Capitalism is wealth, socialism is poverty.

Only trolls don't have a good argument; but they like to practice that form of diversion from seeking sublime Truth (value) through argumentation, simply because appealing to ignorance is normal for a troll.

 

The more economic rent governments in capitalist countries tend to recover the healthier and more prosperous they seem to be. So, I think of capitalism as a fragile old man that is able to walk solely because of his geoist crutches.

 

None of them. I want America to have a few socialist changes like having government take control of our national security items that affect Americans.

1.National Oil
2.National Energy
3.National Transportation
4.National Health Care
5.Housing for low income
6.Work programs including education
7.Food for low income, food controls
8.Military
9.Wage controls

There is probably more, but that is a start. I am not opposed to capitalist means working around those items.

 

Our republican form of Government does have all of the means of production to ensure the same to each of the several States.

 

I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. Socialism should be used to harness capitalism whenever it should be practicable for the general welfare. From one perspective and in that alternative, eminent domain could be used to correct for some forms of "rent seeking". It may also better ensure market recognizable metrics under our form of capitalism.

Our social, Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror would be unnecessary through full employment of resources in our market for labor under our form of Capitalism and where it should only take money to make more money and not anything more Social, than that.

 

Egypt was longest running socialist country for thousands of years.

Socialism has played a major role in America from it conception. It also was socialist in nature when we first came here. And of course we would not have survived the first winter without Indian hand-outs, that ol welfare food program. But community forts were built for protection, community food storage, community hunting and fishing to feed the masses, etc.

 

It is why our Founding Fathers, Intelligently Designed our supreme law of the land in the object oriented manner they did and introduced our mixed-market political-economy that is based on our social contract.

 

Capitalism would not exist in an anarchy. Hitler was not a capitalist (he was economically to the left of Europe's labour parties) - the US would not have survived WWII without an active military (which would not exist in an anarchy, as it is a "govt" institution, funded by tax dollars no less) - meaning Americans would be speaking German, and living under a national socialist flag

Anarchy = socialism, state = capitalism

What's that have to do with 'capitalism'?

If anything kids today have much more access to capitalist modern conveniences (which is good, because I'd hate to live Amish - but it's made them more spoiled and self entitled). So ironically you seem to be arguing against yourself on that one, since 'back in the good ol' days', kids didn't have access to all of the toys and gadgets which they take for granted (and it was capitalism which gave us those, good or bad)

Who's fault is that? Not to mention, home school is an option as well

What's that have to do with 'socialism/capitalism''?

Plus it's not totally true - it is possible to get a job and not be dependent on govt assistance even w/o a HS diploma.

BTW, it's the companies which voluntarily choose to require/not require a degree in order to get a job - the govt doesn't 'mandate' it

But but... if you're all about personal responsibility, then you have to hold the businesses accountable for choosing not to hire people without a HS diploma - no one 'makes' them do that

No, the companies willingly choose not to hire more employees, regardless of the wage - no one holds a gun to the boss's head and forces him not to hire more employees - again you're duplicious about 'personal responsibility here'

It's a moot point since 'paying min wage' would not cause any major company to 'take such a hit' that it'd have any significant effect on their ability to maintain basic operations, bar perhaps the ability to compete for 1-2 foreign shareholders - the idea that any major corporation 'simply could not afford' to pay min wage or risk going bankrupt is such an absurd distortion that it would make Goebbels blush. It's the companies who choose voluntarily where their priorities are - if it's their workers, or their shareholders, it's up to them, and entirely their responsibility (as is any fallout when they choose to put a Saudi shareholder over their American workers)

They're not hurt by the policy, they're hurt by the companies which willingly choose not to hire more employees, irregardless of the policy - no one forces the company to do it

Only if you eliminate personal responsibility from the equation (while duplicitously and simultaneously expecting it from 'non corporate people' exclusively).

Because you live in the boondocks?

Force is pure and righteous, and always moral, 100% of the time - regardless of the reason

 

Only whenever might makes right.

 

Crapitalism is the road to ruin, for all, as the US has demonstrated so effectively.

 

'Trickle down' doesn't work. The memo has been out on that for quite some time (except on FOX).

 

Actually, capitalism is the concentration of capital into fewer and fewer hands, where as socialism is a 'share the wealth' thing. If you will consider the distribution of wealth over the past few decades you will understand how "uncontrolled capitalism" has become something more sinister than other economic systems. Actually, the modern day capitalist practices capitalism more as a religion than an economic system. It's as if money has become their god and capital gains is their savior. Consider this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM This is a picture of uncontrolled capitalism. In the interest of a short reply I ask you to research a little. You will find that what we once called 'capitalism" was controlled by laws that prevented the chart we see on the video. As those laws were repealed we see the birth of a beast... multinational conglomerate mega corporations consumed with relentless greed to assure higher and higher profits at the expense of the average worker. While workers were told to work harder and harder for less and less, investors and CEOs reaped more and more of the product of the the average workers' labor.. Note also: "Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[1] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (188, the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." [2] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since. When the US Supreme Court deemed a corporation was a person a beast was created, and now it can't be controlled.

