes when the market fails (i.e. that the market would stop some kids from getting an education).
As to the particulars when the market fails and how (or if) government should respond...I'm sure we could exchange ideas all night. But I got shit to do.
Schools is an example of where we would agree. Social Security is an example of where we would disagree for the most part.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
That's fine. I was kinda actually trying to bring us to a simple agreement: The market fails and government sometimes intervenes when the market fails (i.e. that the market would stop some kids from getting an education).
As to the particulars when the market fails and how (or if) government should respond...I'm sure we could exchange ideas all night. But I got shit to do.
Schools is an example of where we would agree. Social Security is an example of where we would disagree for the most part.
In very very very very very very very general terms..
I think it requires a balance of both ideas to run a country at it's best. Yes capitalism is a driving force behind our greatness, but our government has the ability to do some incredible things with it's wealth. Which is why it's so bizarre that there are hard working people (not bums in other words) starving with children in the great USA.
In very very very very very very very general terms..
I think it requires a balance of both ideas to run a country at it's best. Yes capitalism is a driving force behind our greatness, but our government has the ability to do some incredible things with it's wealth. Which is why it's so bizarre that there are hard working people (not bums in other words) starving with children in the great USA.
I live in Canada and we for the most part are socialist and we have homeless and starving people as well
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I live in Canada and we for the most part are socialist and we have homeless and starving people as well
There are going to be starving people under any sort of government, I was alluding to the fact that our lives could be so much better universally if we tried to use the government to its potential. Case and point: Imagine a world without the FDA...
There are going to be starving people under any sort of government, I was alluding to the fact that our lives could be so much better universally if we tried to use the government to its potential. Case and point: Imagine a world without the FDA...
I would be careful about tossing too many government organizations under the guise of "socialist" policies.
The definition of socialism is as follows:
"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."
Planning or controlling the economy is mainly what we are talking about, and an agency like the FDA does none of that except keep companies honest.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I would be careful about tossing too many government organizations under the guise of "socialist" policies.
The definition of socialism is as follows:
"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."
Planning or controlling the economy is mainly what we are talking about, and an agency like the FDA does none of that except keep companies honest.
Exactly. It's kind of an in-between. It's government regulation but fairly loose in that it's main (or only) purpose is to keep the consumer safe.
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.
Open a bank.
There are plenty of banks with no fees - or very, very small fees.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Im not a fan of high taxes for the rich. I believe in more of a flat tax than anything.
If you work hard and prosper why should you have to pay a penalty for it?
Our economic system should not overly tax people who are wealthy; that would go against the capitalist system in general.
alternatively, why should the poor be punished because they live in a system that perpetuates wealth and poverty. quite often those who are wealthy have inherited it or have been afforded more opportunities in terms of educational or occupational choices than those who grow up lower middle class or below the poverty line.
how is it right that there is a stigma attached to wealthy people that they have worked hard for it? i'm sure many of them have, but there are multitudes more that work harder, work longer hours, and still struggle to make a decent living. quite often people become rich or obtain wealth by using the labour of others to do it, while those who labour for it do not see the same prosperity. to me that is not fair.
this is the problem i have with governmental systems that are mainly capitalist in nature, that do not tax the wealthy at a significantly higher tax rate. as you said, that is the nature of the system, but to me there is something inherently wrong with societies that allow certain people to have the wealth and belongings of several families, while others are left either living on the streets, struggling to pay for food, or decent shelter.
the character of a society in general can be measured by how it treats its poor and indigent.
how is it right that there is a stigma attached to wealthy people that they have worked hard for it? i'm sure many of them have, but there are multitudes more that work harder, work longer hours, and still struggle to make a decent living. quite often people become rich or obtain wealth by using the labour of others to do it, while those who labour for it do not see the same prosperity. to me that is not fair.
.
You cant fault people who decide to have others work for them....An entrepeneur ( sp) should not be faulted cause he had the balls to go out and do something on his own.
quite often people become rich or obtain wealth by using the labour of others to do it, while those who labour for it do not see the same prosperity. to me that is not fair.
So when you got your job at a company you didn't think of, that you didn't start, using tools you didn't make, it's not fair that the people who did think of it, did start it, and did provide those tools profit more than you do?
the character of a society in general can be measured by how it treats its poor and indigent.
No. That character of a society in general can be measured by how it treats everyone. If your society will rob wealth from those who earn it to give it to those who did not, your society does not have much character.
So when you got your job at a company you didn't think of, that you didn't start, using tools you didn't make, it's not fair that the people who did think of it, did start it, and did provide those tools profit more than you do?
No. That character of a society in general can be measured by how it treats everyone. If your society will rob wealth from those who earn it to give it to those who did not, your society does not have much character.
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.
how are the rich worth more in economic terms? and which terms if so?
You cant fault people who decide to have others work for them....An entrepeneur ( sp) should not be faulted cause he had the balls to go out and do something on his own.
i agree, but you can fault them when they don't pay their employees what they are worth, and often they do not.
