Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism

[SK-1]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism


Wow comrade...I am impressed.(or depressed:()

[DrPepper]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism


Wow comrade...I am impressed.(or depressed:()

Its quite obvious socialism is better than capitalism just look at how many successful socialist countries there are cuba, north korea, china. Sarcasm btw.

[DaMulta]

Europe is Socialism and look how much their dollar is worth. There are different types of Socialism....

China BTW the US borrow s like 8 billion a year off them. They are not doing too bad IMO. They are also (IMO) Capitalist not Socialist.

[DrPepper]

Europe is Socialism and look how much their dollar is worth. There are different types of Socialism....

China BTW the US borrow s like 8 billion a year off them. They are not doing too bad IMO. They are also (IMO) Capitalist not Socialist.

China is capitalism hiding under a veil of communism :p

Europe is more socialist than the US but not anywhere near the old soviet style full blown communism. I quite like capitalism it worked wonders in the US although it does have the downside of recession. The reason Europe can be a little socialist while being wealthy is all the free trade and joint programs between the countries.

[mtosev]

socialism was great. my parents "only" had to wait 6 mouths to buy a car and you had about 5-10 cars to choose from. I was too young but that was what my perents told me. :D:D

[LittleLizard]

capitalism FTW.

[btarunr]

Socialism is only the flavour of the season, because nearly the same percentage of workforce (~40%?) has been reduced in the US. It will never replace capitalism.

[Triprift]

socialism was great. my parents "only" had to wait 6 mouths to buy a car and you had about 5-10 cars to choose from. I was too young but that was what my perents told me. :D:D

Lol i heard that when the GDR was going you could wait up to 12 years for a new car that was a joke.

[Wile E]

Socialism, FTL!

What's your is yours, and what's mine is mine, unless I choose to give it to you.

[SK-1]

socialism was great. my parents "only" had to wait 6 mouths to buy a car and you had about 5-10 cars to choose from. I was too young but that was what my perents told me. :D:D

Well, at least Socialism can stop impulse buying.:rolleyes:

[mtosev]

my dad told that he and other workers worked only 4h and the rest of the time they were talking. they got paid for 8h.

[farlex]

Socialism and capitalism are best used if working together. The real issue here to me is republic v.s. democracy. A democracy in a civilized nation is I think the best way to do things, rather than the feeling of hopelessness and rebellion inspired by our republic (US). We shouldn't have to vote for politicians, just think about what feelings the word politician arises, and you'll see what I mean. When the people truly govern themselves, then socialism will have a fighting chance of not turning into communism, but rather a near utopia of equality where want and oppression are easier to quell. Elements of the free market must always remain, but a democratic socialist nation could provide better freedom. To me it seems an inevitable societal progression, however there is much to lose for many (those pesky politicians) and too much apathy (we'd rather let someone else balance the budget than do it ourselves) and too rigid of thinking (black and white good and bad capitalism and socialism, there is no in between for many), thus we may collapse instead.

[SK-1]

Socialism and capitalism are best used if working together. The real issue here to me is republic v.s. democracy. A democracy in a civilized nation is I think the best way to do things, rather than the feeling of hopelessness and rebellion inspired by our republic (US). We shouldn't have to vote for politicians, just think about what feelings the word politician arises, and you'll see what I mean. When the people truly govern themselves, then socialism will have a fighting chance of not turning into communism, but rather a near utopia of equality where want and oppression are easier to quell. Elements of the free market must always remain, but a democratic socialist nation could provide better freedom. To me it seems an inevitable societal progression, however there is much to lose for many (those pesky politicians) and too much apathy (we'd rather let someone else balance the budget than do it ourselves) and too rigid of thinking (black and white good and bad capitalism and socialism, there is no in between for many), thus we may collapse instead.

Interesting concept.
Can you give me an example of any successful government run in this utopian way, or is this just a "pipe dream" society concept?

There will always be a percentage of people who cant govern a pet, much less themselves.(o-well)

[farlex]

Interesting concept.
Can you give me an example of any successful government run in this utopian way, or is this just a "pipe dream" society concept?

There will always be a percentage of people who cant govern a pet, much less themselves.(o-well)

Well it's all just pipe dreams until enough share it to make it come true. I was actually just thinking of an example though I'm glad you asked :D. Imagine it's time for the yearly budget. There will be a committee of the nation's best economists (appointed as such by their peers and colleagues) who will spend all of their time doing this. Crunching the numbers analyzing data re-working theory ect, their entire profession will be deciding how the government should spend it's money (a new way of "distributing the wealth" as the government and the people are one in the same). They come up with a few popular plans and present them to the public on a deadline.

After the public receives the budget, it is mulled over and discussed on various mediums (completely free of partisanship, b/c there is no need for such) by various experts and the people can get informed and decide. Representatives aren't eliminated, rather reassigned. There are now representatives for particular locals strictly for economics (and environment and ect.), that voice the will of the people back to the economic committee. They do not make decisions, they are public servants. The committee makes necessary revisions and it is presented again.

The public then votes on the budget, and decides how the money is spent. You may say, but the budget is too complex for the average Joe to comprehend. Well to that I say what do you fix, average Joe's education or the election :p? In high school advanced economics should be taught where things like basics on a budget of a country can be learned by all (obviously we can't expect everyone to learn every nuance, hence the committee). And it's true there will always be those who are unfit to run the country (that's why we need to stop putting them in office :D). As long as those who can make intelligent and contemplative decisions outnumber them though, we should be alright. In a highly civilized nation such as this one, this can be possible, especially now with the internet. With proper education we can be smarter than we ever have been. If the ignorance outpaces the thoughtful governing then, well, we're lost anyway.

Of course this is just kind of off the top of my head, I'm sure further refining could be done by much smarter people than I. And that's really the point, I want truly intelligent specialized people to guide us, not just someone who can campaign well. And ultimately we should decide, not some guy up on capitol hill with his own personal agenda. With the internet voting can be done constantly, instead of voicing our opinions to fight the government, why can't our voices be the government.

[farlex]

Interesting concept.
Can you give me an example of any successful government run in this utopian way, or is this just a "pipe dream" society concept?

There will always be a percentage of people who cant govern a pet, much less themselves.(o-well)

Or were you asking me of any real examples as opposed to a drawn out hypothetical? Well in that case no, I don't know of any true democratic hybrid socialist/capitalist nation in the sense that I am talking about. Generally it could only hope to work in a well educated and well civilized society, which has really only come about as of late. The US and a few other countries are poised to be able to do so. The other thing is the advent of the internet. This allows the people to vote on many legislations from anywhere, rather than put in the massive resources needed for widespread hand count elections. It just wouldn't be practical before. Now though, with the proper resources and education (the last part needs to be worked on drastically but.....), it would be feasible.

Socialism and capitalism are successfully melded in many European states, the problem still lying with the representative nature of the government. Socialism has traditionally been forced with an iron fist, but it's also a relatively young political theory. A democratic incarnation of it will hopefully still occur. Capitalism drives progress and perfection, but also greed and strife. Socialism drives community and equality, but if put in the hands of a government that people have no say in, it turns into oppression in the highest degree. Put it in the hands of the people and keep elements of the free market. Independence with society. Humanity has a tendency for extremes, but there is room in the middle.

[kaneda]

Socialism is only the flavour of the season, because nearly the same percentage of workforce (~40%?) has been reduced in the US. It will never replace capitalism.

Karl Marx will disagree with you there. :)

[kaneda]

Or were you asking me of any real examples as opposed to a drawn out hypothetical? Well in that case no, I don't know of any true democratic hybrid socialist/capitalist nation in the sense that I am talking about. Generally it could only hope to work in a well educated and well civilized society, which has really only come about as of late. The US and a few other countries are poised to be able to do so. The other thing is the advent of the internet. This allows the people to vote on many legislations from anywhere, rather than put in the massive resources needed for widespread hand count elections. It just wouldn't be practical before. Now though, with the proper resources and education (the last part needs to be worked on drastically but.....), it would be feasible.

Socialism and capitalism are successfully melded in many European states, the problem still lying with the representative nature of the government. Socialism has traditionally been forced with an iron fist, but it's also a relatively young political theory. A democratic incarnation of it will hopefully still occur. Capitalism drives progress and perfection, but also greed and strife. Socialism drives community and equality, but if put in the hands of a government that people have no say in, it turns into oppression in the highest degree. Put it in the hands of the people and keep elements of the free market. Independence with society. Humanity has a tendency for extremes, but there is room in the middle.

Sweden is socialist, it was hardly force dupon them with an iron fist.

a problem ive noticed in this discussion, is that people think socialism = communism. not everyone, just a few people have given the impression they are the same thing. to oversimplify - socialism is communism and capitalisms love child.

[farlex]

Sweden is socialist, it was hardly force dupon them with an iron fist.

a problem ive noticed in this discussion, is that people think socialism = communism. not everyone, just a few people have given the impression they are the same thing. to oversimplify - socialism is communism and capitalisms love child.

They also aren't a democracy if I am not mistaken. At least not a direct democracy. They are similar to much of Europe in that they have representative republics and monarchs w/ socialist tendencies in economic policies.

Yes communism=socialism in the minds of many, especially in the post-cold war US. Communism has been, at least in the US, the most glaringly obvious example of socialism. And of course the whole cold war thing was the cause of this. It will take a while for that sentiment to wash away completely.

[kaneda]

They also aren't a democracy if I am not mistaken. At least not a direct democracy. They are similar to much of Europe in that they have representative republics and monarchs w/ socialist tendencies in economic policies.

Yes communism=socialism in the minds of many, especially in the post-cold war US. Communism has been, at least in the US, the most glaringly obvious example of socialism. And of course the whole cold war thing was the cause of this. It will take a while for that sentiment to wash away completely.

Well, most of europe have Constituational monachy's and democratic parliaments.- And so does canada. America's biggest supplier

[Wile E]

Yeah, we'll happily take Canada's goods, but they can keep their Constitutional monarchies and democratic parliaments. That's not what the US was founded on, and it doesn't belong here, period.

[DrPepper]

Yeah, we'll happily take Canada's goods, but they can keep their Constitutional monarchies and democratic parliaments. That's not what the US was founded on, and it doesn't belong here, period.

Britain hasn't been a constitutional monarchy the whole time either. Change in government is good for a country, it reminds the government that they are not in charge it is the people. Benjamin Franklin was an advocate of changing government for that very reason.

[kaneda]

Yeah, we'll happily take Canada's goods, but they can keep their Constitutional monarchies and democratic parliaments. That's not what the US was founded on, and it doesn't belong here, period.

stop being sentimental. the country the founding fathers created died long ago. now what you have is a corrupt beaurocratic nightmare known as the American empire. Constitutional monarchies and democratic parliaments seem to work a lot better than your two party system- which is really just religious zealots and then liberals who have no backbone.i respected what america was in the beginning, back then it was the greatest country on earth. was, now its not. most of the american public would be better suited and happier living under a socialism government like swedens than its current one. whether they would want to admit it or not.

no i dont mean to imply that america should take on a constitutional monarchy. just for it to clean up its system. firstly with its mass media.

remember foundations are only foundations, you can still build a shitty building on a good foundation.

I will give obama props on one thing, excellent campaign.

[kaneda]

Britain hasn't been a constitutional monarchy the whole time either. Change in government is good for a country, it reminds the government that they are not in charge it is the people. Benjamin Franklin was an advocate of changing government for that very reason.

well, no it hasnt, but the past is irrellevent in this case. but i agree changing government is good but in fairness has american government changed that much? over the last 30-40 years, where real change can be seen. all i see is the slow decline. entropy, inevitable. America is a weakening superpower. which is scary given the world needs America to have a strong backbone.

[Wile E]

stop being sentimental. the country the founding fathers created died long ago. now what you have is a corrupt beaurocratic nightmare known as the American empire. Constitutional monarchies and democratic parliaments seem to work a lot better than your two party system- which is really just religious zealots and then liberals who have no backbone.i respected what america was in the beginning, back then it was the greatest country on earth. was, now its not. most of the american public would be better suited and happier living under a socialism government like swedens than its current one. whether they would want to admit it or not.

no i dont mean to imply that america should take on a constitutional monarchy. just for it to clean up its system. firstly with its mass media.

remember foundations are only foundations, you can still build a shitty building on a good foundation.

I will give obama props on one thing, excellent campaign.No, I wont stop being sentimental. That's what makes the US so great. We have pride in our country, and the beliefs it was founded on. Our current sytem is not what this country was founded on, and is inching closer and closer to socialism, which is exactly why we are in this mess. I agree, changes need to be made, but socialism is the last thing needed.

[kaneda]

No, I wont stop being sentimental. That's what makes the US so great. We have pride in our country, and the beliefs it was founded on. Our current sytem is not what this country was founded on, and is inching closer and closer to socialism, which is exactly why we are in this mess. I agree, changes need to be made, but socialism is the last thing needed.

No, you're mistaken. Inching closer to socialism isnt whats taking it away from what the founding fathers intended the entropy i spoke of had nothing to do with socialism. just raw capitalism. raw unchecked capitalism which has ran amok. Capitalism, America's corrupt government and Private Corporations steadily gaining more and more power and control? thats what the founding fathers wanted? i was under the impression they wanted america to be the land of the free not land of those enslaved to debt.

[farlex]

Yeah I'm no economist, but from what I can tell current economic troubles are purely an effect of bad capitalism. At least at the beginning it was (huge companies failing left and right due to bad business). Granted the governments interventions don't seem to be fantastically well thought out, but I would hesitate to call their actions socialist. More like trying desperately to save capitalism despite it failing.

[kaneda]

Yeah I'm no economist, but from what I can tell current economic troubles are purely an effect of bad capitalism. At least at the beginning it was (huge companies failing left and right due to bad business). Granted the governments interventions don't seem to be fantastically well thought out, but I would hesitate to call their actions socialist. More like trying desperately to save capitalism despite it failing.

indeed, however some people(such as ron paul) believe that government intervention will only cause a depression to be dragged out. That you need to let the market sort itself out. unfortunatly the owners of america(conglomerates,private interests) are panicking about their ass(ets) and having washington throw lots of money their way in hopes of preventing this depression from continuing. its failed. XD

[farlex]

indeed, however some people(such as ron paul) believe that government intervention will only cause a depression to be dragged out. That you need to let the market sort itself out. unfortunatly the owners of america(conglomerates,private interests) are panicking about their ass(ets) and having washington throw lots of money their way in hopes of preventing this depression from continuing. its failed. XD

In some instances I agree. I don't think a failing company needs to be given money to survive. Yes there's lots of jobs lost, but if the government can shell out billions for them I can guarantee they can shell out billions for new jobs. But that's really the irony of it, proponents of capitalism seem to just say hey capitalism's great look at all this boom (when the chips are up) but then don't wanna deal with and are surprised when it busts (as they inevitably fall down). Tis a necessary nature of capitalism, boom and bust must go hand in hand. Unfortunately in an uncontrolled market those busts can be rather devastating, something I'm not really willing to endure because "it's what our forefathers would have wanted." We lose control of our own money, everyone just looks around and says "it's the economy" as if money is an entity unto itself that we have no say in, it's ridiculous.

It will continue to go 'round and 'round, we need a better system.

[kaneda]

In some instances I agree. I don't think a failing company needs to be given money to survive. Yes there's lots of jobs lost, but if the government can shell out billions for them I can guarantee they can shell out billions for new jobs. But that's really the irony of it, proponents of capitalism seem to just say hey capitalism's great look at all this boom (when the chips are up) but then don't wanna deal with and are surprised when it busts (as they inevitably fall down). Tis a necessary nature of capitalism, boom and bust must go hand in hand. Unfortunately in an uncontrolled market those busts can be rather devastating, something I'm not really willing to endure because "it's what our forefathers would have wanted." We lose control of our own money, everyone just looks around and says "it's the economy" as if money is an entity unto itself that we have no say in, it's ridiculous.

It will continue to go 'round and 'round, we need a better system.

i agree, though im pretty sure this isnt what the founding fathers wanted at all.

[farlex]

i agree, though im pretty sure this isnt what the founding fathers wanted at all.

Most definitely, nor were the founding fathers really capitalist (not the way it is today). But for some reason it is frequently argued that "patriotism", "founding fathers", "capitalism", and such are synonyms the antonym being "socialism". Of course this isn't in the least bit true, it is for some reason a prevailing argument nonetheless.

[DrPepper]

No, I wont stop being sentimental. That's what makes the US so great. We have pride in our country, and the beliefs it was founded on. Our current sytem is not what this country was founded on, and is inching closer and closer to socialism, which is exactly why we are in this mess. I agree, changes need to be made, but socialism is the last thing needed.

Being sentimental is crazy talk. I have pride in my country but being sentimental about a flawed ideal is just not right. I have pride in my country but I'm also open to new, better idea's. Both socialism and capitilism are flawed and the best is a mix of the two but there is a better system that we just haven't come up with. Also socialism isn't to blame for a recession, in fact it has little to do with it. Europe is mostly socialist and we're doing slightly better than you guys atm so it can't be that its natural for capitilist societies to go into recession and there are lots of reasons why, usually its a social issue e.g. farmers wanting more pay, increasing fuel prices etc and its a downward spiral until the next boom where everything is great again.

[Wile E]

Being sentimental is crazy talk. I have pride in my country but being sentimental about a flawed ideal is just not right. I have pride in my country but I'm also open to new, better idea's. Both socialism and capitilism are flawed and the best is a mix of the two but there is a better system that we just haven't come up with. Also socialism isn't to blame for a recession, in fact it has little to do with it. Europe is mostly socialist and we're doing slightly better than you guys atm so it can't be that its natural for capitilist societies to go into recession and there are lots of reasons why, usually its a social issue e.g. farmers wanting more pay, increasing fuel prices etc and its a downward spiral until the next boom where everything is great again.

It may not be the cause of the recession, but socialist ideas are going to be responsible for dragging it out. Bailouts anyone? Who do you think is going to shoulder these bailouts? Yes, unmetered capitalism is a bad idea. I don't think our forefathers ever intended for capitalism to go completely unchecked, but socialistic ideals are not the answer to our problem, regulation is.

The taxpayers should never have to shoulder the debts of any corporation, EVER. Us shouldering the debt is purely a socialist concept, and it's bullshit. I do not welcome these changes, and I just can't understand why anyone would. I earned my money, I shouldn't have to give it away to greedy corporations that mismanaged themselves. They should just be left to die, consequences be damned. If the govt wanted to throw billions of dollars trying to rejuvenate the economy, they should've either just given to the taxpayers, or invested it in a better infrastructure for America.

With the size of our current govt, and the fact that it's completely out of touch with what the citizens truly want, and that are freedoms are slowly being taken away from us one by one, I'd say we are inching ever closer to Communism than we are Socialism, tbh.

[farlex]

It may not be the cause of the recession, but socialist ideas are going to be responsible for dragging it out. Bailouts anyone? Who do you think is going to shoulder these bailouts? Yes, unmetered capitalism is a bad idea. I don't think our forefathers ever intended for capitalism to go completely unchecked, but socialistic ideals are not the answer to our problem, regulation is.

The taxpayers should never have to shoulder the debts of any corporation, EVER. Us shouldering the debt is purely a socialist concept, and it's bullshit. I do not welcome these changes, and I just can't understand why anyone would. I earned my money, I shouldn't have to give it away to greedy corporations that mismanaged themselves. They should just be left to die, consequences be damned. If the govt wanted to throw billions of dollars trying to rejuvenate the economy, they should've either just given to the taxpayers, or invested it in a better infrastructure for America.

With the size of our current govt, and the fact that it's completely out of touch with what the citizens truly want, and that are freedoms are slowly being taken away from us one by one, I'd say we are inching ever closer to Communism than we are Socialism, tbh.

And that brings me back to my initial point, let the people take charge of their own government. The republic is no better for us the way it's set up now, as you said it holds deaf ears to the calls of the people and works off it's own agenda. Taxpayers shouldering the debt is not a socialist idea, it's an idea that stems from the idea that the government is a separate entity of the people. We have no control of our own money b/c the government is no longer held accountable by the people, which I would agree with you saying that we're headed closer to communism. We can bitch and moan all we want but they are who we elected (and what's more patriotic than electing officials we completely disagree with right?), so we have no more say.

Majority rule is not necessarily the best way, but with proper education it can be much more effective than a republic. And majority rule has less of a negative impact if economic social status is more equal. And social status would be more equal if cooperations weren't allowed to run rampant and steal money from every nook and cranny, and socialist programs were put in place to allow everyone to live comfortably w/ basic health and vacation opportunities (that's right, vacation is a right :D). Yes yes, it's just a "pipe dream" though....

[DrPepper]

It may not be the cause of the recession, but socialist ideas are going to be responsible for dragging it out. Bailouts anyone? Who do you think is going to shoulder these bailouts? Yes, unmetered capitalism is a bad idea. I don't think our forefathers ever intended for capitalism to go completely unchecked, but socialistic ideals are not the answer to our problem, regulation is.

