Capitalism vs. Socialism

Uncle Leo

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.

Uncle Leo

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

IWillLiveForeve

Uncle Leo wrote:

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.

Specifics

CorporateWhore wrote:

.
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.

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.

CorporateWhore

Specifics wrote:

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.

hippiemom

IWillLiveForeve wrote:

I don't get it.

You will

Pearl Jam and toast

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.

lukin2006

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

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

Pearl Jam and toast

beemster wrote:

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...

CorporateWhore

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

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.

Pearl Jam and toast

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

know1

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.

Open a bank.

There are plenty of banks with no fees - or very, very small fees.

miller8966

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.

mookie blaylock 10

miller8966 wrote:

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.

miller8966

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

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.

miller8966

farfromglorified wrote:

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

macgyver06

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.

how are the rich worth more in economic terms? and which terms if so?

mookie blaylock 10

miller8966 wrote:

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.

Specifics

miller8966 wrote:

Best post ive read in a while

oooh no, silly, yooouuuurs is! kiss kiss BigBoy xx