Comments
Actually, I foud this quite insulting on two fronts: 1) 'grasping at straws', when I am stating facts, and 2) just being wrong. But I do like the way you tried to take the high ground there. Very white of you.
Yea man, insults suck no matter how they are flavored.
Deep...and yet not.
That's good. I suppose it goes without saying that insults are intended to do harm, regardless of their delivery.
Then is public education socialist? Education is just as much a product as retirement security. The only difference (referring to this post) is that it is not operated by a "central government" but many local governments. Nevertheless, while you can get private education (as you can w/retirement), most people are educated publicly at some point in their lives, K-college.
Personally, I think this is an example of wise socialism. You may not like everything about the public schools, but in concept, do you think there should be? Without them, you'd have poor people not able to go to school and some parents not sending kids to school because they'd rather put a three-season porch on the back of the house. The market fails when this happens, hence public schools.
I don't get it.
I'm down with public schools, but I'd say society gets much more benefit from education than from social security. SS is meant as a safety net while education is meant to make our students able to provide for themselves.
-Enoch Powell
Well, there's that and the fact that social security is going to be non-existant when we retire. I mean, education had better be around a little longer.
I think that just about anything the government gets their hands on is socialism, such as provision of the miltary.
In theory, people want what's best for themselves economically and otherwise. So even though economic theory does not account for environmental damage, people will be hesitant to patronize those that pollute because they care about the environment. In theory, meat producers will not be able to sell diseased meat, so we don't need USDA regulations. In theory, people will be hesitant to patronize places that have child labor or unsafe working conditions, so we do not need OSHA or labor laws.
In theory. Problem is, in this huge world, we can't always know how much environmental damage the pork industry is doing or what products are produced by people working 19 hours a day in shoddy conditions. So we create laws to protect workers from this kind of treatment, and to regulate beef (which probably could cost 3 cents less and only be a little more dangerous) and to protect the environment. And, like public schools, it's all socialistic in nature. And I'll take it.
That's fine. I was kinda actually trying to bring us to a simple agreement: The market fails and government sometimes intervenes when the market fails (i.e. that the market would stop some kids from getting an education).
As to the particulars when the market fails and how (or if) government should respond...I'm sure we could exchange ideas all night. But I got shit to do.
Schools is an example of where we would agree. Social Security is an example of where we would disagree for the most part.
I don't even know what to do with this.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1712965,00.html
just a little more about the standard of living:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
not too many of the worlds more "advanced" countries above America there.
Still i'll NEVER live there so i dont really care.
That's too bad, we'd really like you to live here.
-Enoch Powell
I think it requires a balance of both ideas to run a country at it's best. Yes capitalism is a driving force behind our greatness, but our government has the ability to do some incredible things with it's wealth. Which is why it's so bizarre that there are hard working people (not bums in other words) starving with children in the great USA.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
I live in Canada and we for the most part are socialist and we have homeless and starving people as well
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
I would be careful about tossing too many government organizations under the guise of "socialist" policies.
The definition of socialism is as follows:
"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."
Planning or controlling the economy is mainly what we are talking about, and an agency like the FDA does none of that except keep companies honest.
-Enoch Powell
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Open a bank.
There are plenty of banks with no fees - or very, very small fees.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If you work hard and prosper why should you have to pay a penalty for it?
Our economic system should not overly tax people who are wealthy; that would go against the capitalist system in general.
alternatively, why should the poor be punished because they live in a system that perpetuates wealth and poverty. quite often those who are wealthy have inherited it or have been afforded more opportunities in terms of educational or occupational choices than those who grow up lower middle class or below the poverty line.
how is it right that there is a stigma attached to wealthy people that they have worked hard for it? i'm sure many of them have, but there are multitudes more that work harder, work longer hours, and still struggle to make a decent living. quite often people become rich or obtain wealth by using the labour of others to do it, while those who labour for it do not see the same prosperity. to me that is not fair.
this is the problem i have with governmental systems that are mainly capitalist in nature, that do not tax the wealthy at a significantly higher tax rate. as you said, that is the nature of the system, but to me there is something inherently wrong with societies that allow certain people to have the wealth and belongings of several families, while others are left either living on the streets, struggling to pay for food, or decent shelter.
the character of a society in general can be measured by how it treats its poor and indigent.
You cant fault people who decide to have others work for them....An entrepeneur ( sp) should not be faulted cause he had the balls to go out and do something on his own.
So when you got your job at a company you didn't think of, that you didn't start, using tools you didn't make, it's not fair that the people who did think of it, did start it, and did provide those tools profit more than you do?
No. That character of a society in general can be measured by how it treats everyone. If your society will rob wealth from those who earn it to give it to those who did not, your society does not have much character.
Best post ive read in a while
how are the rich worth more in economic terms? and which terms if so?
i agree, but you can fault them when they don't pay their employees what they are worth, and often they do not.
oooh no, silly, yooouuuurs is! kiss kiss BigBoy xx