The taxpayers should never have to shoulder the debts of any corporation, EVER. Us shouldering the debt is purely a socialist concept, and it's bullshit. I do not welcome these changes, and I just can't understand why anyone would. I earned my money, I shouldn't have to give it away to greedy corporations that mismanaged themselves. They should just be left to die, consequences be damned. If the govt wanted to throw billions of dollars trying to rejuvenate the economy, they should've either just given to the taxpayers, or invested it in a better infrastructure for America.

With the size of our current govt, and the fact that it's completely out of touch with what the citizens truly want, and that are freedoms are slowly being taken away from us one by one, I'd say we are inching ever closer to Communism than we are Socialism, tbh.

Well I completely agree with that post. The taxpayers shouldn't be shouldering the debts of failed companies. I didn't assume that was socialist at all though. The bailouts haven't worked at all in both our countries and the best the government could do is use that money to set up new businesses or to create more government run businesses which would then be sold off when the economy is doing better.

[Deusxmachina]

Yeah I'm no economist, but from what I can tell current economic troubles are purely an effect of bad capitalism. At least at the beginning it was (huge companies failing left and right due to bad business). Granted the governments interventions don't seem to be fantastically well thought out, but I would hesitate to call their actions socialist. More like trying desperately to save capitalism despite it failing.

Capitalism wasn't the problem because it wasn't capitalism. AIG was the linch pin for the current mess, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the mess was brought about by government being heavily involved in these companies/government entities.

Doesn't help capitalism and the free market having people in ivory towers (The Fed) deciding behind closed doors how much your money is worth, either.

[farlex]

Capitalism wasn't the problem because it wasn't capitalism. AIG was the linch pin for the current mess, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the mess was brought about by government being heavily involved in these companies/government entities.

Doesn't help capitalism and the free market having people in ivory towers (The Fed) deciding behind closed doors how much your money is worth, either.

No those companies failed b/c there wasn't enough government intervention and they made poor investments and bad (in some cases illegal) accounting. Capitalism totally unregulated follows boom/bust. It will inevitably tumble at some point, which is why the government keeps getting so involved. If recessions and depressions weren't always around the corner, the government would ease off a bit. It's when things start going like this that they pull the heavy hand.

[kaneda]

But we can all see whats gonna happen. This recession with be dragged out for as long as possible. bankers are greedy by nature theyre going to cling on for as long as possible. but i do say that some socialist ideas are worth looking at. For example, state funded or atleast state-partially-funded courses in the fields that america needs professionals in. Socialising parts of education making it fairer and more productive.This way jobs which cant be filled due to lack of qualification can be filled, helping to fuel the economy in a more positive direction. funnily enough the republican party now mention doing this, yes , they who hate socialism and sweden suddenly consider something they do , a socialist part of governing to be something america should embrace.

and for once the republicans arent talking out of their asses, hey america has a black president, some shit does change. XD

PS: havnt considered ron paul a republican for a long time

[kaneda]

No those companies failed b/c there wasn't enough government intervention and they made poor investments and bad (in some cases illegal) accounting. Capitalism totally unregulated follows boom/bust. It will inevitably tumble at some point, which is why the government keeps getting so involved. If recessions and depressions weren't always around the corner, the government would ease off a bit. It's when things start going like this that they pull the heavy hand.

you cant put the blame solely on the lack of Government Regulation. Those bankers knew what they were doing, they knew full well what was coming. they knowingly allowed for this to happen and personally i think they should face the death penalty for it.They have caused more damage than those on death row.

[From_Nowhere]

To sum it up:

Socialism: Bad
Capitalism: Good if you're not a lazy ass.

[farlex]

you cant put the blame solely on the lack of Government Regulation. Those bankers knew what they were doing, they knew full well what was coming. they knowingly allowed for this to happen and personally i think they should face the death penalty for it.They have caused more damage than those on death row.

I'm not blaming the government, but in argument was saying it would be easier to blame them for inaction than action. Don't stereotype "bankers" either, it's a big problem, not just a few select being greedy.

To sum it up:


Socialism: Bad
Capitalism: Good if you're not a lazy ass.

Quite possibly the worst summation I've ever seen. :p At least it proves a point about the mental processes of many though.....

[kaneda]

To sum it up:

Socialism: Bad
Capitalism: Good if you're not a lazy ass.

oh my, care to say why?

I'm not blaming the government, but in argument was saying it would be easier to blame them for inaction than action. Don't stereotype "bankers" either, it's a big problem, not just a few select being greedy.



Quite possibly the worst summation I've ever seen. :p At least it proves a point about the mental processes of many though.....

Possibly a troll.Though trolls tend to stay away from political discussions.

[FordGT90Concept]

Progressivism is only a stone throw away from socialism. The "Democratic Party" is progressivist. There's about 40% progressive, 30% conservative, and 30% independant (no party affiliation). 53% therefore means that about 13% of the "independants" are progressivist leaning.

The last 50 years, schools have been pounding "commnism is bad" into students minds. Is it time to add socialism to that? It wouldn't work anyway. A good majority of teachers are progressivist/socialist.

[farlex]

Progressivism is only a stone throw away from socialism. The "Democratic Party" is progressivist. There's about 40% progressive, 30% conservative, and 30% independant (no party affiliation). 53% therefore means that about 13% of the "independants" are progressivist leaning.

The last 50 years, schools have been pounding "commnism is bad" into students minds. Is it time to add socialism to that? It wouldn't work anyway. A good majority of teachers are progressivist/socialist.

Progressivism is just soci-political ideas that are different from current systems (hence progressive). Socialism doesn't have anything to do with it, unless you are simply saying that many progressivists are these days leaning socialist. In which case your math would be more geared toward progressive people being more socialist. It is entirely possible though to be progressive w/o a hint of socialist tendencies. People need to use wikipedia more often.......

[FordGT90Concept]

Progressivism by definition means change, yes, so progessivism itself could mean changing towards pretty much anything (communism, dictatorship, you name it). The Democratic Party's ideas are socialist so, said differently, the Democratic Party is progressivist towards socialism. Makes sense? Not really. They should just call themselves socialist and be done with it. ;)

[T3hPwn3r3r]

Socialism is bad.

Socialized healthcare, if well executed, can be good.

Socialized education is alright, if done right as well. Uni in Germany is much cheaper than here and consistantly ranks in the top public education programs... Should've kept my citizenship.

[farlex]

Socialism is bad.

Socialized healthcare, if well executed, can be good.

Socialized education is alright, if done right as well. Uni in Germany is much cheaper than here and consistantly ranks in the top public education programs... Should've kept my citizenship.

If the first is true the next to would necessarily be false. Socialism is fantastic in theory, harder w/ humanity, but when kept in check by freedom can be good. I agree though that healthcare and education are the 2 main arenas that need socialization the most, if it can be done effectively.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

Exactly my point.

We need to compromise. People have a fundamental right to health and education, no matter what.

I've known some smarter people than myself not able to go to college due to finances, I lucked out and got a scholarship. I've also known brilliant people to get degrees in areas that didn't pay the highest but did noble work (teaching, for example) who had to pay a TON back in student loans, making it harder for them to live with their already meager salary.

Also, even our ditchdiggers need to stay healthy, so their strong bones and muscles can be more productive!

But I don't believe in wealth redistribution in monetary form, or handouts for housing or the likes, except in extreme cases (already poor family's house burns down due to an accident and they couldn't afford insurance, give them a trailer for 6 months)

[farlex]

But I don't believe in wealth redistribution in monetary form, or handouts for housing or the likes, except in extreme cases (already poor family's house burns down due to an accident and they couldn't afford insurance, give them a trailer for 6 months)

Handouts do not equal socialism. It isn't the same thing. Socialism is simply where the government owns property, not individuals and cooperation. Giving people money for food/housing isn't a socialist idea, it's a humanitarian one. And if you don't like handouts, you should have turned down that scholarship. ;)

[T3hPwn3r3r]

Ah, but my dad earned it for me. It's a war orphans grant. I'm incredibly grateful, believe me.

It was worked extremely hard for, and I am incredibly thankful his hard work provided for me. I'm definitely going to get him something nice for father's day!

[farlex]

Ah, but my dad earned it for me. It's a war orphans grant. I'm incredibly grateful, believe me.

It was worked extremely hard for, and I am incredibly thankful his hard work provided for me. I'm definitely going to get him something nice for father's day!

And indeed you should. Nonetheless you, through no action or inaction of your own, were unable to attend school if not for the graciousness of that grant (I'm assuming from the way you said it). Your father earned it, but there had to be something to earn. It is not your achievement nor your folly that it was given to you, but you and society are better for you receiving it. Nothing is free, but your scholarship was a handout nonetheless.

[FordGT90Concept]

We need to compromise. People have a fundamental right to health and education, no matter what.
And that is where you are wrong. The reason the healthcare system is so bogged down right now is because people are getting assistance by medical care professionals without being able to afford it. If you remove all the people mooching off the system, the money issues would disappear virtually overnight. We have to learn to accept the fact that we are going to die some day. We then have to look beyond that at the people that will carry the financial burden (first our children, then relatives, then the nation as a whole) should we get treatment and not be able to afford it. Sometimes we just have to stop being greedy and let go. Hearing frequent stories of someone with cancer getting a kidney transplant three months before they died are sickening. Or the hobos living in hospitals 300+ days of the year and tax payers are footing the bill because the hospital cannot. The list goes on and on...

As to education, the only reason it has become important is to compete on the global scale (namely, to develop weapons). The public education system has been socialized for over over half a century now and look how that's going. We need new ideas and new leadership to turn the entire education system around. Most importantly, the students need to be in the decision making loop.

Higher education in this country is a scam. It needs work too but that is a lesser priority so long as the K-12 system is fundamentally broken.

[yogurt_21]

And that is where you are wrong. The reason the healthcare system is so bogged down right now is because people are getting assistance by medical care professionals without being able to afford it. If you remove all the people mooching off the system, the money issues would disappear virtually overnight.

I'm afraid I disagree, take away the moochers and the Doctors would say "thank you" while still charging you 1500$ for a cat scan and pocket the difference that used to go towards the moochers.

it's the same with all programs if you take away the moochers the government would similarly say "thank you" then pocket the difference, we would pay the same in taxes. I mean shoot look at AIG 180 billion dollars in bailout money for a company that was only worth 2billion max at the time. why? because that's where congress pensions are. 180billion in tax payer money to bailout their pensions. do you really think a goverment that corrupt is going to all of the sudden be responsible with money once our tax money is not going towards social programs? dream on. our financial problems would remain and perhaps get worse as congress accepts more and more money from lobbying corporations who no longer have to worry about the government being on their backs about fair hiring, fair compensation, medical benefits, retirement, workers comp, etc.

the balance between capitalism and socialism is necessary. take away capitalism and research and development comes to a screeching halt.
take away socialism and all of the sudden we're working for 1$ an hour while paying 20,000$ a month mortgages.

balance is everything, have we swung too far each way recently? certaintly but it's about settling back somewher inbetween, not going back to swinging the pendulum and seeing where it lands.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

And that is where you are wrong. The reason the healthcare system is so bogged down right now is because people are getting assistance by medical care professionals without being able to afford it. If you remove all the people mooching off the system, the money issues would disappear virtually overnight. We have to learn to accept the fact that we are going to die some day. We then have to look beyond that at the people that will carry the financial burden (first our children, then relatives, then the nation as a whole) should we get treatment and not be able to afford it. Sometimes we just have to stop being greedy and let go. Hearing frequent stories of someone with cancer getting a kidney transplant three months before they died are sickening. Or the hobos living in hospitals 300+ days of the year and tax payers are footing the bill because the hospital cannot. The list goes on and on...

As to education, the only reason it has become important is to compete on the global scale (namely, to develop weapons). The public education system has been socialized for over over half a century now and look how that's going. We need new ideas and new leadership to turn the entire education system around. Most importantly, the students need to be in the decision making loop.

Higher education in this country is a scam. It needs work too but that is a lesser priority so long as the K-12 system is fundamentally broken.
Whether it is important or fair or not, I think I have as much right to TRY to get over cancer as you do. Perhaps if you ever get a tumor we can just say "He'll die soon anyway." and leave it at that?

Also, yes, education in the US sucks, but as I said, we need to work on execution too. I can teach a person, but I cannot teach them well. We need accountability.

[Deusxmachina]

Socialism is bad.

Socialized healthcare, if well executed, can be good.

Socialized education is alright, if done right as well. Uni in Germany is much cheaper than here and consistantly ranks in the top public education programs... Should've kept my citizenship.


"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." P. J. O'Rourke

I can't find the news article I'm looking for. A U.S. doctor started charging patients like $20 a month for visits, and he'd see them in his spare time. The government stepped in and told him he can't do that for some reason. I can't remember the specifics of the article. Maybe someone else has seen it.

Is Uni in Germany cheaper overall, or just cheaper to the individual student?

Here's an overview of the Germany educational system I happened upon:
http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/us-d.html#edu
This includes a mention of a PISA test from 2000. Looks like it's more about education overall than just Uni.

"The German public (including me) generally assumed that the German school system is far superior to the US one -- until the devastating results of the PISA 2000 study came out. It showed that the knowledge and skills of German students were consistently below the performance of US students (which typically hovered around the international average). Since then, more German parents have begun to send their children to private schools, which had performed better than public schools in the study. (Some Germans have criticized the PISA study, claiming that students were told that the results didn't affect their grades and they were free to leave once finished with the test.)"

I'm not an expert on Germany or PISA tests, so just tossing it out there.

[FordGT90Concept]

I'm afraid I disagree, take away the moochers and the Doctors would say "thank you" while still charging you 1500$ for a cat scan and pocket the difference that used to go towards the moochers.
CAT scanners easily cost in excess of $1 million (I think $3 million is about average). Add in the enormous amount of power they require, the technician (gets the patient ready, administers contrast, etc), the doctor (examines the pictures taken and forms a diagnosis), and the person converting the dictation to documentation, $800-$2000 each is rather average.

What would really help here is healthcare facilities being forward about their pricing--effectively bidding on how much it will cost to take care of the customer up front which in turn, leads to price competition among providers.

I could go on and on over healthcare changes that could make a big difference but, why? By electing Obama, America made it clear they don't want to fix it--they want to cover up the problem with thousands of miles of red tape. Remember, you're still paying for it.


I supported the first bailout plan because it was the only way to potentially stop the impending collapse; however, just like everything else government touches, they eff'd up. I was completely against the second bailout as it adds insult to injury.



Whether it is important or fair or not, I think I have as much right to TRY to get over cancer as you do. Perhaps if you ever get a tumor we can just say "He'll die soon anyway." and leave it at that?
If you can afford to fight it, by all means do. Just don't come to Uncle Sam (tax payers) begging to keep you alive.

[farlex]

And that is where you are wrong. The reason the healthcare system is so bogged down right now is because people are getting assistance by medical care professionals without being able to afford it. If you remove all the people mooching off the system, the money issues would disappear virtually overnight. We have to learn to accept the fact that we are going to die some day.

No one can afford it. People with persistent diseases are those most likely to be in a position of unaffordable healthcare and "mooch", not the impoverished. Only the very richest of the rich could afford having serious health issues. If you remove all of those "mooching" off the system, there isn't healthcare for anyone. You socialize it and make it available to everyone, no one has to "mooch" (what an absurd way to describe the sick, ridiculous).

Yes, accept the fact that we die someday, how profound :rolleyes:. I can very much see that statement turning you into a hypocrite should bad luck befall on you (which I very sincerely hope it doesn't).

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." P. J. O'Rourke

I can't find the news article I'm looking for. A U.S. doctor started charging patients like $20 a month for visits, and he'd see them in his spare time. The government stepped in and told him he can't do that for some reason. I can't remember the specifics of the article. Maybe someone else has seen it.

Is Uni in Germany cheaper overall, or just cheaper to the individual student?

Here's an overview of the Germany educational system I happened upon:
http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/us-d.html#edu
This includes a mention of a PISA test from 2000. Looks like it's more about education overall than just Uni.

"The German public (including me) generally assumed that the German school system is far superior to the US one -- until the devastating results of the PISA 2000 study came out. It showed that the knowledge and skills of German students were consistently below the performance of US students (which typically hovered around the international average). Since then, more German parents have begun to send their children to private schools, which had performed better than public schools in the study. (Some Germans have criticized the PISA study, claiming that students were told that the results didn't affect their grades and they were free to leave once finished with the test.)"

I'm not an expert on Germany or PISA tests, so just tossing it out there.

I don't see how that really shows anything. Way to many confounds in that to come to the conclusion that German students performed poorly simply b/c education was socialized. That's the mistake for some reason everybody makes: socialization does not equal handouts, and socialization does not equal poor quality. They are not necessary, it is entirely possible to have a more effective socialist education system than privatized one, and it is entirely possible for everyone to be merely limited in education by their aptitude, not monetary concerns. Which it is entirely possible would improve economic conditions for all.

[Deusxmachina]

I don't see how that really shows anything. Way to many confounds in that to come to the conclusion that German students performed poorly simply b/c education was socialized. That's the mistake for some reason everybody makes: socialization does not equal handouts, and socialization does not equal poor quality. They are not necessary, it is entirely possible to have a more effective socialist education system than privatized one, and it is entirely possible for everyone to be merely limited in education by their aptitude, not monetary concerns. Which it is entirely possible would improve economic conditions for all.

I didn't post it for whether they performed better or not because of socialism. I posted it because, for one, maybe German schools aren't as good as some might believe, socialism or not, (or would that be U.S. schools aren't as bad as some might believe?), but the main reason is, two, my main question in that post: "Is Uni in Germany cheaper overall, or just cheaper to the individual student?"

[T3hPwn3r3r]

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." P. J. O'Rourke

I can't find the news article I'm looking for. A U.S. doctor started charging patients like $20 a month for visits, and he'd see them in his spare time. The government stepped in and told him he can't do that for some reason. I can't remember the specifics of the article. Maybe someone else has seen it.

Is Uni in Germany cheaper overall, or just cheaper to the individual student?

Here's an overview of the Germany educational system I happened upon:
http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/us-d.html#edu
This includes a mention of a PISA test from 2000. Looks like it's more about education overall than just Uni.

"The German public (including me) generally assumed that the German school system is far superior to the US one -- until the devastating results of the PISA 2000 study came out. It showed that the knowledge and skills of German students were consistently below the performance of US students (which typically hovered around the international average). Since then, more German parents have begun to send their children to private schools, which had performed better than public schools in the study. (Some Germans have criticized the PISA study, claiming that students were told that the results didn't affect their grades and they were free to leave once finished with the test.)"

I'm not an expert on Germany or PISA tests, so just tossing it out there.

PISA is another standardized test used as a poor benchmark.

I can say it costs 500 euros for a degree from Uni-Munich, and 8000 per semester at my University.

Uni-Munich ranks far above mine, though mine is in the top 100, Uni Munich blows it away for a MINISCULE cost.

Also, German public schools are actually top notch compared to American ones.

There's a difference though, students who don't make the grade are weeded out earlier and students capable of doing better move on to more career focused training previous to Uni.

In America, in your senior year of high school in public school, you're stuck in the same class with the guy who has taken it 6 times before and still failed. There's much less discipline in the classroom. It has the whole "last winner" attitude, as compared to the typical European education system where they'll tell you you're dumb and run you off.

In America, everyone is smart and capable.

In Europe, some kids really do have the intelligence of a chimp who lives on a diet of lead paint, and they admit that.

Standardized tests are just bullshit benchmarks. There's more to subject matter knowledge in success in school.

I can tell you that the guy in my public relations class who got a 36 on his ACT and half-assed does his work will have much worse grades than the guy who doesn't know all the material off hand, but has the discipline to work and get the job done right. This is something they instill in foreign institutions. This is not only something that helps in school, but in life.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

I didn't post it for whether they performed better or not because of socialism. I posted it because, for one, maybe German schools aren't as good as some might believe, socialism or not, (or would that be U.S. schools aren't as bad as some might believe?), but the main reason is, two, my main question in that post: "Is Uni in Germany cheaper overall, or just cheaper to the individual student?"

Germany ranks #2 in having the most in the top 200, 500 and 1000 universities.

Closely followed by the UK, and factoring in the fact they have lower populations and FAR fewer universities than America (likely due to dense population) speaks pretty well of them.

[Deusxmachina]

I can say it costs 500 euros for a degree from Uni-Munich, and 8000 per semester at my University.

Uni-Munich ranks far above mine, though mine is in the top 100, Uni Munich blows it away for a MINISCULE cost.

My point is, is that the real cost? The student may pay 500 euros, sure, but is that the real cost, or are all the other taxpayers picking up the rest of the tab? If so, it's like "free" healthcare. It's not free; it just comes out of your left pocket instead of your right.

For those unaware, the link I posted included talk about how German kids are divided into different groups like T3hPwn mentioned.

[FordGT90Concept]

No one can afford it. People with persistent diseases are those most likely to be in a position of unaffordable healthcare and "mooch", not the impoverished. Only the very richest of the rich could afford having serious health issues. If you remove all of those "mooching" off the system, there isn't healthcare for anyone. You socialize it and make it available to everyone, no one has to "mooch" (what an absurd way to describe the sick, ridiculous).

Yes, accept the fact that we die someday, how profound :rolleyes:. I can very much see that statement turning you into a hypocrite should bad luck befall on you (which I very sincerely hope it doesn't).
If people can't afford it invididually then how is a whole populous supposed to? Instead of bankrupting yourself, you bankrupt the entire country. And you know where the cuts will be made to pay for socialized anything, right? Defense. Frankly, I'd rather die from cancer because I couldn't afford to fight it than be killed by someone that wants to take my freedoms away. My kids could at least live out a good life away from tyranny. I was going to die anyway and wouldn't want to burden them.



I don't see how that really shows anything. Way to many confounds in that to come to the conclusion that German students performed poorly simply b/c education was socialized. That's the mistake for some reason everybody makes: socialization does not equal handouts, and socialization does not equal poor quality. They are not necessary, it is entirely possible to have a more effective socialist education system than privatized one, and it is entirely possible for everyone to be merely limited in education by their aptitude, not monetary concerns. Which it is entirely possible would improve economic conditions for all.
Socialization = government takes your money and leaves you out of the decision making. Effectively, government tells you what you want with no regard to factual wants. As applied to education, if the government decides to board all the students, beat propaganda in their head, and let them go when it feels they are ready, that's what they'll do. A capitalist education must be flexible to the needs of the area. For instance, in my area, there is a lot of agriculture-based classes one could take because agriculture is a large part of the local economy. You don't see much in the way of agriculture classes in NYC do you? The problem is, most states don't allow schools to diversify their curriculum (too much socialist grasp on it already). If these states were allowed to make their own decisions with the students to find what works for the region, students would be happier and happy students leads to better grades. As McCain said, we need to make it easier for public school students to enroll in charter or private schools so that bad schools are allowed to close. But that's only one step in turning this education system around. Another is more parental involvment in schooling which, for a lot of students, is very lacking.

[farlex]

If people can't afford it invididually then how is a whole populous supposed to? Instead of bankrupting yourself, you bankrupt the entire country. And you know where the cuts will be made to pay for socialized anything, right? Defense. Frankly, I'd rather die from cancer because I couldn't afford to fight it than be killed by someone that wants to take my freedoms away. My kids could at least live out a good life away from tyranny. I was going to die anyway and wouldn't want to burden them.




Sometimes I think perhaps you think this is still 1776 and you're afraid of the British and still living by the same values as then. Your logic here really speaks for itself, it is amazing to me that for some reason you are under the impression that you can die from cancer being unable to afford care when care is readily available and yet are still considering yourself "free." I suppose as long as you can vote republican you're happy eh? There is more tyranny in the world than dictatorships.


Socialization = government takes your money and leaves you out of the decision making. Effectively, government tells you what you want with no regard to factual wants. As applied to education, if the government decides to board all the students, beat propaganda in their head, and let them go when it feels they are ready, that's what they'll do. A capitalist education must be flexible to the needs of the area. For instance, in my area, there is a lot of agriculture-based classes one could take because agriculture is a large part of the local economy. You don't see much in the way of agriculture classes in NYC do you? The problem is, most states don't allow schools to diversify their curriculum (too much socialist grasp on it already). If these states were allowed to make their own decisions with the students to find what works for the region, students would be happier and happy students leads to better grades. As McCain said, we need to make it easier for public school students to enroll in charter or private schools so that bad schools are allowed to close. But that's only one step in turning this education system around. Another is more parental involvment in schooling which, for a lot of students, is very lacking.

No what you described in the first sentence is communism, not socialism. Again your stuck with the old unable to see the new. Socialization equals government control not private control. Our government, as I have now repeated many times, needs reformation first. A direct democracy would handle socialism better than a republic. The republic is in our case nearly tyrannical anyway at this point, and needs to be changed. In my view that means direct democracy, but if you conservatives would rather us get back to our constitutional roots that would work ok as well, though not as well, as it would still need reformation since it is now 300 years later. Socialism also doesn't mean gross uniformity. Again, you're referring to communism. Socialized education can be just as flexible as privatized education, in fact more so, b/c profit is not in the equation.

[FordGT90Concept]

Sometimes I think perhaps you think this is still 1776 and you're afraid of the British and still living by the same values as then. Your logic here really speaks for itself, it is amazing to me that for some reason you are under the impression that you can die from cancer being unable to afford care when care is readily available and yet are still considering yourself "free." I suppose as long as you can vote republican you're happy eh? There is more tyranny in the world than dictatorships.
The numbers speak for themselves: Social Security (http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/18/pf/retirement/social_security_debate/index.htm) will not have any money in 2017, LESS THAN 10 YEARS. Those are both social programs and you (+ Democractic Party) want to expand them!?!?! They FAILED. I can't be any more blunt than that. Look at the VAT in GB. That's how they're paying for their socialized medicine program and it literally sucking their economy dry.

People come to USA to get cutting edge treatment. They don't go to these places with socialized medicine. Socialized medicine costs more and grants average service at best.

I am fully aware that I am going to die someday and it does not bother me. As long as I don't live my life carrying out someone else's will, I'm happy, and most importantly, free.


Also remember that the USA is currently $11 trillion in debt. There is no way to bailout Medicaid when you can't even bailout yourself. I'll make a bold prediction: there will be civil war before 2025.


A direct democracy would handle socialism better than a republic. The republic is in our case nearly tyrannical anyway at this point, and needs to be changed. In my view that means direct democracy, but if you conservatives would rather us get back to our constitutional roots that would work ok as well, though not as well, as it would still need reformation since it is now 300 years later. Socialism also doesn't mean gross uniformity. Again, you're referring to communism. Socialized education can be just as flexible as privatized education, in fact more so, b/c profit is not in the equation.
No government is ran via a democracy. That isn't about to happen any time soon.

Profit isn't in the equation for non-profit corporations either. They can keep about 10% of their yearly earnings to act as a fiscal buffer for next year. Any money beyond that goes to Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam can't lose as much money that way.


In fiscal year 2008, more money was spent on Social Security alone than defense (even excluding Medicaid):
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/14/pf/taxes/_federal_tax_revenue/index.htm

The military is growing weaker by the year and we are growing more and more indebt. We are making a V-line for disaster.

[farlex]

The numbers speak for themselves: Social Security (http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/18/pf/retirement/social_security_debate/index.htm) will not have any money in 2017, LESS THAN 10 YEARS. Those are both social programs and you (+ Democractic Party) want to expand them!?!?! They FAILED. I can't be any more blunt than that. Look at the VAT in GB. That's how they're paying for their socialized medicine program and it literally sucking their economy dry.

People come to USA to get cutting edge treatment. They don't go to these places with socialized medicine. Socialized medicine costs more and grants average service at best.

I am fully aware that I am going to die someday and it does not bother me. As long as I don't live my life carrying out someone else's will, I'm happy, and most importantly, free.


Also remember that the USA is currently $11 trillion in debt. There is no way to bailout Medicaid when you can't even bailout yourself. I'll make a bold prediction: there will be civil war before 2025.



No government is ran via a democracy. That isn't about to happen any time soon.

Profit isn't in the equation for non-profit corporations either. They can keep about 10% of their yearly earnings to act as a fiscal buffer for next year. Any money beyond that goes to Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam can't lose as much money that way.


In fiscal year 2008, more money was spent on Social Security alone than defense (even excluding Medicaid):
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/14/pf/taxes/_federal_tax_revenue/index.htm

The military is growing weaker by the year and we are growing more and more indebt. We are making a V-line for disaster.

Don't label me a democrat, I am most certainly not. I'm not saying expand SS and medicade, I'm saying reform it. As always there needs to be middle ground, and I'm saying our current situation isn't right. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies are in control of our healthcare, and they shouldn't be. Profit should not be the deciding factor in health. Does that mean it should all be passed over to a partisan republic? Absolutely not, but regulations and ultimately complete overhauls must happen. So what if the richest of the rich come here for the best healthcare, I could care less. I would much rather society as a whole become healthier as opposed to a select few.

Why can't a government run via democracy? It is a challenge no doubt, especially from our current system and on a large scale. With current technology however, it is entirely possible and it is just as likely as we make it. All a revolution needs is people to support it, and it doesn't need to be violent.

And yes, we are making a V line for disaster, that's why we need some things done quickly, and just cutting spending, privatizing everything, and lowering taxes won't save us from the impending doom. It will actually likely speed up the process. We must adjust lest we crumble.

[FordGT90Concept]

Then mandate the health insurance industry to be not-for-profit.

Regulations bog down trade (it is red tape after all). Considering how much paper work you have to get any treatment at all, even an ER visit, I'd say there's way too much regulation and not enough service. If anything, there needs to be more protection for the health care industry to prevent lawsuits--something like an expanded Good Samaritan Act.


Democracy only works in small groups. It's hard enough to tabulate and count all the votes from a single precinct let alone the 300 million people in the USA. There needs to be some changes in the system that guarantee every vote is counted but there's no need to change from a Constitutional republic to a Constitutional democracy. The electoral college came about through the same process that decided a house (represents the populous) and senate (represents the state) was needed. That's why it is extremely doubtful it will ever change.

To rely solely on technology makes it that much easier to manipulate a vote. Sure it is possible, but that doesn't mean we should do it.

Also, remember that most people live in cities. Most cities vote 60%+ in favor of the Democractic Party/socialist ideas. To change to a democratic voting system means all the people in the rural areas of the nation might as well not vote because they'll never win. Put bluntly, to even talk seriously about changing to a democracy would cause extreme amounts of rural unrest. The moment an election is held and it becomes apparently clear that the rural vote no longer matters, a civil war would follow. Even though there aren't many people living in rural parts of the country, realize that without them, you don't have food.

Democracy: The majority rules.
Republic: The majority rules with rights of of the minority.


If the government size was cut in half to two thirds, the problems would fix themselves over a period of just 10 years. Instead of cutting spending, the current government is increasing it by 75%.

2008: $1 trillion revenue
2008: $2 trillion expenditures
2008: $1 trillion net loss

2009: $3.5 trillion budget
2009: $??? trillion revenue
2009: $??? net loss

USA will not turn a profit in the next 4+ years.

[farlex]

Then mandate the health insurance industry to be not-for-profit.

Regulations bog down trade (it is red tape after all). Considering how much paper work you have to get any treatment at all, even an ER visit, I'd say there's way too much regulation and not enough service. If anything, there needs to be more protection for the health care industry to prevent lawsuits--something like an expanded Good Samaritan Act.


Democracy only works in small groups. It's hard enough to tabulate and count all the votes from a single precinct let alone the 300 million people in the USA. There needs to be some changes in the system that guarantee every vote is counted but there's no need to change from a Constitutional republic to a Constitutional democracy. The electoral college came about through the same process that decided a house (represents the populous) and senate (represents the state) was needed. That's why it is extremely doubtful it will ever change.

To rely solely on technology makes it that much easier to manipulate a vote. Sure it is possible, but that doesn't mean we should do it.


If the government size was cut in half to two thirds, the problems would fix themselves over a period of just 10 years. Instead of cutting spending, the current government is increasing it by 75%.

2008: $1 trillion revenue
2008: $2 trillion expenditures
2008: $1 trillion net loss

2009: $3.5 trillion budget
2009: $??? trillion revenue
2009: $??? net loss

USA will not turn a profit in the next 4+ years.

Non-profit would be a step in the right direction, and with our current system may indeed be a good idea. I'd still rather have them under direct control of the people whom they serve and employ though (socialized democracy).

Yes yes I know regulations and the big hand of the government stifle business, but business without regulation ends up destroying itself. One only needs to look at current conditions (failed companies, toxic bonds, bad banking) to see this. When this happens in sectors such as education and healthcare, it's even worse. It's all about balance.

Democracy has only been practiced in small groups in large part because until very very recently tallying votes of an entire nation such as the US would be nearly impossible. Technology is venerable to manipulation yes, but I would rather take my chances with that than manipulation that currently occurs to simply elect a partisan politician. We can protect it as well, failsafes can be secured, it is possible.

Republic does not equal majority rules, it equals partisan rules, not at all the same thing. Minority rights? That's laughable.

You're forgetting that w/o a republic there wouldn't be partisanship, and the distance in ideals between city-folk and rural folk may close in. As always there must be checks and balances though to keep the majority from running amok, which can be done in a variety of ways.

And just as I said simply cutting taxes and privatizing everything won't help much, neither do I think spending away and bailing out failed companies will help. That's the catch, you either get a republican or a democrat in office, and you get one of the two failed sets of policies. It's ridiculous. Everyone talks about stopping the leaks when they spring through the crumbling wall but nobody thinks maybe we should build a new wall. :confused:

[FordGT90Concept]

Dollar-vote puts them under the direct control of the people. If they do something the people don't like, they don't get any money and either have to react correspondingly or close their doors.

The main thing that is missing right now in healthcare is the lack of competition. Capitalism without competition is a dictatorship. Like I said earlier, the #1 way to encourage competition is to be up front about all costs so people can decide if it is worth their money or not. This system of bill-me-later is causing a lot of people to declare bankruptcy because they get hit with $10,000+ bills when they expected much less. When people declare bankruptcy, the health provider doesn't get paid which causes them to raises prices for everyone else.

I think you would be amazed at how much things would improve if they were up front about the costs.


The only kind of regulations that are necessary are the anti-trust variety (prevent big companies from buying out smaller companies) and, in this case, the Good Samaritan Act (updated version). The rest can, and should, be handled by the legal system.

Toxic bonds/bad banking result in a company going belly up. The mistake to make (and was made) is saving them from doing so. Bankruptcy exists to allow failed institutions to go away as peacefully as possible.


Please, do some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States


Partisanship was not intended in the formation of the Constitution. It came about through like-minded people bonding together. The system evolved to embrace multiple pools of thought. I would say it is a weakness of our republic but, it is actually a weakness of humans which extended to government. Only a dictatorship doesn't have partisanship because any deviation from the people in command is not tolerated.

The ideals of the urban and rural populations will never "close in." The rural population prefer independence which is very visible in the Republican Party. The urban population prefer dependence which is very visible in the Democratic Party. Remember, Republican and Democratic Parties used to be a single Democratic-Republican Party which was unified against the Federalist Party. With every passing year, the two parties become more and more divided in beliefs.

[farlex]

Dollar-vote puts them under the direct control of the people. If they do something the people don't like, they don't get any money and either have to react correspondingly or close their doors.

The main thing that is missing right now in healthcare is the lack of competition. Capitalism without competition is a dictatorship. Like I said earlier, the #1 way to encourage competition is to be up front about all costs so people can decide if it is worth their money or not. This system of bill-me-later is causing a lot of people to declare bankruptcy because they get hit with $10,000+ bills when they expected much less. When people declare bankruptcy, the health provider doesn't get paid which causes them to raises prices for everyone else.

I think you would be amazed at how much things would improve if they were up front about the costs.


The only kind of regulations that are necessary are the anti-trust variety (prevent big companies from buying out smaller companies) and, in this case, the Good Samaritan Act (updated version). The rest can, and should, be handled by the legal system.

Toxic bonds/bad banking result in a company going belly up. The mistake to make (and was made) is saving them from doing so. Bankruptcy exists to allow failed institutions to go away as peacefully as possible.


Please, do some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States


Partisanship was not intended in the formation of the Constitution. It came about through like-minded people bonding together. The system evolved to embrace multiple pools of thought. I would say it is a weakness of our republic but, it is actually a weakness of humans which extended to government. Only a dictatorship doesn't have partisanship because any deviation from the people in command is not tolerated.

The ideals of the urban and rural populations will never "close in." The rural population prefer independence which is very visible in the Republican Party. The urban population prefer dependence which is very visible in the Democratic Party. Remember, Republican and Democratic Parties used to be a single Democratic-Republican Party which was unified against the Federalist Party. With every passing year, the two parties become more and more divided in beliefs.

Dollar-value control is indirect control, not direct, the very definitions of the words......

That sounds like a good idea, but forgive me if I'm skeptical that it will have dramatic effects on costs. If providing up front fees lowers profits for healthcare companies, you can bet they will find a way to raise them again, most likely at our detriment. Health is not really something people are willing to simply say well I don't need that forcing lower prices. Everybody wants good healthcare, and as such high demand remains the supply will remain expensive.

Is the legal system not part of the government? I'm not sure what you mean by most should be handled by the legal system (and thus not being regulated?).

Partisanship was not intended, but it is now clear that it is almost unavoidable when dealing in a republic. It's not 1776, things have changed. I could probably agree with you in saying that it (groupthink) is a weakness in humans, but it can also be a strength if flexible and creative thinking is still encouraged. It is, however, a result of the republic system that this is brought out in it's current fashion (partisanship). There would still be separation in a direct democracy for sure, but there would also be more room and encouragement for independent thought, which would in itself stifle groupthink's nasty side (there would of course also be situations where groupthink is pushed high in a direct democracy, hence the most compelling argument against it's implementation; I am of the notion that a balance can still be set in place though).

Rural and urban differences need not be subject to the whims of each other, they can remain separate in many ways if they wish, direct democracy with retained federalism would allow this flexibility.....

[FordGT90Concept]

Partisanship was not intended, but it is now clear that it is almost It is as direct as you're gonna get without sitting on the board.


What I meant is that health providers need to bid what taking care of you will cost. If you agree to the bid and they didn't bid high enough, they have to eat the difference. It forces them to get lean and mean with service. Right now, they're fat and lazy with a fix-it-once-we-get-sued mentality.

For procedures that are standard, like routine doctor visits, there should be a little sign on the front desk that tells you exactly how much that will cost and how much time with the doctor it will buy you. It will encourage people to shop around. For instance, if a 15 minute visit would cost you $30 at one hospital and the same visit would cost $35 at another. You'd probably try the place that was only $30 first. If you end up having to wait an hour to see the doctor, you'll probably be paying the extra $5 to go to the other place and see if their service is better. That practice, currently, is discouraged (and wtf!?! this is a capitalist economy, why are THEY the exception!?!).

Demand is very low right now for healthcare. When the economy tanks, people only go in for emergencies just like most other expenses. Emergencies make up a small number of hospital visits but they cost the most.


If a patient is uderly convinced that a doctor violated them during a prostate exam (borrowing from Family Guy), you can, and should, resolve the matter through a civil court case. Regulation shouldn't be put in place to bar prostate exams (as an extreme example).

Regulations are meant to prevent a country from destorying itself through greed. It isn't meant to solve disputes or prevent disputes from every arrising.


Name a single government in modern society where people participate in government and haven't formed parties. Just because you remove the rights of the minority doesn't mean parties will go away. In fact, the independant parties are likely to disapper because their vote really is useless. Remember, Nader lost the election for Gore--the power of the minority.


Also, parties simplify the voting process and absorb a lot of the costs associated with running an election. Yeah, it would be great if parties didn't exist but, they do.

[farlex]

Partisanship was not intended, but it is now clear that it is almost It is as direct as you're gonna get without sitting on the board.


What I meant is that health providers need to bid what taking care of you will cost. If you agree to the bid and they didn't bid high enough, they have to eat the difference. It forces them to get lean and mean with service. Right now, they're fat and lazy with a fix-it-once-we-get-sued mentality.

For procedures that are standard, like routine doctor visits, there should be a little sign on the front desk that tells you exactly how much that will cost and how much time with the doctor it will buy you. It will encourage people to shop around. For instance, if a 15 minute visit would cost you $30 at one hospital and the same visit would cost $35 at another. You'd probably try the place that was only $30 first. If you end up having to wait an hour to see the doctor, you'll probably be paying the extra $5 to go to the other place and see if their service is better. That practice, currently, is discouraged (and wtf!?! this is a capitalist economy, why are THEY the exception!?!).

Demand is very low right now for healthcare. When the economy tanks, people only go in for emergencies just like most other expenses. Emergencies make up a small number of hospital visits but they cost the most.


If a patient is uderly convinced that a doctor violated them during a prostate exam (borrowing from Family Guy), you can, and should, resolve the matter through a civil court case. Regulation shouldn't be put in place to bar prostate exams (as an extreme example).

Regulations are meant to prevent a country from destorying itself through greed. It isn't meant to solve disputes or prevent disputes from every arrising.


Name a single government in modern society where people participate in government and haven't formed parties. Just because you remove the rights of the minority doesn't mean parties will go away. In fact, the independant parties are likely to disapper because their vote really is useless. Remember, Nader lost the election for Gore--the power of the minority.


Also, parties simplify the voting process and absorb a lot of the costs associated with running an election. Yeah, it would be great if parties didn't exist but, they do.

But I can see putting a sign up telling how much it will cost having the same effect on healthcare many fear socialism will, it could devalue the system and the service gotten. And the thing is they wouldn't compete, not really. They would almost certainly engage in price gouging, and at their size and power would be virtually un-punishable. I do agree competition could at least liven things up a bit and make it a tad more consumer oriented market, but with the problems of profitability still playing a part, things could get even nastier than they are now. It's one thing to engage in bad business with computer parts and cars, it's another when you're talking healthcare. If we take a step back and look at it purely from an objective standpoint without any humanity, then yes that might be fine. When it comes to healthcare though humanity must be promoted though. Competition is a step in the right direction, preferable in many ways to our current solution, but ultimately I think not the answer for healthcare.

And you're probably right, people would still form parties under a direct democracy. Although, as I'm aware, no true democracy exists in a large country. In small instances where it is sometimes used, I don't think parties do typically exist, it's one of the nice features of the form of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Even if parties do form, they would likely be so wide in variation and cause and numerous that they would allow for a much more diverse voting system than is currently available (republican: low personal freedom, high economic freedom; democrat: high personal freedom, low economic freedom and all the things that go with that). Each individual has the ability to effect each decision made by the government directly. Which is to me only logical as the government is using our money and our freedoms with those decisions.

In a republic, few inflict their will upon the many. That's not minority rights, that's tyranny.

[FordGT90Concept]

But I can see putting a sign up telling how much it will cost having the same effect on healthcare many fear socialism will, it could devalue the system and the service gotten.
You can't honestly believe that. Name one example where competition caused "devaluing." If you mean the health care system won't be as profitable, yes, you're right. If you mean that health care systems will do a worse job than they are doing already, perhaps, but it would only be a short-term problem. If you screw a lot of customers out of good service to cut costs, you aren't going to be in business for long.


And the thing is they wouldn't compete, not really. They would almost certainly engage in price gouging, and at their size and power would be virtually un-punishable.
I don't see how they could. If they buy up local facilities, they would be brought to justice through the same anti-trust lawsuits that other businesses risk getting hit by when buying up competitors.


It's becoming abundantly clear to me you believe socialized medicine is the only way to go when the capitalist medicine never even truly existed (not here, or anywhere). Really no sense discussing it further.




Even if parties do form, they would likely be so wide in variation and cause and numerous that they would allow for a much more diverse voting system than is currently available (republican: low personal freedom, high economic freedom; democrat: high personal freedom, low economic freedom and all the things that go with that). Each individual has the ability to effect each decision made by the government directly. Which is to me only logical as the government is using our money and our freedoms with those decisions.
I have no idea where you got the "republican: low personal freedom" from. Republicans are the ones calling for gun rights and smaller government. Democrats are ones calling for more regulations and larger government. There's an indirect relationship between size of government and personal freedoms: the bigger the government, the less freedoms you have.

Republicans see government as part of the problem but, a necessary institution. They only thing they like that it does is buy big guns to make sure we don't lose a battle. That's pretty much the only reason they pay their taxes.

Democrats see government as part of the solution. They generally love everything government does, except buy those big guns Republicans love.

[farlex]

You can't honestly believe that. Name one example where competition caused "devaluing." If you mean the health care system won't be as profitable, yes, you're right. If you mean that health care systems will do a worse job than they are doing already, perhaps, but it would only be a short-term problem. If you screw a lot of customers out of good service to cut costs, you aren't going to be in business for long.



I don't see how they could. If they buy up local facilities, they would be brought to justice through the same anti-trust lawsuits that other businesses risk getting hit by when buying up competitors.


It's becoming abundantly clear to me you believe socialized medicine is the only way to go when the capitalist medicine never even truly existed (not here, or anywhere). Really no sense discussing it further.




I have no idea where you got the "republican: low personal freedom" from. Republicans are the ones calling for gun rights and smaller government. Democrats are ones calling for more regulations and larger government. There's an indirect relationship between size of government and personal freedoms: the bigger the government, the less freedoms you have.

Republicans see government as part of the problem but, a necessary institution. They only thing they like that it does is buy big guns to make sure we don't lose a battle. That's pretty much the only reason they pay their taxes.

Democrats see government as part of the solution. They generally love everything government does, except buy those big guns Republicans love.

What should be clear to you is that I think healthcare should be available to all and profitability needs to be low or non-existent. How this is accomplished I am open to (not exactly easy). As I said some of your ideas are good, but capitalism through an unrestricted market doesn't solve everything, and in the case of healthcare I have my doubts about whether it would be beneficial. You still are trying to peg me as a liberal democrat b/c that would make things easier, but I'm not, and I don't particularly want socialized medicine with the government in it's current state.

I could name numerous, numerous examples where competition cause devaluing. In fact name one that doesn't. Computers and cars come to mind readily. The name of the game is profit, and cutting overhead increases that when buyers are down. Cut the quality down to compete, that's how it works.

Republicans are typically those who will impose moralistic beliefs (traditional Christian ones) on the population at large. Such as abortion rights, homosexual marriage, drug laws, alcohol laws, evolution taught in schools, you know that sort of thing. Democrats usually tend to favor individual choice on these issues. Although yeah the second amendment is one of the places where this changes.

[FordGT90Concept]

Christian conservative Republicans are the only ones pushing religion. Not all Republicans are Christian or conservative.

I am socially Libertarian (government shouldn't be involved in matters such as marriage and abortion--at least beyond what Roe v. Wade clarified), economically Republican (capitalist, free market economy with safety nets), militaristically Republican (a strong country is founded on a strong military), and internationally Republican (war is ugly, but not necessarily avoidable--trade is good).

Social subjects concern me little and economic issues usually aren't forefront so, militaristic and international subjects weight the most on my vote.

[Deusxmachina]

T
Profit isn't in the equation for non-profit corporations either. They can keep about 10% of their yearly earnings to act as a fiscal buffer for next year. Any money beyond that goes to Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam can't lose as much money that way.

Some people may not know that non-profit workers can still be paid quite a bit. So if anyone thinks non-profit means the workers aren't being paid to do a good job and so quality suffers, that's not necessarily the case.

Rural representation: I already think the current tax system promotes socialism and handouts because the majority of people get more from society than they pay for. As far as their personal gain is concerned, they don't have much reason to vote for more "fairness" in the tax system or for how that money is spent.

Even something like gun laws. People in rural areas are probably more likely to be for less gun control. My aunt "up north" has a shotgun at the ready if for no other reason than that she can get bears in her yard. Meanwhile, urban people are more likely to think no one needs a gun for protection because the police station is close-by or because they have less bears coming into their yard, etc. Usually when I see someone bashing hunting and guns, they are from an urban area and don't really have any rural experience on the matter. And if the main population is urban, their votes win.

One example of capitalism in the healthcare industry might be to look at the Walmart cheap-drugs program and see what happened with that. $5 for any prescription or whatever due to their huge buying power. You know those stories about people paying $50 for a band-aid at a hospital? I've seen someone's healthcare plan where normally, damn, what was it, vicodin or something, the "regular" hospital charge was like $300 a pill, but under the plan it's "only" $220 per pill. Just insane.

Take out the middle-men and red tape and whatever else, and you can get drugs cheap from other countries. The government bans you from doing so, of course. There's a lot of sad stories at healthcare/drug message boards where people who literally can't function without certain drugs and can't afford them through "normal" channels but were getting the generic equivalent from other countries had their lives turned upside-down when the government closed down or banned those places.

Banks: I talk to a smaller-bank manager every week. He says smaller banks across the country have plenty of cash to lend because they do business the right way. His bank would love to increase its customer base and all that, but the government bailouts won't let them because the government is not letting capitalism work and allowing the bigger banks to fail. These crap banks could be replaced by banks that do things the right way, but Big Government won't let them and thus encourages bad behavior.

With all the things government sticks its big nose in, how many of those things become better the deeper that nose is in? I'd say not many.

[farlex]

Christian conservative Republicans are the only ones pushing religion. Not all Republicans are Christian or conservative.

I am socially Libertarian (government shouldn't be involved in matters such as marriage and abortion--at least beyond what Roe v. Wade clarified), economically Republican (capitalist, free market economy with safety nets), militaristically Republican (a strong country is founded on a strong military), and internationally Republican (war is ugly, but not necessarily avoidable--trade is good).

Social subjects concern me little and economic issues usually aren't forefront so, militaristic and international subjects weight the most on my vote.


It's true not all Republicans take these stances, especially not you libertarians. I was generalizing b/c you were when you described democrats, and I was over-simplifying things. You see, you would benefit from a direct democracy, where a true libertarian party could emerge from the republican party, and your minority wouldn't suffer the grievances of theirs.


One example of capitalism in the healthcare industry might be to look at the Walmart cheap-drugs program and see what happened with that. $5 for any prescription or whatever due to their huge buying power. You know those stories about people paying $50 for a band-aid at a hospital? I've seen someone's healthcare plan where normally, damn, what was it, vicodin or something, the "regular" hospital charge was like $300 a pill, but under the plan it's "only" $220 per pill. Just insane.

Take out the middle-men and red tape and whatever else, and you can get drugs cheap from other countries. The government bans you from doing so, of course. There's a lot of sad stories at healthcare/drug message boards where people who literally can't function without certain drugs and can't afford them through "normal" channels but were getting the generic equivalent from other countries had their lives turned upside-down when the government closed down or banned those places.

Banks: I talk to a smaller-bank manager every week. He says smaller banks across the country have plenty of cash to lend because they do business the right way. His bank would love to increase its customer base and all that, but the government bailouts won't let them because the government is not letting capitalism work and allowing the bigger banks to fail. These crap banks could be replaced by banks that do things the right way, but Big Government won't let them and thus encourages bad behavior.

With all the things government sticks its big nose in, how many of those things become better the deeper that nose is in? I'd say not many.

That's true, drugs could get cheaper from other sources. Then you just have one more market driven overseas also though, not helping GDP here.

And it does suck that the government props up banks with our money, but why did they do that? Because capitalism was allowed to run amok. Again, pure capitalism is boom/bust, there isn't a safety blanket big enough for the collapse that stems from a purely free market, and we get left with having to go through these recessions every so often. Wouldn't it be better if we found a way to avoid the bi-polar cycle and enter a more stable relationship with our money?

[FordGT90Concept]

It's true not all Republicans take these stances, especially not you libertarians. I was generalizing b/c you were when you described democrats, and I was over-simplifying things. You see, you would benefit from a direct democracy, where a true libertarian party could emerge from the republican party, and your minority wouldn't suffer the grievances of theirs.
Two libertarians ran in the last election (probably more but these are the only ones that got some recognition): Nader and Paul. I didn't vote for either because 90% of what they said I don't like. And no, a direct democracy wouldn't make any difference at all. The libertarian candidate would still only get <1% of the vote (fine by me).

[farlex]

Two libertarians ran in the last election (probably more but these are the only ones that got some recognition): Nader and Paul. I didn't vote for either because 90% of what they said I don't like. And no, a direct democracy wouldn't make any difference at all. The libertarian candidate would still only get <1% of the vote (fine by me).

Not true, you are a libertarian and did not vote libertarian b/c you didn't like the candidate. Others are libertarian and voted republican b/c it was the only way their vote would matter. In a direct democracy the libertarian ideal certainly wouldn't win all issues, but it would have influence on many. Libertarianism is not uncommon, and I even myself believe it or not identify with many libertarian ideals (obviously not all :D). Nobody wants a government they have no control over.

[FordGT90Concept]

I thought I explained that. 9/10 of me votes Republican, 1/10 votes Libertarian. Which way do you think I would vote? Not libertarian.


And it does suck that the government props up banks with our money, but why did they do that? Because capitalism was allowed to run amok. Again, pure capitalism is boom/bust, there isn't a safety blanket big enough for the collapse that stems from a purely free market, and we get left with having to go through these recessions every so often. Wouldn't it be better if we found a way to avoid the bi-polar cycle and enter a more stable relationship with our money?
The banks ran amok because many people declared bankruptcy which caused devaluing of houses around theirs which leads them to declaring bankruptcy, rinse and repeat. You can't stop people from being stupid (buying houses they know they can't afford).

The government proped up banks because Democrats are in control (ooo, goodie, some businesses for us to own--being socialist and all). Only three moderate Republicans voted in favor of the first bailout (just barely enough to avoid phillibuster). The second time, no Republicans voted for it--Democrats passed it on their own.


Stability is like investing in bonds rather than stocks. Stocks have big winners and big losers (really big on both spectrums). Bonds have little winners. If government were to take over all businesses and become truly socialist, we would no longer be competitive on the global scale because socialism doesn't have room for big risks with big rewards. Being controlled by government means it is slow to respond and the response usually lands with a splat rather than a bang. You take the good with the bad.

[farlex]

I thought I explained that. 9/10 of me votes Republican, 1/10 votes Libertarian. Which way do you think I would vote? Not libertarian.



Because so many people declared bankruptcy which caused devaluing of houses around theirs which leads them to declaring bankruptcy, rinse and repeat. You can't stop people from being stupid (buying houses they know they can't afford).

You did, what was unclear about what I said? I know why you voted the way you did. Others voted in other ways. Either way you had to broadly group your vote on account of only having 2 choices, as opposed to voting on specific issues.

But you can stop stupid people from bringing down the economy as a whole. Houses shouldn't be as expensive as they are. And housing foreclosure wasn't the whole reason for this and previous busts. And yes, it's b/c of the evil democrats that companies were bailed out. We wouldn't be much better w/ Republicans, but I guess you wouldn't complain as much. It would be a different kind of recession, not better.



Stability is like investing in bonds rather than stocks. Stocks have big winners and big losers (really big on both spectrums). Bonds have little winners. If government were to take over all businesses and become truly socialist, we would no longer be competitive on the global scale because socialism doesn't have room for big risks with big rewards. Being controlled by government means it is slow to respond and the response usually lands with a splat rather than a bang. You take the good with the bad.

Of course that is one perceived problem with socialism, is decreased productivity and wealth. Fine by me. I'd rather have a happy well educated healthy neighbor on both sides than a productive rich one on one side and a poor depraved criminal on the other. Again though, that's why the socialism in entirety is a bad idea, like full capitalism also isn't that great. If you can exploit the positives of each and use them to cancel out the bad parts of each other, maybe you could just take the good and leave the bad. ;)

[FordGT90Concept]

You did, what was unclear about what I said? I know why you voted the way you did. Others voted in other ways. Either way you had to broadly group your vote on account of only having 2 choices, as opposed to voting on specific issues.
There's always one issue that is a deal breaker for every voter. This last election, for most, was the economy. For me, the primaries was about succeeding in Iraq. The general election was about the economy. In both instances, McCain was/remains my man.


But you can stop stupid people from bringing down the economy as a whole. Houses shouldn't be as expensive as they are. And housing foreclosure wasn't the whole reason for this and previous busts. And yes, it's b/c of the evil democrats that companies were bailed out. We wouldn't be much better w/ Republicans, but I guess you wouldn't complain as much. It would be a different kind of recession, not better.
Yes, houses are sometimes over/under valued by appraisers. I really don't know how that could fixed though except through redundancy (have to appraisers from different firms evaluate a property and average the result).

The sub-prime mortgage crisis was 99% of the cause of this recession. People declared bankruptcy. The bank no longer gets their money back. When it comes to the end of the quarter, they discover all these securities they had were no longer worth anything. They discover they owe a crapload of money they don't have and they declare bankruptcy.

All I'm saying is that the Senate (both parties) and the House Democrats should have taken a hint from the House Republicans that these bailouts might not be the best solution. So far, they have been proven correct.

We will never know what it would be like if those banks weren't bailed out. There's no sense guessing.

[Wile E]

It's true not all Republicans take these stances, especially not you libertarians. I was generalizing b/c you were when you described democrats, and I was over-simplifying things. You see, you would benefit from a direct democracy, where a true libertarian party could emerge from the republican party, and your minority wouldn't suffer the grievances of theirs.



That's true, drugs could get cheaper from other sources. Then you just have one more market driven overseas also though, not helping GDP here.

And it does suck that the government props up banks with our money, but why did they do that? Because capitalism was allowed to run amok. Again, pure capitalism is boom/bust, there isn't a safety blanket big enough for the collapse that stems from a purely free market, and we get left with having to go through these recessions every so often. Wouldn't it be better if we found a way to avoid the bi-polar cycle and enter a more stable relationship with our money?
No, it wouldn't. You say the problem is from Capitalism running amok. I say it isn't. I say it's because these major corporations made bad decisions. And they should and do have every right to take those risks. But they need to realize that the penalty is possibly bankruptcy and having to close it's doors. This should be allowed to happen, economy be damned. Eventually, businesses will learn from their mistakes, and the economy will balance. You have to take the good with the bad, plain and simple. The current Democratic controlled govt isn't allowing this to happen, and the situation is likely going to drag on for much longer than it needs to.

The only regulation should be fair-trade laws.

[farlex]

No, it wouldn't. You say the problem is from Capitalism running amok. I say it isn't. I say it's because these major corporations made bad decisions. And they should and do have every right to take those risks. But they need to realize that the penalty is possibly bankruptcy and having to close it's doors. This should be allowed to happen, economy be damned. Eventually, businesses will learn from their mistakes, and the economy will balance. You have to take the good with the bad, plain and simple. The current Democratic controlled govt isn't allowing this to happen, and the situation is likely going to drag on for much longer than it needs to.

The only regulation should be fair-trade laws.

Well, bad business from major corporations is inevitable with unrestricted capitalism. Some get too greedy and the whole floor caves in. It's happened a few times already in modern economics and there's no reason to think it won't happen again unless we change the way we do business. The bailouts won't prolong the recession, in fact they are already having some impact in curving it. It would have been longer and deeper without them. However, now we are just delaying and compounding the problem by bringing on way more foreign debt than we can handle. It's just bad economics both ways.

[Wile E]

Well, bad business from major corporations is inevitable with unrestricted capitalism. Some get too greedy and the whole floor caves in. It's happened a few times already in modern economics and there's no reason to think it won't happen again unless we change the way we do business. The bailouts won't prolong the recession, in fact they are already having some impact in curving it. It would have been longer and deeper without them. However, now we are just delaying and compounding the problem by bringing on way more foreign debt than we can handle. It's just bad economics both ways.

I don't think we should stop it from happening at all. It weeds out bad businesses.

[farlex]

I don't think we should stop it from happening at all. It weeds out bad businesses.

It does, but I personally don't want to have my retirement wiped, job insecurity, and all the other problems that accompany recessions because other businesses made bad moves. If they could be removed without damning everyone else then great, but I don't see the use in everybody suffering from the mistakes of a few. Again, that's tyranny.

[FordGT90Concept]

You're retirement would only get wiped out if you invested in the bad bank or your government did (which it shouldn't be, unless it is socialist).

We came out of all previous recessions stronger than we went in because capitalism was allowed to take its course. The more and more involved government gets, the harder it is on everything to return to normalcy. For example, how many years is it going to take to pay off that $1.5 trillion in loans Uncle Sam got to save failed businesses? Seeing as Uncle Sam lost $1 trillion last year, I'd say a very long time. You're currency devaluing is far more dangerous than a business going away.

[Deusxmachina]

Two libertarians ran in the last election (probably more but these are the only ones that got some recognition): Nader and Paul. I didn't vote for either because 90% of what they said I don't like.

Bob Barr ran. Many say he's not a real Libertarian, though. I liked his running mate, "The King of Vegas," more than him.



But you can stop stupid people from bringing down the economy as a whole. Houses shouldn't be as expensive as they are. And housing foreclosure wasn't the whole reason for this and previous busts.


Housing prices ran up because Greenspan and The Fed created a bubble. Is that the only reason? Of course not, but imo it's a big one. If we had taken more pain back then, (some say it goes back to Greenspan bailing out his fund buddies back in 1998), the pain wouldn't be as bad now.

Amusingly on that note, I know FordGT90 thinks The Fed is a good idea, so maybe you two will agree on that one. Meanwhile, I think it's possibly the greatest scam ever put over the American people.

And look at the things Obama and company have proposed. Putting a floor under housing prices. Ridiculous. They want to fix bubbles with more bubbles. And then they go after shortsellers and whatever other boogeymen they can think of for the day.

It does, but I personally don't want to have my retirement wiped, job insecurity, and all the other problems that accompany recessions because other businesses made bad moves. If they could be removed without damning everyone else then great, but I don't see the use in everybody suffering from the mistakes of a few. Again, that's tyranny.

The coming inflation and increased taxes from creating money out of thin air will destroy your retirement faster than it was already being destroyed anyway. Today, Obama was talking about telling banks that didn't even take any TARP money how much they can pay people. Is that job security? This is scary stuff.

[FordGT90Concept]

Amusingly on that note, I know FordGT90 thinks The Fed is a good idea, so maybe you two will agree on that one. Meanwhile, I think it's possibly the greatest scam ever put over the American people.
Also, amusingly, Thomas Jefferson made the Democratic-Republican Party to go against the Federalist Party which was in favor of a national bank (Jefferson staunchly opposed this).

I don't necessarily like the fed (a lot of power in just a few people's hands with few checks and balances) but I acknowledge the role it plays is necessary. I haven't seen a proposal that would do a better job. As it stands now, I see it is a necessary evil.

[yogurt_21]

I don't think we should stop it from happening at all. It weeds out bad businesses.

I agree, with the governemnt stepping in they're basincally sending a message of "don't worry how bad you screw up, the govt will bail you out"

instead of forcing them to go through bankruptsy, close their doors and allow a new coprporation to rise from the ashes leaner, smarter, and more profitable than the last.

however on the flip side, tarp came into play because a chinese company was going to buy out most of the mortgages from fannie and freddie. do we really want our average joes at the mercy of a foreign entity? I mean if they imposed shady practices and rate hikes could the govt have done anythign about it being they are based in china under china's jurisdiction?

I would ahve prefered that the government not spend billions bailing out those who screwed the economy but I don't knwo if i would have liked sending my mortgage payments to china.

[FordGT90Concept]

There's a fundamental breakdown of tariffs too (note all the made in China, made in Taiwan, made in Indonesia, supported in India, Japanese cars, Japanese electronics, etc. flooding USA). If China wants to invest here, they need to get taxed to the nines to do it. Remember, the federal government was supposed to be entirely funded by taxing goods coming in to the country. It's time they get back to doing it and close all the damn loop holes while you're at it.

[farlex]

You're retirement would only get wiped out if you invested in the bad bank or your government did (which it shouldn't be, unless it is socialist).

We came out of all previous recessions stronger than we went in because capitalism was allowed to take its course. The more and more involved government gets, the harder it is on everything to return to normalcy. For example, how many years is it going to take to pay off that $1.5 trillion in loans Uncle Sam got to save failed businesses? Seeing as Uncle Sam lost $1 trillion last year, I'd say a very long time. You're currency devaluing is far more dangerous than a business going away.

You're retirement can get wiped out by a number of investments that suddenly turn into bad ones when the market tanks. Doesn't have to be banks.

And we didn't exactly come out of the Great Depression w/o government intervention eh? And what good is currency if no-one will pay you? But yes, debt is never a great solution to debt.


Housing prices ran up because Greenspan and The Fed created a bubble. Is that the only reason? Of course not, but imo it's a big one. If we had taken more pain back then, (some say it goes back to Greenspan bailing out his fund buddies back in 1998), the pain wouldn't be as bad now.

Amusingly on that note, I know FordGT90 thinks The Fed is a good idea, so maybe you two will agree on that one. Meanwhile, I think it's possibly the greatest scam ever put over the American people.

And look at the things Obama and company have proposed. Putting a floor under housing prices. Ridiculous. They want to fix bubbles with more bubbles. And then they go after shortsellers and whatever other boogeymen they can think of for the day.


The coming inflation and increased taxes from creating money out of thin air will destroy your retirement faster than it was already being destroyed anyway. Today, Obama was talking about telling banks that didn't even take any TARP money how much they can pay people. Is that job security? This is scary stuff.

Yeah a lot of the problem again to me goes back to the way our government is run. Obama and every other politician is mostly worried about their own legacy. Sure I and we must hope that they genuinely want the best thing for the country, but really the most important thing is re-election and a successful career. Therefore much short-sightedness takes place b/c if the politicians configure a quick fix to appease the public, they get re-elected. A few years down the road they're laughing at home while we elect someone else who promises to clean up the mess. Politics, politicians, they aren't the best way to get things done imo.

[FordGT90Concept]

And we didn't exactly come out of the Great Depression w/o government intervention eh? And what good is currency if no-one will pay you? But yes, debt is never a great solution to debt.
WW2 ended the Great Depression. Just like the current situation, it is impossible to know how things would be different if the government had a laissez faire mentality.

[Deusxmachina]

You're retirement can get wiped out by a number of investments that suddenly turn into bad ones when the market tanks. Doesn't have to be banks.


I'm not following the last couple points on this. Retirement money isn't usually guaranteed unless you get one of those snazzy, overpriced pensions from the government that taxpayers can't afford. Pretty much any investment has some gamble to it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you want the government to step in (likely with taxpayer money?) to protect your retirement money during a recession. If that's the case, everyone should put all their money into high-risk investments since the government will socialize the losses anyway.

Or maybe you're not saying that. ?

[farlex]

I'm not following the last couple points on this. Retirement money isn't usually guaranteed unless you get one of those snazzy, overpriced pensions from the government that taxpayers can't afford. Pretty much any investment has some gamble to it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you want the government to step in (likely with taxpayer money?) to protect your retirement money during a recession. If that's the case, everyone should put all their money into high-risk investments since the government will socialize the losses anyway.

Or maybe you're not saying that. ?

No no I'm not saying that. It's not really a point, just an example of how persons can be effected dramatically by economic downturns. I'm mostly just referring to investment plans. It's true there's always risk involved, but usually with some financial counseling and careful planning you don't have to worry about losing large sums of money. That all changes during recessions where all that money can fly out the window and investments run dry. I definitely don't think this is or should be guaranteed money, all I'm saying is it would be nice if the greed of a few didn't have such a drastic effect on the well-being of all. Wile E was saying, let the market fail, it's good, but I'm not convinced we can't have a more efficient market where that isn't a problem.

Logically and philosophically it is appalling to me that we as a people should ever be so drastically effected by the whims of a purely made up concept (money). Yes yes it's the exchange of goods and services and what not, but it is completely and utterly in our power to give and take away value, and other than symbolically is really meaningless. But I digress, and am heading towards a different discussion.

[FordGT90Concept]

Well, I was thinking that there maybe wasn't as many recessions prior to the 1900's (there's fewer and thusly more time between recessions) when the government size/power boomed so, I looked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions

It's pretty obvious that economic down and up turns are the norm. It doesn't matter what kind of economy you have, you're not immune to them. Yet, I can't help but think that capitalist economies are the most capable of rebounding. Why? Because whatever caused the recession can almost immediately be turned into a profit. For instance, a lot of recessions are caused by one of three things: war, embargo, or famine. In war, you need guns. In embargos, you need whatever is being embargoed. In famine, you need the food stuffs that are missing. The people who capitalize on the needs make it big and ultimately pull the country out of the recession.

Likewise, once the USSR ran out of money, there was no saving the sinking ship. They were forced to change their economic paradigm in order to return to profit.

Socialist economies have the same weakness--once the state runs out of money, there's no saving it; however, it takes longer for the collapse to take hold because socialism doesn't control the populous like Communism does. In Communism, the problems become apparent quite quickly when food starts drying up. In Socialism, it takes longer for the food to dry up because, for example, individuals may be growing their own food which is pretty much forbidden in a Communist state.

Yet, there is no way for individuals to fix a recession in a Socialist state because they simply aren't allowed the resources, authority, and power to do so. The government must do it and, failing that, only the global climate could turn it around (ehm, boom in demand for a product the country produces).

Communist states are the most stable but their foundation is brittle. Socialist states are stable but their foundation is weak. Capitalist states are mediocre on stability but their foundation is strong (can respond relatively quickly to changes).

Analogy: The Communist house is built on sand, Socialist house is built on wooden stills, Capitalist house is built on pilings with hydraulic rams to level it if should a piling sink.


Hmm, the Panic of 1819 is not dissimilar to what is happening now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819

It ended in five years.

[yogurt_21]

I definetly agree with capitalism being the most successful at rebounding. the Kennedies wouldn't ahve been the Kennedies had it not been for the grat depression. They bough stocks after they hit bottom and then let them ride until they went back to normal making insane returns on their investments unheard of since, until now.

I think we have a stock market that is ripe for the taking right now. many long term investors have bailed leaving companues with a 90-97% drop in stock price. so i dunno about you, but I taking what I can spare and investing it. As long as you keep a "set it and forget it" attitude it shouldn't be possible to lose money. (worst case scenario they go under and the stock holder auction off everything to recoup whcih you should profit from if you did it right).

I dunno i think this would have been over faster if the governement didn't get involved.

[farlex]

Well, I was thinking that there maybe wasn't as many recessions prior to the 1900's (there's fewer and thusly more time between recessions) when the government size/power boomed so, I looked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions

It's pretty obvious that economic down and up turns are the norm. It doesn't matter what kind of economy you have, you're not immune to them. Yet, I can't help but think that capitalist economies are the most capable of rebounding. Why? Because whatever caused the recession can almost immediately be turned into a profit. For instance, a lot of recessions are caused by one of three things: war, embargo, or famine. In war, you need guns. In embargos, you need whatever is being embargoed. In famine, you need the food stuffs that are missing. The people who capitalize on the needs make it big and ultimately pull the country out of the recession.

Likewise, once the USSR ran out of money, there was no saving the sinking ship. They were forced to change their economic paradigm in order to return to profit.

Socialist economies have the same weakness--once the state runs out of money, there's no saving it; however, it takes longer for the collapse to take hold because socialism doesn't control the populous like Communism does. In Communism, the problems become apparent quite quickly when food starts drying up. In Socialism, it takes longer for the food to dry up because, for example, individuals may be growing their own food which is pretty much forbidden in a Communist state.

Yet, there is no way for individuals to fix a recession in a Socialist state because they simply aren't allowed the resources, authority, and power to do so. The government must do it and, failing that, only the global climate could turn it around (ehm, boom in demand for a product the country produces).

Communist states are the most stable but their foundation is brittle. Socialist states are stable but their foundation is weak. Capitalist states are mediocre on stability but their foundation is strong (can respond relatively quickly to changes).

Analogy: The Communist house is built on sand, Socialist house is built on wooden stills, Capitalist house is built on pilings with hydraulic rams to level it if should a piling sink.


Hmm, the Panic of 1819 is not dissimilar to what is happening now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819

It ended in five years.

You can't really compare economics of pre-1900s to now. The industrial revolution changed economics completely, and modern globalization further distances the time periods. There is virtually no way to compare capitalism of now w/ capitalism of the 17-1800s (which actually wasn't called capitalism, although the concept of Laissez-faire). Huge corporations, digital solutions to production, global stock exchange, things like this didn't exist then, and completely change the ball game.

Also what you're not seeing is one of the major benefits of socialism is that things like recessions don't really occur. Why would it? Think of it this way, if everyone shares how can you be in debt? Again though, pure socialism isn't even remotely attainable at the moment, we'd need a good healthy mix of socialism and capitalism with the right kind of government to run it to progress over there.

There are so many drawbacks to capitalism I don't really feel like I should have to list them. Sure it can adapt to it's own problems sometimes and it tends to produce a lot, but it's discriminatory by nature, and thrives on marginalizing people to improve profits for, well, the economy (which serves whom?). Socialism is spectacular in theory but much harder in practice, especially in current climates. I'd say it's pretty much inevitable though, only a matter of time. It still hasn't been fully tried yet in a national government, but capitalism will fail completely at one point, hopefully socialism's strengths are used before then though and the mess won't be so great.

[FordGT90Concept]

You can't really compare economics of pre-1900s to now. The industrial revolution changed economics completely, and modern globalization further distances the time periods. There is virtually no way to compare capitalism of now w/ capitalism of the 17-1800s (which actually wasn't called capitalism, although the concept of Laissez-faire). Huge corporations, digital solutions to production, global stock exchange, things like this didn't exist then, and completely change the ball game.
1700s, yes; 1800s, no. The 1800s saw many huge corporations such as Union Pacific and Colt spring up. Both made it big during the Civil War (1861–1865). The principles on which they were founded over 150 years ago are the same principles on which they run today (money). The only thing that changed between 1776 and 2009 is the technology. We moved from barrel fed cannons to breach loaded repeaters to fully automatics. We moved from steam to diesel electric. The that greased the gears then still greases those same gears today: money.

Global market?
Panic of 1797 - Caused by deflation at the Bank of England.
Panic of 1857 - Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company failed causing foreign investors in US banks to pull out.
Panic of 1873 - Economic problems in Europe caused Jay Cooke & Company (largest US bank at the time) to fail.
Long Depression (1873–1896) - Caused by the Vienna Stock Exchange Collapse.

"Laissez-faire" is considered "pure capitalism."

So, yeah, they did exist and they caused the very same problems we face today.



Also what you're not seeing is one of the major benefits of socialism is that things like recessions don't really occur. Why would it? Think of it this way, if everyone shares how can you be in debt? Again though, pure socialism isn't even remotely attainable at the moment, we'd need a good healthy mix of socialism and capitalism with the right kind of government to run it to progress over there.
When a socialist/communist country is in debt, everyone is in debt. There's no value in a socialist system to get out of debt which is why, just like communism, socialist states ultimately fail and head towards are more capitalistic economy (see France and the socialist party losing majority in the 1960s).

This country was originally founded with capitalist, laissez-faire system; however, it wasn't pure capitalist--there was a socialist "safety net" put in place to get those that fall out of the capitalist system to get back in (be it injured or whatever--nondiscriminatory laws). What changed between now and then is the safety net isn't really a safety net anymore, it's an all inclusive tarp that sucks the capitalist system dry. 95% capitalism to 5% socialism is about the mix we started with. We're somewhere between 60%/40% capitalism/socialism to 50%/50% now. Almost all of the major problems we face today are created by that change. Before we had to worry about outside influences (which is why tariffs were always well maintained); now we have to worry about inside influences (magical tarp for everyone! government will bail you out if you screw up bad enough! etc.).


There are so many drawbacks to capitalism I don't really feel like I should have to list them. Sure it can adapt to it's own problems sometimes and it tends to produce a lot, but it's discriminatory by nature, and thrives on marginalizing people to improve profits for, well, the economy (which serves whom?). Socialism is spectacular in theory but much harder in practice, especially in current climates. I'd say it's pretty much inevitable though, only a matter of time. It still hasn't been fully tried yet in a national government, but capitalism will fail completely at one point, hopefully socialism's strengths are used before then though and the mess won't be so great.
And how is government saying who gets what benefits not discriminatory? How is government taking 7.65% of everyone's pay check just to pay people that are too lazy to save for themselves not discriminatory? How is it not discriminatory when government takes 35% of the earnings of the wealthy and next to nothing (or nothing) from the median income/poor? Socialism is all about discrimination of government vs the people rather than people vs people as seen with capitalism.

Economies serve everyone involved. Buyers get what they want, sellers get rid of what they don't want. Everyone is happy.

People win, and lose, big. That is capitalism. It can only fail if big fish are allowed to eat all the little fish. So long as that is prevented, and there is something to sell, it thrives.

[farlex]

1700s, yes; 1800s, no. The 1800s saw many huge corporations such as Union Pacific and Colt spring up. Both made it big during the Civil War (1861–1865). The principles on which they were founded over 150 years ago are the same principles on which they run today (money). The only thing that changed between 1776 and 2009 is the technology. We moved from barrel fed cannons to breach loaded repeaters to fully automatics. We moved from steam to diesel electric. The that greased the gears then still greases those same gears today: money.

Global market?
Panic of 1797 - Caused by deflation at the Bank of England.
Panic of 1857 - Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company failed causing foreign investors in US banks to pull out.
Panic of 1873 - Economic problems in Europe caused Jay Cooke & Company (largest US bank at the time) to fail.
Long Depression (1873–1896) - Caused by the Vienna Stock Exchange Collapse.

"Laissez-faire" is considered "pure capitalism."

So, yeah, they did exist and they caused the very same problems we face today.


Yes the same principals governed the economy, but it is far more complex and global now, hence imo not really comparable.


When a socialist/communist country is in debt, everyone is in debt. There's no value in a socialist system to get out of debt which is why, just like communism, socialist states ultimately fail and head towards are more capitalistic economy (see France and the socialist party losing majority in the 1960s).



How do you think we're going to get out of debt now? What capitalistic savior is going to erase the debt? When a country goes socialist they don't simply stop producing, the same things that could erase our current debt could conceivably erase a socialist's society's debt.


And how is government saying who gets what benefits not discriminatory? How is government taking 7.65% of everyone's pay check just to pay people that are too lazy to save for themselves not discriminatory? How is it not discriminatory when government takes 35% of the earnings of the wealthy and next to nothing (or nothing) from the median income/poor? Socialism is all about discrimination of government vs the people rather than people vs people as seen with capitalism.



Those policies your speaking of are not intrinsic socialistic principals. In a democratic socialist society, tax and such would be universal. You and others also continue to assert that all those receiving money from government sponsored programs are "lazy," which displays and ignorance so profound and deep I cannot really be bothered to argue with it. I imagine you have trouble with empathy.

Socialism is all about the state owning property so as to provide for all equally. Make it democratic, and the government is the people, not against them. Capitalism is simply all about the dollar, plain and simple. It cares not for people and their experience, only how much money they are worth. If that's happiness to you, well, enjoy.


People win, and lose, big. That is capitalism. It can only fail if big fish are allowed to eat all the little fish. So long as that is prevented, and there is something to sell, it thrives.

The big fish have always eaten the little fish. Such is nature. Humanity has reached a level where we need not be subject to this nature, and we can find other ways to use our resources (than predatory competition). Capitalism encourages this ancient pastime though, and if you don't want it regulated it will be done.

[FordGT90Concept]

Yes the same principals governed the economy, but it is far more complex and global now, hence imo not really comparable.
Capitalism scales great. The driving force (human needs and desires) never change.



How do you think we're going to get out of debt now? What capitalistic savior is going to erase the debt? When a country goes socialist they don't simply stop producing, the same things that could erase our current debt could conceivably erase a socialist's society's debt.
-We're going to get out of debt by cutting spending 50% or more. That's the problem right now--spending beyond our means.

-Capitalism is only slowing the rate at which this country goes bankrupt. It can't stop it and/or reverse it until spending gets under control.

-Socialism means government is in control of the jobs. Governments are slow to react and usually don't react with enough clarity, strength. As an example of this, the government ordered the development of the F-22 Raptor. It took 10+ years or research and development. Now we have a high tech product with no application. Government, being slow, effectively wasted billions of tax dollars just because they were anticipating demand that never transpired. Private contractors, on the other hand, can have an aircraft designed, constructed, and tested in a just a few years. If the situation changed in those few years, they can more rapidly change their strategy to something else that is in higher demand (like make troughs out of the aircraft frame, sell the engines as electric generators, etc.). The only time things move fast in a government is at wartime when there isn't time to debate everything.



Those policies your speaking of are not intrinsic socialistic principals. In a democratic socialist society, tax and such would be universal. You and others also continue to assert that all those receiving money from government sponsored programs are "lazy," which displays and ignorance so profound and deep I cannot really be bothered to argue with it. I imagine you have trouble with empathy.
"Would be" doesn't mean they are.

Some times the bird with a broken wing deserves to die. I don't call it empathy, I call it natural selection. If you stop to help the bird, what's to say a truck isn't going to run you over in the process? Or maybe it bites you giving you a nasty infection? Stupidity leads to more stupidity.



Socialism is all about the state owning property so as to provide for all equally. Make it democratic, and the government is the people, not against them. Capitalism is simply all about the dollar, plain and simple. It cares not for people and their experience, only how much money they are worth. If that's happiness to you, well, enjoy.
That's where governments are fundamentally broken. They operate on greed without consideration for the larger picture; hence, why the USA is currently running in red (very bright red at that).

The dollar is a symbol for value, plain and simple. Communism, socialism, and capitalism are all about the value. The only thing that's different between them is who owns that value.

Some people feel shaming in having lots when others have little. Even in a laissez-faire economy, people still feel compelled to help out the less fortunate; however, assisting the less fortunate isn't mandatory. There's plenty of examples of this from the Red Cross (which does a better job than FEMA) and the Bill and Melinda Gates' Foundation.



The big fish have always eaten the little fish. Such is nature. Humanity has reached a level where we need not be subject to this nature, and we can find other ways to use our resources (than predatory competition). Capitalism encourages this ancient pastime though, and if you don't want it regulated it will be done.
You still eat, poop, and piss, no? Nature rules, literally. Communism works great for ants. If ants felt jealousy and greed, it wouldn't work for them either. We are what we are (greedy and jealous). Denying it will only get you/us in trouble--maybe not immediately, but eventually.


For laughs: Plants are capitalising on your fertile fecal matter!

[farlex]

Capitalism scales great. The driving force (human needs and desires) never change.



I would say it doesn't scale that well, as it gets to a larger scale the disparity becomes so great that you end up w/ our current situation, w/ the average person in the world being a poor farmer in China who makes less than $1/day. It works better when it's small enough that most involved aren't at such a disadvantage.


-We're going to get out of debt by cutting spending 50% or more. That's the problem right now--spending beyond our means.

-Capitalism is only slowing the rate at which this country goes bankrupt. It can't stop it and/or reverse it until spending gets under control.

-Socialism means government is in control of the jobs. Governments are slow to react and usually don't react with enough clarity, strength. As an example of this, the government ordered the development of the F-22 Raptor. It took 10+ years or research and development. Now we have a high tech product with no application. Government, being slow, effectively wasted billions of tax dollars just because they were anticipating demand that never transpired. Private contractors, on the other hand, can have an aircraft designed, constructed, and tested in a just a few years. If the situation changed in those few years, they can more rapidly change their strategy to something else that is in higher demand (like make troughs out of the aircraft frame, sell the engines as electric generators, etc.). The only time things move fast in a government is at wartime when there isn't time to debate everything.


Same principles can work with socialism. You want the government to move faster, remove the red tape.


"Would be" doesn't mean they are.

Some times the bird with a broken wing deserves to die. I don't call it empathy, I call it natural selection. If you stop to help the bird, what's to say a truck isn't going to run you over in the process? Or maybe it bites you giving you a nasty infection? Stupidity leads to more stupidity.



You're assuming the bird was stupid and ill-adept? Sometimes even the strongest have poor luck befall them. You seem determined to accept the negative qualities of humanity while ignoring the positive ones (empathy, compassion, cooperation), which again leads me to believe you lack empathy severely. And natural selection isn't "survival of the fittest" as you seem to be implying. It's simply those that reproduce pass on their traits, which we have control over.


You still eat, poop, and piss, no? Nature rules, literally. Communism works great for ants. If ants felt jealousy and greed, it wouldn't work for them either. We are what we are (greedy and jealous). Denying it will only get you/us in trouble--maybe not immediately, but eventually.


For laughs: Plants are capitalising on your fertile fecal matter!

I can't imagine why greed and jealousy prevent communism from functioning. Denying and wanting to improve are not the same thing. One can accept their faults and attempt to curve them. Just b/c greed and jealousy are in humanity's repertoire doesn't mean we can't attempt to minimize their damage and maximize our strengths (namely, cooperation w/ intelligent thought).

[FordGT90Concept]

I would say it doesn't scale that well, as it gets to a larger scale the disparity becomes so great that you end up w/ our current situation, w/ the average person in the world being a poor farmer in China who makes less than $1/day. It works better when it's small enough that most involved aren't at such a disadvantage.
That's normal. Your boss has more responsibilities than you so he deserves to get paid more. Likewise, his boss has more responsibilities than your boss so he deserves to get paid more. However, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Look at the banks that were allowed to go under. :x



Same principles can work with socialism. You want the government to move faster, remove the red tape.
Red tape is the people disagreeing. To remove the red tape is to make a government a dictatorship--only seek out and apply one opinion. It's really fast, necessary in wartime, but otherwise the people suffer. Red tape is necessary in government, not in business (at least not much).



You're assuming the bird was stupid and ill-adept? Sometimes even the strongest have poor luck befall them. You seem determined to accept the negative qualities of humanity while ignoring the positive ones (empathy, compassion, cooperation), which again leads me to believe you lack empathy severely. And natural selection isn't "survival of the fittest" as you seem to be implying. It's simply those that reproduce pass on their traits, which we have control over.
No, I'm saying it's stupid to help the bird when a) it could endanger you and b) the bird may very well not want your help.

As I stated, capitalism doesn't forbid the expression of empathy, compassion, or cooperation--it just doesn't mandate it.

"Survival of the fittest" is a statement pulled from the "fitness" portion of "natural selection." That is, Charles Darwin described natural selection and Herbert Spencer applied the concept of natural selection to economics and dubbed it survival of the fittest. Darwin considers both phrases to be synonyms.



I can't imagine why greed and jealousy prevent communism from functioning. Denying and wanting to improve are not the same thing. One can accept their faults and attempt to curve them. Just b/c greed and jealousy are in humanity's repertoire doesn't mean we can't attempt to minimize their damage and maximize our strengths (namely, cooperation w/ intelligent thought).
Because "it's not enough!" *rock out*

People don't like to be told what they can't have. At the same time, they aren't encouraged to explore ideas either. In the end, it fails on two fronts: economic stagnation and civil unrest.

You might want to be dependant on a government but a lot of people disagree with you. Remember, the government's money is something you worked for. Why should decide how it is spent and not you? What if the government decides to vote in favor of something you opposed? What if it happens all the time? What if they decide it is too costly to get the peoples' opinion and turn it into a monarchy/dynasty/what have you? What if your government collapses because those making the decisions decided to take all the wealth and run? Socialism, like communism, is good in theory but not in practice.

All governments are felled by the people who disagree.



Edit: The best way I can sum up socialism: it strives for mediocrity, not excellence. Where does that get us from here?

[farlex]

That's normal. Your boss has more responsibilities than you so he deserves to get paid more. Likewise, his boss has more responsibilities than your boss so he deserves to get paid more. However, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Look at the banks that were allowed to go under. :x


What does that have to do w/ farmers in China making less than $1 a day? You're saying they have less responsibilities than oh say a professional basketball player who makes $13 million a year, so that's normal? No no capitalism's pay cycle isn't necessarily based on responsibilities, workload, or pedigree of work. It's based on a number of circumstances, many outside the individual's control.


Red tape is the people disagreeing. To remove the red tape is to make a government a dictatorship--only seek out and apply one opinion. It's really fast, necessary in wartime, but otherwise the people suffer. Red tape is necessary in government, not in business (at least not much).


No necessarily it depends on the disagreement. Here in the US I'd say most of the red tape from disagreeing is a result of democrat/republican crap that keeps continuing. If neither side backs down or works with the other, it's just a competition. It's true there will always be disagreement, but our current government is extremely inefficient in dealing with it.


As I stated, capitalism doesn't forbid the expression of empathy, compassion, or cooperation--it just doesn't mandate it.

"Survival of the fittest" is a statement pulled from the "fitness" portion of "natural selection." That is, Charles Darwin described natural selection and Herbert Spencer applied the concept of natural selection to economics and dubbed it survival of the fittest. Darwin considers both phrases to be synonyms.


Of course it doesn't, nothing can forbid that or mandate it, there is always choice. Different systems do promote different qualities though, and what's wrong with promoting cooperation over greed? To me that is an effective way to maximize strengths and minimize weakness, promote the strength so it is rewarded. Classical conditioning. Thing is many are now conditioned to think greed and self-promotion aren't so bad after all.

Darwin did not consider them synonyms, I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. In nature most of the time fitness is a good precursor for reproduction, and yes that means their traits will be selected. This isn't the case anymore with humans. In fact, almost the opposite if you look at it from a capitalistic standpoint as impoverished people are more likely to reproduce more.


Because "it's not enough!" *rock out*

People don't like to be told what they can't have. At the same time, they aren't encouraged to explore ideas either. In the end, it fails on two fronts: economic stagnation and civil unrest.

You might want to be dependant on a government but a lot of people disagree with you. Remember, the government's money is something you worked for. Why should decide how it is spent and not you? What if the government decides to vote in favor of something you opposed? What if it happens all the time? What if they decide it is too costly to get the peoples' opinion and turn it into a monarchy/dynasty/what have you? What if your government collapses because those making the decisions decided to take all the wealth and run? Socialism, like communism, is good in theory but not in practice.

All governments are felled by the people who disagree.



Edit: The best way I can sum up socialism: it strives for mediocrity, not excellence. Where does that get us from here?

In communism no, in a democratic socialist nation there's no reason for new ideas or production to be stagnant. It doesn't have to do with dependency on government, for some reason you keep failing to see this and are merely looking at current examples. Government should only be for order in the chaos, a sort of collective effort to keep society running with all it's constituents. If the people control the government, they aren't dependent on it, it just becomes a way for them to control themselves. It isn't a separate entity in what I'm talking about, the government as we know it ceases to exist, there isn't anyone to be dependent. Those hypotheticals wouldn't likely happen. Socialism is only hard because of current society's ideals.

Socialism strives to provide for all, that is the best way to sum it up. That is not mediocrity it is equality. What, making a billion dollar corporation off the labor of others that were marginalized while only a few truly benefit is excellence? Well, it is in capitalism, which is why I said it cares only for the dollar. Sure our computers may not run as fast, our skyscrapers may not be as tall (temporarily), but we'd effectively root out poverty, homelessness, crime, and other things for a very large part (these things will always be around to some degree) which to me is much more valuable than a "successful" company. And eventually, with enough cooperation (as is encouraged, not mandated, by socialism) we would have more effective and excellent space programs, colliders, clothes, you name it.

[DaMulta]

King and Queen is the best system!

Just look what the Dutch, and Britain did in their King and Queen days! They ruled the world!

[FordGT90Concept]

What does that have to do w/ farmers in China making less than $1 a day? You're saying they have less responsibilities than oh say a professional basketball player who makes $13 million a year, so that's normal? No no capitalism's pay cycle isn't necessarily based on responsibilities, workload, or pedigree of work. It's based on a number of circumstances, many outside the individual's control.
The farmers are the very bottom of the pecking order so they get paid the least. Being a professional basketball player is a high risk position. If they do poorly or get injured, their value goes way down. The value is high because not many can do what they can. In China, there's over a billion people ready and able to replace that farmer. Remember, they are Communist with an anyone can do everyone's job mentality. No individual is worth more to them than the next (unless, of course, you are involved with the PRC).


No necessarily it depends on the disagreement. Here in the US I'd say most of the red tape from disagreeing is a result of democrat/republican crap that keeps continuing. If neither side backs down or works with the other, it's just a competition. It's true there will always be disagreement, but our current government is extremely inefficient in dealing with it.
It always has been. I say that's good because one side wants to make everyone work for the government and the other side wants to eliminate immigration. Progress, in either direction, usually hurts us in the long run.


Of course it doesn't, nothing can forbid that or mandate it, there is always choice. Different systems do promote different qualities though, and what's wrong with promoting cooperation over greed? To me that is an effective way to maximize strengths and minimize weakness, promote the strength so it is rewarded. Classical conditioning. Thing is many are now conditioned to think greed and self-promotion aren't so bad after all.
Um, the Social Security Act mandates that 7.5% of income goes to the government's largest socialist program. To not pay it is to commit tax evasion fraud. So, no, no choice. If universal healthcare goes through, the same is true of that (fraud to not pay even if you don't use it).

Greed is a feeling, cooperation isn't. There's a lot of situations where cooperation is impossible (especially when views are completely polarized). For example, try to get Republicans to say pro-choice is right and Democrats to say pro-life is right. It ain't gonna happen any time soon.

Reward with what? Money that you earned and government "lawfully" took from you? Here's an idea: don't take it in the first place if you don't need it.

Children don't have to be taught to be jealous and greed. It is a survival instinct. If you take food from a rival, odds are you'll surive and your rival won't. You can drive sharing and cooperation into them all you want but it won't ever override self-preservation. Should one succeed at doing that, the human race is doomed to extinction sooner rather than later.


Darwin did not consider them synonyms, I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion.
Read the fifth edition of "On the Origin of Species."



In communism no, in a democratic socialist nation there's no reason for new ideas or production to be stagnant. It doesn't have to do with dependency on government, for some reason you keep failing to see this and are merely looking at current examples. Government should only be for order in the chaos, a sort of collective effort to keep society running with all it's constituents. If the people control the government, they aren't dependent on it, it just becomes a way for them to control themselves. It isn't a separate entity in what I'm talking about, the government as we know it ceases to exist, there isn't anyone to be dependent. Those hypotheticals wouldn't likely happen. Socialism is only hard because of current society's ideals.

Socialism strives to provide for all, that is the best way to sum it up. That is not mediocrity it is equality. What, making a billion dollar corporation off the labor of others that were marginalized while only a few truly benefit is excellence? Well, it is in capitalism, which is why I said it cares only for the dollar. Sure our computers may not run as fast, our skyscrapers may not be as tall (temporarily), but we'd effectively root out poverty, homelessness, crime, and other things for a very large part (these things will always be around to some degree) which to me is much more valuable than a "successful" company. And eventually, with enough cooperation (as is encouraged, not mandated, by socialism) we would have more effective and excellent space programs, colliders, clothes, you name it.
Who is on the bleeding edge of technology? Not socialist or communist states. Who is pushing humanity forward at a rapid pace? Not socialist or communist states. That isn't a conidience--it is a factuality proven by history.

The only reason the federal government exists in the USA is to a) solve disputes among states, b) place tariffs on goods coming and going from the country, and c) raise an army to maintain the union and fend off invasion. That's it. No where in there does it say government must be a saint and help those in need. Hell, besides protecting the "god given rights" the Constitution has little in the way of society. The judicial branch was established to solve disputes in society but that's about it. Other things were amended later to force equality that was otherwise not tolerated.

In theory, governments are supposed to be controlled by the people but in application, they never are. Again, if you ever disagree with what the government does, you're not in control.

Equality is mediocrity. Why do you think you want to move up in your career? It pays more for one but it also means more power and more responsibilities. Let's be straight, it is great to be a superior--not so great to be an inferior.

As to that second paragraph, that's all fine and dandy until you get attacked by a country backed by capitalism. You're weapons are inferior, your tactics are inferior, the boots on the ground aren't as well trained, and once the government is toppled (which is inevitable), the people run around like chickens with their head cut off. Yeah...bad idea.



Anyway, this is discussion is becoming nonsense. You are convinced that humans can get the smarts beat out of them so they act like ants and are completely driven by the needs of the colony. We're humans--it can never work. Seriously, I'm sorry you feel that way. :(



@DaMulta: Monachies are quite effective as are dictatorships; however, the only thing that really progresses in both systems is whatever the priorities are of the royal family/dictator. For Hussein, it was controlling oil. For the monarchies at UAE, it is controlling regional tourism. For the kings and queens of the middle ages, it was conquering the south, east, and west. For Stalin, it was spreading communism through military action. They are brutally effective at those focused tasks but they fail pretty much everywhere else.

[DaMulta]

America was kick ass when we paid our miltary guys 60 dollars a month, and labor was cheap like china. ROFL

It's true

We need china because we don't want to make 25cents an hour, we found someone else to do it for us!

[FordGT90Concept]

America was kick ass when we paid our miltary guys 60 dollars a month, and labor was cheap like china. ROFL

It's true

We need china because we don't want to make 25cents an hour, we found someone else to do it for us!
Sad, but true. :cool:

[farlex]

Anyway, this is discussion is becoming nonsense. You are convinced that humans can get the smarts beat out of them so they act like ants and are completely driven by the needs of the colony. We're humans--it can never work. Seriously, I'm sorry you feel that way. :(


Agreed. You are utterly and completely missing my points and I'm tired of responding to attempt to convey them. Besides, things aren't going to change, socialism as you call it in our government isn't socialism, and our government at the moment is still quite strong. Competition among humans on such a vast scale will spell our demise and regression, only through cooperation can we progress and the next stage begin (space "the final frontier" :D).

[FordGT90Concept]

I'm not missing them at all. I just know they only work in fantasy and not actuality. It may work for other species but not humans (or mammals in general). There's no evidence to suggest it does work for extended periods of time.

The federal government is supposed to be weak by all measures except militaristic. Most of the strength is supposed to reside at state level, not federal. The only reason the federal government has so much power now is because of the Federalist Party back in the 1700's/1800's. It's been bloated every since (a whole new level of bloatedness was set by FDR).

The only way competition on a vast scale will spell our demise is if a disagreement turns to nuclear holocaust. The Cold War triggered that competition between USA and USSR.

Few are working on space because it is so expensive to do so; additionally, there's nothing out there we need right now. If Earth was making a v-line for the sun, I'm sure that would change in virtually an instant.

[Wile E]

I have to agree with ford 100% here.

While, it may be said he lacks empathy, it can also be said that you lack a realistic view of humanity, farlex.

Socialism and/or communism will never work. It's been proven time and time again. All socialist countries eventually become communist, and all communist countries eventually fail. Plain and simple. Capitalism, while prone to ups and down, has a much better staying force.

[farlex]

I'm not missing them at all. I just know they only work in fantasy and not actuality. It may work for other species but not humans (or mammals in general). There's no evidence to suggest it does work for extended periods of time.

The federal government is supposed to be weak by all measures except militaristic. Most of the strength is supposed to reside at state level, not federal. The only reason the federal government has so much power now is because of the Federalist Party back in the 1700's/1800's. It's been bloated every since (a whole new level of bloatedness was set by FDR).

The only way competition on a vast scale will spell our demise is if a disagreement turns to nuclear holocaust. The Cold War triggered that competition between USA and USSR.

Few are working on space because it is so expensive to do so; additionally, there's nothing out there we need right now. If Earth was making a v-line for the sun, I'm sure that would change in virtually an instant.

I have to agree with ford 100% here.

While, it may be said he lacks empathy, it can also be said that you lack a realistic view of humanity, farlex.

Socialism and/or communism will never work. It's been proven time and time again. All socialist countries eventually become communist, and all communist countries eventually fail. Plain and simple. Capitalism, while prone to ups and down, has a much better staying force.

What I've been talking about in this thread is obviously not ideas that have been tested or tried on a large scale. Socialism hasn't really ever been tried the way it was first envisioned. It has worked in a number of small instances, it just hasn't been pushed successfully to a higher level yet, namely b/c of the dictatorial form in which it was pushed. It's a given that what I've been talking about here is idealistic in nature, in that it hasn't been tried, I don't need you guys to tell me that. I certainly wouldn't say it's an unrealistic view of humanity though, humanity itself is not what would keep this from happening. Rather, current circumstances simply won't allow for a smooth transition in to such a government, it would require some unpleasant times. Starting from scratch, there is no reason to believe humanity couldn't follow a democratic socialist framework. Of course this isn't likely to happen, that certainly doesn't mean it isn't capable.

You must always take probabilities into account, there are rarely definites. Sure it's easy to say things like "war is unavoidable" and "it's human nature to be greedy" and such, these are "realistic" things to say. However, if you really want war to end and you want greed to be in control, then you have to say, "what is the probability that we could avoid these things." That probability, although small, is always greater than zero and it must be pushed for if it is to reach a point where idealism becomes realism. We could simply reside to never improve anything on the grounds of "realistically" it never occurring before. But, well, if we did that we wouldn't get very far would we. :)

[FordGT90Concept]

It has worked in a number of small instances, it just hasn't been pushed successfully to a higher level yet, namely b/c of the dictatorial form in which it was pushed.
Therein lies the key: greed killed it. Socialism works only if greed is completely eliminated. It has been tried and it subsequently failed. TKO by greed.


The probability is 0 with mammals.

[farlex]

Therein lies the key: greed killed it. Socialism works only if greed is completely eliminated. It has been tried and it subsequently failed. TKO by greed.


The probability is 0 with mammals.

Not necessarily, but we don't need to go back and forth anymore. Society weeds out those who are ineffective in such an environment, greed would not likely succeed. Mammals are completely capable of acting without greed.

[FordGT90Concept]

Only in a controlled environment. If anything gets in that environment worth fighting for (say, a new food source, a fertile female, an easy to defend home is discovered, what have you), the battle is on... to the victor goes the spoils of war. XD

[farlex]

Only in a controlled environment. If anything gets in that environment worth fighting for (say, a new food source, a fertile female, an easy to defend home is discovered, what have you), the battle is on... to the victor goes the spoils of war. XD

Unless it is not advantageous for them to fight (which technically these days it rarely is for humans, and especially wouldn't be in a socialist democracy with elements of capitalism). If they could receive what they wanted without fighting, why would they? There will always be conflict, but if people don't have to fight for food, they won't. I feel like I'm running in circles here........

[FordGT90Concept]

All those examples were advantageous:
-food is always needed
-children means your genes won't die with you and/or they'll make your life easier down the road
-safety is always paramount so the easier it is to defend your home, the more you can worry about other things

You are running in circles. :P


If they could receive what they wanted without fighting, why would they?
I want Obama and all the retards in Congress gone. Right now, I can't do that without fighting. Howitzers speak louder (and clearer) than words.

If you got a fancy new car and I want it, maybe I'll just take it? There's always a lot of people that don't fit a given mold. In the system you are speaking of, they would drag it down into oblivion because, in fact, they would be the majority. Humans are rarely satisfied with the status quo unless they got what they asked for in the first place.

[farlex]

All those examples were advantageous:
-food is always needed
-children means your genes won't die with you and/or they'll make your life easier down the road
-safety is always paramount so the easier it is to defend your home, the more you can worry about other things

You are running in circles. :P

Only 2 of those have mass societal bearing, and neither are necessary to fight for (the first can be provided to everyone, the last can be avoided for the most part with poverty being eliminated). I wouldn't have to run in circles if you would understand what I've said, but I'm not clear enough I suppose, anyway.....

[FordGT90Concept]

How can you eliminate poverty during a famine?


Again, I understand fully and I'm telling you it doesn't work. We act the way we do out of necessity: survival instinct. To undo that is to undo the human animal which would spell our rapid demise. When you are dependent on others, you are weak alone.

The only way it is possible is with an entirely different animal...like ants. They evolved to be dependent on each other and know no concepts of greed and jealousy. Thier minds are also very limited in thought so their only strength, and survival, is through numbers and cooperation. And look at us compared to them: we burn them up with magnifying lenses for pleasure, we dump liquid zinc in their homes to study them, and we poising entire nests when we they become annoying. We are higher than them on the pecking order, much higher. Why would we want to deevolve into them just to prevent poverty? Instead of just a few dying, the whole colony dies. They have war too with rivial colonies.

From where I stand, it is an enormous downgrade, not upgrade.

[farlex]

How can you eliminate poverty during a famine?


Again, I understand fully and I'm telling you it doesn't work. We act the way we do out of necessity: survival instinct. To undo that is to undo the human animal which would spell our demise. When you are dependent on others, you are weak alone.

You don't understand as can be clearly seen by your responses, I've already covered this stuff at this point, as can be seen a few pages back or something. Your biggest handicap in understanding what I'm saying seems to come from you still working under a current capitalistic framework for everything without the considering the possibility of different traits emerging from a different society, but I'm not going to continue this, just be happy knowing things will likely stay the way they are, much b/c you (and others) "know" it "can't" change. :)



The only way it is possible is with an entirely different animal...like ants. They evolved to be dependent on each other and know no concepts of greed and jealousy. Thier minds are also very limited in thought so their only strength, and survival, is through numbers and cooperation. And look at us compared to them: we burn them up with magnifying lenses for pleasure, we dump liquid zinc in their homes to study them, and we poising entire nests when we they become annoying. We are higher than them on the pecking order, much higher. Why would we want to deevolve into them just to prevent poverty? Instead of just a few dying, the whole colony dies. They have war too with rivial colonies.


You are still dealing in simple terms, it's for this reason the discussion can't continue. Ants, are not in any way really similar to humans or what I am talking about other than they are organic. Their colony and instinctive scurrying has absolutely nothing to do w/ setting up a democratic socialist society. They many times act as one organism, which is not at all what I'm talking about. I can't think of how to better explain it to you though, other than to say humans can be individualistic, creative, productive, and cooperative as a species with much less conflict and disparity than is currently seen, and a good way to accomplish this is to change socio-economic climates. IMO the best way is via a democratic primarily socialist nation. And to simply say humans are too greedy is a terribly weak argument to say the least.

[FordGT90Concept]

I found this somewhat ironic:

RNC showdown over 'socialist' resolution may be avoided (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/19/rnc-showdown-over-socialist-resolution-may-be-avoided/)


Democratic = majority rules
Socialist = everyone is in the government's employ

That tells me "screw the minority and individual endevours." If you don't get the majority on your side, you might as well leave. No spank you. LMAO

I <3 Ace Ventura

[Wile E]

farlex, the plain and simple truth is, humans will never come to agree fully enough for socialism to work. You can say that it's possible until you are blue in the face, but the fact is, people are greedy, and you are completely wrong about this. It just isn't possible, period.

[farlex]

farlex, the plain and simple truth is, humans will never come to agree fully enough for socialism to work. You can say that it's possible until you are blue in the face, but the fact is, people are greedy, and you are completely wrong about this. It just isn't possible, period.

I'm not sure how that even resembles a worthwhile argument, so I'll just say I disagree. :D Conservatives and those stuck in the past will continue to grasp at whatever straws possible to defend capitalism to it's death, and this is becoming a perfect example of it. Try to come up with a better argument and we can discuss it, otherwise we'll just assume the other has know idea what they're talking about (greed is a mere byproduct of survival techniques, take out it's need and it ceases to exist, I'm not sure how I can make that clearer; at any rate citing greed as a cause for socialism's fail represents a complete lack of understanding for what socialism is, and is an utterly weak argument).

[FordGT90Concept]

It wasn't an argument; it was a statement of truth.

This has aboslutely nothing to do with political positions. It is merely an acknowledgement that humans are greedy (as a survival instinct) and that greed cannot successfully translate into pure socialism. There is no argument to be had there in our eyes. In your eyes, you believe greed can be removed and/or greatly dimished (without killing the subject). We believe that's impossible. Just a dash of greed kills socialism.

You can't take what made a species out of it without greatly compromising that species ability to survive. For instance, take the hive-mind away from the ant colony and how long do you think they would last? Take the proboscis away from a mosquito and how long do you think it will survive? Take the primitive tools away from a chimpanzee with no way to make/find new ones and how long do you think they would survive? Take the spines off a porcupines back and how long do you think it would survive? How long do you think an octopus without an ink sack would survive? Take the fight out of a human and how long do you think they'd survive?

Embrace what we have managed over the past 100,000+ years, don't mock it.

In order to be successful, you'd have dehumanize the human. That doesn't lead anywhere good. After all, we are "only human."

[farlex]

It wasn't an argument; it was a statement of truth.

This has aboslutely nothing to do with political positions. It is merely an acknowledgement that humans are greedy (as a survival instinct) and that greed cannot successfully translate into pure socialism. There is no argument to be had there in our eyes. In your eyes, you believe greed can be removed and/or greatly dimished (without killing the subject). We believe that's impossible. Just a dash of greed kills socialism.

You can't take what made a species out of it without greatly compromising that species ability to survive. For instance, take the hive-mind away from the ant colony and how long do you think they would last? Take the proboscis away from a mosquito and how long do you think it will survive? Take the primitive tools away from a chimpanzee with no way to make/find new ones and how long do you think they would survive? Take the spines off a porcupines back and how long do you think it would survive? How long do you think an octopus without an ink sack would survive? Take the fight out of a human and how long do you think they'd survive?

Embrace what we have managed over the past 100,000+ years, don't mock it.

In order to be successful, you'd have dehumanize the human. That doesn't lead anywhere good. After all, we are "only human."

Pure socialism perhaps not. Primarily socialism sure. There is room to be greedy in a socialist state, one just needs not be greedy in monetary or power matters. Although, there is still room for pay-grades in socialism. Hell if you want greed b/c you are so sure we need it you don't necessarily need to eliminate it. It just won't lead to what it does now (very few in control of almost all). It's flexible, I'm just really trying to open your minds a bit, so many simply discard socialism as an impossibility or an evil while rejecting all the good it can do. Greed is not what has driven the last 100,000 years of progress, ingenuity from an advanced brain has. Don't stop using it now.

And see that last part is dead wrong. Capitalism, to be successful, must dehumanize the human for profit. Socialism acknowledges we are all human and doesn't play favorites. You have it backwards.

[FordGT90Concept]

...one just needs not be greedy in monetary or power matters.
Good luck with that. Both came about through necessity and persist for the same reason.


It's flexible, I'm just really trying to open your minds a bit, so many simply discard socialism as an impossibility or an evil while rejecting all the good it can do.
The good doesn't out weigh the bad.


Capitalism, to be successful, must dehumanize the human for profit.
Humans didn't imagine capitalism, it came about through interactions with one another (trade). Capitalism describes the phenomena (as does mercantilism, industrialism, and commercialism to name a few)--it didn't define it. You have Karl Marx to thank for socialism.

[farlex]

Good luck with that. Both came about through necessity and persist for the same reason.



The good doesn't out weigh the bad.



Humans didn't imagine capitalism, it came about through interactions with one another (trade). Capitalism describes the phenomena--it didn't define it. You have Karl Marx to thank for socialism.

No they didn't, necessity has nothing at all to do w/ that.

Yes it does. And like I've said countless times, you can try to control the bad.

Sure they did, how can they not have had a part in their own economy? At any rate, the who isn't really important, it's what can we do with it that matters.

[FordGT90Concept]

Meh. Terran Conflict is calling.

[Wile E]

You are just going in circles, farlex. In order to control greed, you have to give somebody the power to do so. At that point, we are no longer speaking of socialism, but communism. You will never be able to eliminate greed. I have no idea why you think we can, or why you even believe it's a possibility, because it isn't.

I also don't understand why you fail to acknowledge the failure rate of socialism and communism throughout history, and the cause of said failures. Know what caused all these communist and socialist states to fall? GREED.

See what we are getting at? Greed is, and will always be, the biggest factor in determining the success of a particular form of economy. A free market (with fair trade laws) thrives and booms on greed. All other forms of economy collapse under greed.

Socialism is just a bad idea when taking the nature of humans into account.

[farlex]

You are just going in circles, farlex. In order to control greed, you have to give somebody the power to do so. At that point, we are no longer speaking of socialism, but communism. You will never be able to eliminate greed. I have no idea why you think we can, or why you even believe it's a possibility, because it isn't.

I also don't understand why you fail to acknowledge the failure rate of socialism and communism throughout history, and the cause of said failures. Know what caused all these communist and socialist states to fall? GREED.

See what we are getting at? Greed is, and will always be, the biggest factor in determining the success of a particular form of economy. A free market (with fair trade laws) thrives and booms on greed. All other forms of economy collapse under greed.

Socialism is just a bad idea when taking the nature of humans into account.

Why are humans greedy Wile E?

[Wile E]

Why are humans greedy Wile E?

It's instinct.

[farlex]

It's instinct.

What is? Hording money to one's self so they can think they are the best? Or self-preservation by looking out for one's own needs first?

[Wile E]

What is? Hording money to one's self so they can think they are the best? Or self-preservation by looking out for one's own needs first?

Hording, period. Be it money, or anything else of value.

[farlex]

Hording, period. Be it money, or anything else of value.

No see perhaps this is the problem I disagree. The psychological instinctual function of greed is for self-preservation, to survive. This is what all instincts are based off of, it is nearly definitional. But if you are talking lust for power, or gluttonous amounts of money, or dominion over others, you are no longer talking instinct. There are in fact numerous psychological and sociological reasons for such behavior. Personal insecurity is one. Inability to empathize is another. Plain selfishness is another. Once one has preserved oneself and continues to take from others, they aren't acting on instinct, but higher processes as a result of higher brain functions. You could say they are unaware perhaps of what they are doing, but it is beyond instinct. If it is beyond instinct, it is not ingrained universally and physiologically. Basic Psych.

[Wile E]

Then, why has it been happening since the dawn of man? And how do you propose you can change it?

It can't be changed, regardless on the semantics on the definition of greed and instinct. Greed will always kill socialism or communism. It's just a fact that has been proven throughout history. It's not a matter of "if", it's simply a matter of "when".

You not wanting to accept that, makes it no less a fact.

[farlex]

Then, why has it been happening since the dawn of man? And how do you propose you can change it?

It can't be changed, regardless on the semantics on the definition of greed and instinct. Greed will always kill socialism or communism. It's just a fact that has been proven throughout history. It's not a matter of "if", it's simply a matter of "when".

You not wanting to accept that, makes it no less a fact.

Why has what been happening? Over gluttonous behavior? Well, for a variety of psychological reasons a few of which I named. It could also be argued that gluttonous behavior is still prevalent because of the economic system we have in place that encourages it.

Beside the USSR, what are you talking about? One country fails and all of the sudden socialism is necessarily destroyed by greed? What are you talking about? Globalization and advanced technology are needed for successful socialization on a large governmental scale, this is why you haven't seen much of it yet. It has been successful in a number of instances though.

That last sentence is simply unnecessary to your cause. You can't state your opinion over and over as fact while attacking the credibility of the other, doesn't work well. ;)

[Wile E]

Why has what been happening? Over gluttonous behavior? Well, for a variety of psychological reasons a few of which I named.

Beside the USSR, what are you talking about? One country fails and all of the sudden socialism is necessarily destroyed by greed? What are you talking about? Globalization and advanced technology are needed for successful socialization on a large governmental scale, this is why you haven't seen much of it yet. It has been successful in a number of instances though.

That last sentence is simply unnecessary to your cause. You can't state your opinion over and over as fact while attacking the credibility of the other, doesn't work well. ;)

Google is all you need to see collapsed governments, and the info on them. Didn't think I would need to dig that all out.

And the reasons behind greed are not important. The only thing that's important is it's prevalence, arguing how and why is just semantics, and does nothing to further your point. It's here and we can't change it.

This argument is pointless anymore. You believe that greed is fixable, and we keep telling you it isn't. History supports our theory more than yours.

Since greed isn't fixable on the large scale, why would we move to a system that doesn't function properly with greed in the equation, when we already have a system that can thrive from greed when used with the proper checks and balances?

[DrPepper]

Google is all you need to see collapsed governments, and the info on them. Didn't think I would need to dig that all out.

And the reasons behind greed are not important. The only thing that's important is it's prevalence, arguing how and why is just semantics, and does nothing to further your point. It's here and we can't change it.

This argument is pointless anymore. You believe that greed is fixable, and we keep telling you it isn't. History supports our theory more than yours.

Since greed isn't fixable on the large scale, why would we move to a system that doesn't function properly with greed in the equation, when we already have a system that can thrive from greed when used with the proper checks and balances?

Only way you could cure greed is through mind control and whose in charge of that massive responsibilty ? More or less pretty much no system can prosper like capitilism even if there is a wide margin between the richest and the poorest because the people inbetween are incredibly satisfied compared to the socialist model of there is no difference because they are all poor.

[farlex]

Google is all you need to see collapsed governments, and the info on them. Didn't think I would need to dig that all out.

And the reasons behind greed are not important. The only thing that's important is it's prevalence, arguing how and why is just semantics, and does nothing to further your point. It's here and we can't change it.

This argument is pointless anymore. You believe that greed is fixable, and we keep telling you it isn't. History supports our theory more than yours.

Since greed isn't fixable on the large scale, why would we move to a system that doesn't function properly with greed in the equation, when we already have a system that can thrive from greed when used with the proper checks and balances?

Google is also all you need to see it's successes.

Yes they are, if it is instinctual, it is less likely to change, if it is psychological, it is able to be curved. If a society were set up where greed was not encouraged, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Cause is always important.

I don't necessarily believe it is fixable, I'm not sure why you guys keep fixating on that. We could operate under the assumption that it isn't to appease you and it doesn't make socialism any less appealing. Just b/c greed is around doesn't mean a dictatorship is inevitable. Doesn't make any sense, we can have checks and balances for socialism as well.

See heres the great part, Ford was earlier talking about how socialism makes people like ants and work for the colony, but your last sentence displays that sentiment more. B/c capitalism thrives if you look at it from a whole perspective, world wealth and technology grow. But from an individualistic standpoint, your chances of getting a piece of that pie go way down. Not to mention individuals become less important, work longer days, and generally do more involving money, less involving humanity.

Only way you could cure greed is through mind control and whose in charge of that massive responsibilty ? More or less pretty much no system can prosper like capitilism even if there is a wide margin between the richest and the poorest because the people inbetween are incredibly satisfied compared to the socialist model of there is no difference because they are all poor.

You're thinking of communism.

[Wile E]

Only way you could cure greed is through mind control and whose in charge of that massive responsibilty ? More or less pretty much no system can prosper like capitilism even if there is a wide margin between the richest and the poorest because the people inbetween are incredibly satisfied compared to the socialist model of there is no difference because they are all poor.If you don't choose properly, you just end up with Communism, or a Dictatorship.

[DrPepper]

I was always told there was a little difference between communism and socialism. I don't know the specifics.

[Wile E]

Google is also all you need to see it's successes.

Yes they are, if it is instinctual, it is less likely to change, if it is psychological, it is able to be curved. If a society were set up where greed was not encouraged, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Cause is always important.

I don't necessarily believe it is fixable, I'm not sure why you guys keep fixating on that. We could operate under the assumption that it isn't to appease you and it doesn't make socialism any less appealing. Just b/c greed is around doesn't mean a dictatorship is inevitable. Doesn't make any sense, we can have checks and balances for socialism as well.

See heres the great part, Ford was earlier talking about how socialism makes people like ants and work for the colony, but your last sentence displays that sentiment more. B/c capitalism thrives if you look at it from a whole perspective, world wealth and technology grow. But from an individualistic standpoint, your chances of getting a piece of that pie go way down.



You're thinking of communism.So what? That's the way it should be. Everyone has the basic ability to choose how well they live thru their work ethic and actions. Most of those that live in poverty, do so because they choose not to do something about it.

I know, as I've seen the mentality with my own 2 eyes. The poor tend to want hand outs, and don't want to do anything else to help themselves out of their situation. I was born into poverty, and grew up in the ghettos and on the streets. GUess what? I worked my ass off to turn myself around and get to at least lower middle class. This is the mentality that Capitalism is founded on. If you want it, you have to work your ass off for it. Yes, other factors, such as luck, and knowing the right people play into it to make things easier at times, but those don't change the fact that hard work pays off on the individual level in Capitalism.

Where is the room for that in Socialism? So, now instead of me and my family benefiting from my work ethic, the lazy poor slobs in the ghetto do? Those that are in power do? How is that a fair system at all?

[farlex]

So what? That's the way it should be. Everyone has the basic ability to choose how well they live thru their work ethic and actions. Most of those that live in poverty, do so because they choose not to do something about it.

I know, as I've seen the mentality with my own 2 eyes. The poor tend to want hand outs, and don't want to do anything else to help themselves out of their situation. I was born into poverty, and grew up in the ghettos and on the streets. GUess what? I worked my ass off to turn myself around and get to at least lower middle class. This is the mentality that Capitalism is founded on. If you want it, you have to work your ass off for it. Yes, other factors, such as luck, and knowing the right people play into it to make things easier at times, but those don't change the fact that hard work pays off on the individual level in Capitalism.

Where is the room for that in Socialism? So, now instead of me and my family benefiting from my work ethic, the lazy poor slobs in the ghetto do? Those that are in power do? How is that a fair system at all?

Don't mention fairness, that's not really discuss-able and if it was, this argument would have ended capitalism long ago.

Why should you have to work so hard to attain that? Tell me what is so good about having to work so hard. I don't look for handouts, but that doesn't mean I want to devote my life to pursuing the dollar. And you my friend are totally blind if you think all impoverished simply want handouts. That is utterly and completely not true, but as I said earlier it isn't the kind of ignorance I can really do anything about, if you can't empathize you can't empathize, nothing I can do about that. I've seen it (laziness accepting handouts) too, but it is a mentality of by and large the minority.

Despair is a closer representation of what makes criminals such and what makes people turn to handouts, not laziness. And who do you think you worked for when you were fighting out of poverty? People who were better, more qualified, more important, less lazy than you? But they made more than you, so that would make you inferior by comparison no? No, that would make you less fortunate. Luck plays the biggest role in capitalism, and it holds us all as slaves whether we think we are free or not.

Some people are lazy and some people work a lot, just as some people are greedy and some people are selfless (on the above-instinctual level), it is what it is. Just b/c everybody starts off at a similar point (as would be the hope w/ socialism) doesn't mean everyone ends at the same point. There is no reason to reject intelligent diligence and it can be rewarded in more ways than monetarily.

At any rate, a perfect system would start everyone off from the same point, you wouldn't have to fight your way out of poverty, and no one else would be born into holding dominion over you while they roll in your money. Still though, the system would allow for rewards for hard work or intelligence or such, if those were indeed things that you yourself value. You wouldn't give anybody anything, except for society as a whole if you indeed wanted to be a part of society (if you wanna go to school have healthcare and such, pay taxes, if you don't want or need those things, then don't, there would be a place for that). To me, socialism would play a large role in this government, especially in the societal aspect. Not to say that pure socialism would be effective, but elements would allow greed and cooperation to exist harmoniously.

And yes yes I am aware this is idealist. It still warrants discussion though rather than simply casting it off as an "impossibility." I'm not that lazy. :D

[Wile E]

Don't mention fairness, that's not really discuss-able and if it was, this argument would have ended capitalism long ago.

Why should you have to work so hard to attain that? Tell me what is so good about having to work so hard. I don't look for handouts, but that doesn't mean I want to devote my life to pursuing the dollar. And you my friend are totally blind if you think all impoverished simply want handouts. That is utterly and completely not true, but as I said earlier it isn't the kind of ignorance I can really do anything about, if you can't empathize you can't empathize, nothing I can do about that. I've seen it (laziness accepting handouts) too, but it is a mentality of by and large the minority. Despair is a closer representation of what makes criminals such and what makes people turn to handouts, not laziness.

Some people are lazy and some people work a lot, just as some people are greedy and some people are selfless (on the above-instinctual level), it is what it is. Just b/c everybody starts off at a similar point (as would be the hope w/ socialism) doesn't mean everyone ends at the same point. There is no reason to reject intelligent diligence and it can be rewarded in more ways than monetarily.

At any rate, a perfect system would start everyone off from the same point, you wouldn't have to fight your way out of poverty. Still though, the system would allow for rewards for hard work or intelligence or such, if those were indeed things that you yourself value. You wouldn't give anybody anything, except for society as a whole if you indeed wanted to be a part of society (if you wanna go to school have healthcare and such, pay taxes, if you don't want or need those things, then don't, there would be a place for that). To me, socialism would play a large role in this government, especially in the societal aspect. Not to say that pure socialism would be effective, but elements would allow greed and cooperation to exist harmoniously.

And yes yes I am aware this is idealist. It still warrants discussion though rather than simply casting it off as an "impossibility." I'm not that lazy. :D
Did you grow up in poverty to see it with your own 2 eyes? I'm telling you right now, the majority of the people in the ghettos want handouts and are lazy. Not a few of them, not even just half of them. Most of them. They feel they are owed something.

In a system without socialist care and programs, they would have no choice but to work hard to overcome it, as there would be no handouts for them to live off of.

And what rewards for hard work are there other than monetary? Why would anyone work so hard if there was no monetary or measurable reward? And if you say that monetary or measurable reward is allowed to happen, what happens when somebody amasses enough wealth thru hard work that they now have bribing power in the government in a socialist environment? What happens is communism. It's a natural course.

So, what socialist ideas are you going to bring to capitalism without changing it into a socialist system as a whole? I don't see many, if any, socialist ideas that can integrate into a capitalist system without some sort of very negative consequence, or at very least, a distinct unfairness to certain classes (which is one of the things you seem to want to avoid).

[farlex]

Did you grow up in poverty to see it with your own 2 eyes? I'm telling you right now, the majority of the people in the ghettos want handouts and are lazy. Not a few of them, not even just half of them. Most of them. They feel they are owed something.

In a system without socialist care and programs, they would have no choice but to work hard to overcome it, as there would be no handouts for them to live off of.

And what rewards for hard work are there other than monetary? Why would anyone work so hard if there was no monetary or measurable reward? And if you say that monetary or measurable reward is allowed to happen, what happens when somebody amasses enough wealth thru hard work that they now have bribing power in the government in a socialist environment? What happens is communism. It's a natural course.

So, what socialist ideas are you going to bring to capitalism without changing it into a socialist system as a whole? I don't see many, if any, socialist ideas that can integrate into a capitalist system without some sort of very negative consequence, or at very least, a distinct unfairness to certain classes (which is one of the things you seem to want to avoid).

No in a system without handouts they make others hand it out, crime is what happens. The desperate are the thieves. You'll either have to pay them or kill them, hopefully not directly.

A sense of self-satisfaction, good of the people, respect? If that's all too mushy for you than you could get paid more. Not nearly enough to take over the government though. You wouldn't make billions off labor and monopolies and the toils of others as is usually the case when such money is made, you would make a lot, but not as much. And bribing power would be low, as not all would value money the same way you do. If they have everything they need, they may turn elsewhere for self-satisfaction, and may be callous to monetary bribes. Besides, if, as I said, government were run by the people as a whole, how do you bribe them? And of course other things can be put in place to protect from dictatorships.

That I don't know all of, I'm not an economist, but I would wager something like property, healthcare, education, food, water, the essentials, are run by the government (the people in my current proposed state). Apart from that, things would still exist in the free market, but in a more structured way. Instead of all the money funneling to the top while others work for nothing, there would be specified jobs with specified responsibilities and specified incomes. This would be decided on by everyone (those who participate in the market). Something like that anyway.

[Wile E]

No in a system without handouts they make others hand it out, crime is what happens. The desperate are the thieves. You'll either have to pay them or kill them, hopefully not directly.

A sense of self-satisfaction, good of the people, respect? If that's all too mushy for you than you could get paid more. Not nearly enough to take over the government though. You wouldn't make billions off labor and monopolies and the toils of others as is usually the case when such money is made, you would make a lot, but not as much. And bribing power would be low, as not all would value money the same way you do. If they have everything they need, they may turn elsewhere for self-satisfaction, and may be callous to monetary bribes. Besides, if, as I said, government were run by the people as a whole, how do you bribe them? And of course other things can be put in place to protect from dictatorships.

That I don't know all of, I'm not an economist, but I would wager something like property, healthcare, education, food, water, the essentials, are run by the government (the people in my current proposed state). Apart from that, things would still exist in the free market, but in a more structured way. Instead of all the money funneling to the top while others work for nothing, there would be specified jobs with specified responsibilities and specified incomes. This would be decided on by everyone (those who participate in the market). Something like that anyway.Those people turn to crime, WITH the handouts. They feel something is owed to them, so they go out and take it. It has very little to do with the govt giving them money or not.

Why would anyone choose to operate a business in such an economy, knowing that they couldn't become wealthy doing so? Then you have the logistics of trying to get the opinion of millions of people on a subject. We need an elected govt, as it's impossible to coordinate the entire populace on the issues. And in that elected govt, there is always the risk of bribery and greed. Safeguards always have loopholes or means of circumvention. I think the Patriot Act exemplifies this on the personal rights side of the equation.

Property is a big no-no. There are grades of property ownership as well. Some work harder than others and should be rewarded as such. And why should I have to pay for anyone else's property, healthcare, schooling or food? I shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's well being, just as I don't think anyone should have to pay for mine. How are the masses going to decide what jobs should exist, and at what pay grades, in fields they know very little about? All fields require their own specific set of organizational needs.

[farlex]

Those people turn to crime, WITH the handouts. They feel something is owed to them, so they go out and take it. It has very little to do with the govt giving them money or not.

Why would anyone choose to operate a business in such an economy, knowing that they couldn't become wealthy doing so? Then you have the logistics of trying to get the opinion of millions of people on a subject. We need an elected govt, as it's impossible to coordinate the entire populace on the issues. And in that elected govt, there is always the risk of bribery and greed. Safeguards always have loopholes or means of circumvention. I think the Patriot Act exemplifies this on the personal rights side of the equation.

Property is a big no-no. There are grades of property ownership as well. Some work harder than others and should be rewarded as such. And why should I have to pay for anyone else's property, healthcare, schooling or food? I shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's well being, just as I don't think anyone should have to pay for mine. How are the masses going to decide what jobs should exist, and at what pay grades, in fields they know very little about? All fields require their own specific set of organizational needs.

Not all do, some do feel that way, perhaps b/c of starting out at such a disadvantage and feeling cheated no?

We most certainly do not need an elected government. The populace can be coordinated with current technology. Elected officials are nothing more than campaigners, no more fit to decide a budget than you're average public speaker.

Property is a tough one, but the current housing situation is ridiculous. Shelter is another thing that all should have though, and there's no reason for houses to cost what they do. And why are you so convinced hard work is such an admirable trait? I would say anyone can work hard, and it isn't really something that needs to be rewarded. If you want to, more power to you, but it isn't all that great. And why pay taxes? Because you live in society. Like I said, if you want to it would be good if places were set up where you could go live independently. Grow your own food, build your own shelter, what have you. If you don't want to pay for anybody else to have a good community, get out of the community.

People would choose to operate businesses b/c there is a need and they can fill the demand. We have too many businesses anyway, damn country is littered with people selling things everywhere. And those who were in the industries would decide the pay grades, although I'm not sure how I feel about that as a whole.

[Wile E]

Not all do, some do feel that way, perhaps b/c of starting out at such a disadvantage and feeling cheated no?

We most certainly do not need an elected government. The populace can be coordinated with current technology. Elected officials are nothing more than campaigners, no more fit to decide a budget than you're average public speaker.

Property is a tough one, but the current housing situation is ridiculous. Shelter is another thing that all should have though, and there's no reason for houses to cost what they do. And why are you so convinced hard work is such an admirable trait? I would say anyone can work hard, and it isn't really something that needs to be rewarded. If you want to, more power to you, but it isn't all that great. And why pay taxes? Because you live in society. Like I said, if you want to it would be good if places were set up where you could go live independently. Grow your own food, build your own shelter, what have you. If you don't want to pay for anybody else to have a good community, get out of the community.

People would choose to operate businesses b/c there is a need and they can fill the demand. We have too many businesses anyway, damn country is littered with people selling things everywhere. And those who were in the industries would decide the pay grades, although I'm not sure how I feel about that as a whole.Whether they feel cheated or not, has nothing to do with handouts. They had the same opportunities I had.

And we do need an elected govt. We don't have the technology to connect everyone flawlessly, and beyond that, how many of the general populace know the first damn thing about economy and how it all works or international business, or a multitude of other issues? How many actually want that level of involvement?

As far as shelter, not everyone deserves a house. A tent is shelter, too.

And "why should hard work be rewarded?"? Are you serious? It's a very admirable trait to be a hard worker. Working hard doesn't always mean physical labor. Without hard work, we wouldn't have any of the technology we have today. There would be no progress without hard work. Those that work hard are in a minority, yet form the backbone of our society. Why would they work hard, if there was no benefit to them at all? People may want to advance society, but they also want rewarded for their efforts. Without the reward, there is little reason not to just leave things the way they are.

And I only agreed to pay taxes for their intended purpose, not to help the less fortunate. I'll do that on my own time, and in my own way. I shouldn't be forced to do it.

And we can all still go live in a shack somewhere growing and raising our own food today if we wanted.

Putting the power of deciding pay grades and such on the shoulders of the people in the industry is a form of govt. To make matters worse, there would be a distinct formation of classes, in the form of different industries, completely defeating the purpose of socialism.

Another point to consider. How would we form an organized defense system? Somebody has to be in charge of military operations. Need a form of govt for that.

Socialism can never work on this scale. It can work in smaller scales, where everybody knows each other, or some other similar form of emotional attachment, where you emotionally care for those individuals in the community, and want them to have the best (kind of like family), but if you tried to implement it on the scale of the US, all that would happen is the formation of factions of these groups that know each other, basically becoming, at best, a bunch of smaller communities that only serve themselves thereby basically becoming independent entities, and thus not contributing to the whole anyway and leading to the collapse of the country as a whole, or, at worst, the launching point for a huge civil war, again leading to the collapse of the country as a whole. Either way, human nature will kill it on this level. Hell, you already see the way people in the current society stick to those they know. That IS instinct, and will never change.

[farlex]

Whether they feel cheated or not, has nothing to do with handouts. They had the same opportunities I had.

And we do need an elected govt. We don't have the technology to connect everyone flawlessly, and beyond that, how many of the general populace know the first damn thing about economy and how it all works or international business, or a multitude of other issues? How many actually want that level of involvement?

As far as shelter, not everyone deserves a house. A tent is shelter, too.

And "why should hard work be rewarded?"? Are you serious? It's a very admirable trait to be a hard worker. Working hard doesn't always mean physical labor. Without hard work, we wouldn't have any of the technology we have today. There would be no progress without hard work. Those that work hard are in a minority, yet form the backbone of our society. Why would they work hard, if there was no benefit to them at all? People may want to advance society, but they also want rewarded for their efforts. Without the reward, there is little reason not to just leave things the way they are.

And I only agreed to pay taxes for their intended purpose, not to help the less fortunate. I'll do that on my own time, and in my own way. I shouldn't be forced to do it.

And we can all still go live in a shack somewhere growing and raising our own food today if we wanted.

Putting the power of deciding pay grades and such on the shoulders of the people in the industry is a form of govt. To make matters worse, there would be a distinct formation of classes, in the form of different industries, completely defeating the purpose of socialism.

Another point to consider. How would we form an organized defense system? Somebody has to be in charge of military operations. Need a form of govt for that.

Socialism can never work on this scale. It can work in smaller scales, where everybody knows each other, or some other similar form of emotional attachment, where you emotionally care for those individuals in the community, and want them to have the best (kind of like family), but if you tried to implement it on the scale of the US, all that would happen is the formation of factions of these groups that know each other, basically becoming, at best, a bunch of smaller communities that only serve themselves thereby basically becoming independent entities, and thus not contributing to the whole anyway and leading to the collapse of the country as a whole, or, at worst, the launching point for a huge civil war, again leading to the collapse of the country as a whole. Either way, human nature will kill it on this level. Hell, you already see the way people in the current society stick to those they know. That IS instinct, and will never change.

Right so two great points are the lack of wanting to get involved and military might. Most people really probably wouldn't want to or have the education to participate in every government (I brought this up in my very first post in this thread). This is however perfectly remediable, via better education, and if one still wants not to participate that choice is there. Like I said I don't particularly want a politician who isn't very qualified to make these decisions either. With enough educational improvement it isn't unforseeable the masses could be the government.

Military is tougher, and in all likelyhood this wouldn't work with military what it is. The US spends more on military than the rest of the world combined, and that's not a force you really want at the whim of a few hundred million. I will have to think on it a bit, but I don't see a solution to that one.

And no I don't really think hard work is all that great in of itself, it depends.

The rest I'm not going to respond to either b/c it would be a typical conservative v.s. liberal type thing, or b/c I've already covered that ground. Just remember, human nature is subject to the will of, well, humans. Unless you want to operate under the notion that we don't have free will, which is something not too many conservatives will claim.

[Wile E]

This is just going to keep going into circles. You won't accept that human nature will play a part in it, and I won't accept there is anything good that can come from socialism on a scale as large as this.

[farlex]

This is just going to keep going into circles. You won't accept that human nature will play a part in it, and I won't accept there is anything good that can come from socialism on a scale as large as this.

I just think there's more to human nature than biological factors. Namely socio-economic factors, which if changed, will change human nature. Anyway, we can call it quits..........for now. :D

[FordGT90Concept]

I was always told there was a little difference between communism and socialism. I don't know the specifics.
Capitalism = private ownership of property, private employers
Socialism = private ownership of property, public (government) employers
Communism = public (government) ownership of property, public (government) employers

Socialism and Communism are naturally very closely tied because when your government is your source of income, there is very little chance you're going to be able to get much in the way of property. By controlling incomes, you indirectly control the ability to own property. As such, the transition between Capitalism and Socialism is long and brutal; the transition from Socialism to Communism is short and subtle.

[DaMulta]

WW2 ended the Great Depression. Just like the current situation, it is impossible to know how things would be different if the government had a laissez faire mentality.


Bullshit to that one.

In the 1920 the taxes were very low on the top of the top money holders. The top 1% invested wrong(holding most of the cash)caused the market to crash.

Great depression

Money = worthless

FDR comes along and not over night but did fix the problem. He set a tax rate of 90% to anyone that made over 300grand a year. Ripping a lot of money from the 1% on top.

BOOM America has it's highest grow rate for a 50 year run. Then they dropped the tax a little lower, the over all growth rate of America slowed, and they did it again, and the growth rate slowed.

over and over. While the top paying less in to the Government is banking all this money again.

http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/images/cbpp_uneven_distribution_of%20gains_since_late_197 0s.jpg

Then in the 90s it got to the low point that = too the tax rate of the 1920s. Ahhh.... Then Bill Clinton signs in a bill to help lower people get a house and make it in the world better. Only to see a Republican party in after words who adds to that to give incentives to sell bigger and bigger houses. Making laws that let banks mix up their loans into one Class(A) A B C(A always pay)(B sometimes)(C we don't know). They did all sorts of things.

Well the 1% with all this fucking money they have saved thanks to the low taxes needs to put it somewhere. Which was housing. TRILLIONS So in a few years from around 2003 or 4 to 2005 or 6(around those years) We went from a total world savings of around 34 trillion dollars to 74 trillion dollars(that's more money saved than spent by every gov and every person on earth in a yr). THANKS TO MR Republicans messing with housing laws of what could be done...So everyone that was in could even be MORE greedy(which is what caused it making too much money to fast)!


Well all those loans that were mixed up ABC that were all being made up as A to investors were making money off the value going up. Making money over fist. UNTILL it time for class C(Which all these people invested in giving them the money to loan out even....most of the 1% of people invested that own MOST of all the money)didn't pay. Value DROPPED! So that 1% of people with these Trillions of dollars started moving money....which really made it crash. BUSH stopped them! They said 1 more day and the system would of locked totally!

Well the 1% lost a ton of money along with a lot of middle class people(as they still are) BUT with today's rules overs 1929 rules the 1% only has to wait 5 to 10 years before they get it all back.....hell if they don't work they don't have to pay taxes with



What needs to be done is bring back super high taxes for the rich and = the playing ground. Also in doing so making money worth more because more of it is being taken away! Hell in the 1970s min wage by ratio of worth was about 15 dollars an hour what it is today. When one percent gets over 1/4 of all the money(and has majority of it invested). It's easier for them to invest all in one place and screw everyone over that's lower. Also it's easier for them to screw up, and still make it after a screw up....

[Wile E]

Bullshit to that one.

In the 1920 the taxes were very low on the top of the top money holders. The top 1% invested wrong(holding most of the cash)caused the market to crash.

Great depression

Money = worthless

FDR comes along and not over night but did fix the problem. He set a tax rate of 90% to anyone that made over 300grand a year. Ripping a lot of money from the 1% on top.

BOOM America has it's highest grow rate for a 50 year run. Then they dropped the tax a little lower, the over all growth rate of America slowed, and they did it again, and the growth rate slowed.

over and over. While the top paying less in to the Government is banking all this money again.

http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/images/cbpp_uneven_distribution_of%20gains_since_late_197 0s.jpg

Then in the 90s it got to the low point that = too the tax rate of the 1920s. Ahhh.... Then Bill Clinton signs in a bill to help lower people get a house and make it in the world better. Only to see a Republican party in after words who adds to that to give incentives to sell bigger and bigger houses. Making laws that let banks mix up their loans into one Class(A) A B C(A always pay)(B sometimes)(C we don't know). They did all sorts of things.

Well the 1% with all this fucking money they have saved thanks to the low taxes needs to put it somewhere. Which was housing. TRILLIONS So in a few years from around 2003 or 4 to 2005 or 6(around those years) We went from a total world savings of around 34 trillion dollars to 74 trillion dollars(that's more money saved than spent by every gov and every person on earth in a yr). THANKS TO MR Republicans messing with housing laws of what could be done...So everyone that was in could even be MORE greedy(which is what caused it making too much money to fast)!


Well all those loans that were mixed up ABC that were all being made up as A to investors were making money off the value going up. Making money over fist. UNTILL it time for class C(Which all these people invested in giving them the money to loan out even....most of the 1% of people invested that own MOST of all the money)didn't pay. Value DROPPED! So that 1% of people with these Trillions of dollars started moving money....which really made it crash. BUSH stopped them! They said 1 more day and the system would of locked totally!

Well the 1% lost a ton of money along with a lot of middle class people(as they still are) BUT with today's rules overs 1929 rules the 1% only has to wait 5 to 10 years before they get it all back.....hell if they don't work they don't have to pay taxes with



What needs to be done is bring back super high taxes for the rich and = the playing ground. Also in doing so making money worth more because more of it is being taken away! Hell in the 1970s min wage by ratio of worth was about 15 dollars an hour what it is today. When one percent gets over 1/4 of all the money(and has majority of it invested). It's easier for them to invest all in one place and screw everyone over that's lower. Also it's easier for them to screw up, and still make it after a screw up....That is the biggest load of shit I've heard in a long time. You are great at buying into silly propaganda, D.

The truth is after FDR raised those taxes, the economy did NOT get better, It didn't get better until we started producing things for the war. The war DID end the depression. The effects of FDR's changes didn't have anything to do with it. Now, what effect they had post WWII, can still be debated. But it's his fucking fault my money goes to such programs as welfare, and other bullshit socialized ideas, so I tend to believe he did little to help this country in the long run.

[DaMulta]

lol that's stuff I really really really looked into then put it all together.

Do you make about 800 thousand a year? or lets say 1 million a year?
How many people then made 300k a year back then?

If not then those would people that make that kind of money then the tax for the ups would not touch you. It's the tax system they changed back to the old system that makes YOU PAY. If they ratio the money of what you make to then and = that to the old tax code.

The war helped but didn't end it. Hell in Vietnam days military pay was only 60 dollars a month.(did that 90% also help fund what was going on in WW2 seeing that the money was in the system)


In the long run of 50 years after FDR there was a 90% tax rate, and we did come out of the depression with flying colors having it. So how did having such a high tax rate hold down Americans?

[yogurt_21]

sigh

why oh why must everything be so black and white to parties?

this is exactly why i'm independant.

the reforms by fdr set the platform for the economy to recover. it was the production of the war that put the capital back into the economy allowing for the combination of programs + captial which will always be the recipe for recovery neither alone will do it.



greed and credit idiocy got us into the great depression "i want to buy stock, here put it on my credit card" lol now that was smart.

smart business and policy reform got us out of it. and to be fair FDR never meant any of these programs to be permanent. social security was supposed to expire after that generation for example. it was the following administrations and congresses that kept the programs going and grew them to their current levels.

no I think it's quite obvious what got us in our current situation. greed. greedy ceo's who have no problem with tanking their company to make a buck (which is the trouble with corporations in general, when your name is on the door you tend to make better decisions, without that personal tie, you have no issue tanking it if you can make a buck doing so) then there was/is a greedy and corrupt congress (yes both parties) who take kickbacks from companies so that they'll vote certain ways. (180bil to bailout aig where their pensons are while the company was worth less than a billion)
greedy lawyers who would sue their mother if they found it profitable. and the greedy companies/clients who hire them; how many trillions go back and forth each year due to idiotic nonsense cases that somehow end up with verdicts far from the legal limits?
greedy corporations charging ridiculous amounts for their products because they can get their customers to pay them, (boeing and govt contracts comes to mind, billions spent for what should cost millions)

the reason we're not on the fast track to recovery like we were in the 89' crash is due to governement involvment. the stock market did not crash and yet the government has spent trillions bailing out the companies that caused the issue. if they were left to their own means they would have been able to file for bankruptsy and rebuild themselves. Had they filed last september, we would already be out of it now.

but like the parents of the 35 year old still living at home the government is an enabler, enabling those companies to avoid the consequences of their actions and allowing them to restructure on the tax money fo those they screwed. how nice.

[El_Mayo]

Socialism.. just... fails.