 

To revoke the social contract you have to first revoke your property claims .

eh and there is no state without it .

 

This is what uneducated people say to try to justify their lack of education.

 

Capitalism is based on Adam Smiths principle that each individual must strive for what is best for himself.

That is incomplete, as John Nash, a nobel prize winning mathematician recognised,and evolved the theory further by adding " and also,what is best for the group. This is the Nash Equilibrium theory. The mathematical equation I shall not try to explain, and leave that for the wizards.

If we extend "group" to mean "society" or the "whole of society", then the Nash Equilibrium theory of economics, is really suggesting some form of Socialized Capitalism. A kind of regulated capitalism, which still preserves, as much as possible, freedom for each person to pursue happiness, in the form of economic gain, but sets some kind of limits, and has progressive taxation policy, to maintain some semblance of equilibrium relative to resource distribution. This is still in accord with Adam Smith, who suggested such progressive taxation would be necessary, and from which premise, Karl Marx, used. as source for the idea of redistribution.

Unfortunately, the construct of redistribution has become so synonymous with "Marxism" , that any suggestion of it is seen as radical socialism/communism, and invokes the fear that the proposition is the beginning of a communist infiltration that will doom a Democratic/Federal Republic, to certain extinction.

I disagree, on the grounds, that our Democratic Republic has enough checks and balances, in the form of separation of power, that other aspects of Marxism which most Americans would disagree with, such as child labor, and oligarchial authority, can be prevented. To further create a barrier, however, it would be in our best to interests to overturn Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, which has erroneously given corporations the same rights as an individual. Thus bribery of our politicians by mega wealthy individuals, should be seen by both Conservative and Liberal, as a threat to Democracy as serious as a Marxist oligarchial infiltration would be.

What I believe the Progressive Democrats are suggesting, is to simply modify our tax codes appropriately, and restore the progressive rates on the very upper 10% with 70% of GDP, so as to fund what is necessary and beneficial to the society as a whole. There is no reason that a Federal budget of 3 Trillion/year, cannot be sustained, by a 20% taxation upon a 15 Trillion GDP/yr. Since the 10% have 70% of that GDP each year, then 70% of the taxation of 3 Trillion is 2.1 Trillion, which is basically a 20% taxation rate on the upper 10% share of yearly GDP of 11 Trillion dollars. That leaves them still, a net GDP of 8.9 Trillion/year. The remaining 30% of Federal Budget funding, 900 Billion, is spread over the remaining 90% of the US population, with middleclass from $200k-100k paying the bulk, while 75k-50k will see their rate no higher than 15%. The low income, and poor will have no income tax, but if a National Sales tax is enacted, they in effect will contribute, as well as any new immigrants to USA.

So it is quite possible to solve our economic disparity and reach a state of equilibrium following the Nash principle of economics, if we the people, (the 90%) vote into office enough representatives to make laws that benefit the vast majority, rather than allow a potential oligarchial coup d etat, such as was attempted by Tea Party extremists, and funded by 2 Billionaires with combined wealth that makes them the richest "group" in the world.

 

by comparison of global example it's hard to argue with that general point.. but while capitalism been successful at creating a higher living standard than every socialist state known to history, it has left the people living on the very bottom worse off than if they had lived before the times of capitalism and private property.... that being said, I can't help but feel the society has an obligation to set a minimum standard of livinh for those on the very bottom that is at least equal to if those individuals had otherwise been born before the installment of capitalism

I believe in mixed markets of private and public sectors (as did Adam Smith) and a social safety net to protect people from falling into severe poverty... now days when people on the right hear you say this, they think of you as a full on socialist

 

with all due respect, people with lower education tend to have poorer parents.. which in the end tends to have the biggest influence on our life time financial success

do I agree with the notion that a college degree is not worth the paper and ink it is printed with? of course not.. but I must acknowledge the recent trend of the expense of the college degree inflating at a much faster rate than the value. If we're not careful the inflating cost of tuition could be our next bubble

 

Correct.

 

You nailed it!!

And without checks and balances... ANY system will cause the people to suffer. Laissez-faire capitalism combined with 'human' nature (whether Left/Right influences) is generally a CURSE upon people, because it consumes the well-being of workers over time.

In America, we do better with a hybrid approach; pure laissez-faire capitalism will eventually BANKRUPT our society in many ways (if it is allowed to). Just looking at the IMBALANCE of wealth in this nation, we know that workers are generally being cheated... while the hyper wealthy act like 'kings'; almost posing to worthy of RULING us by virtue of their having 'money' (seeking to control our government completely). But in the end, those going to extreme to control people in that way, will fail... and that is because everyone cannot be fooled for ALL TIME. In fact, the excesses have caused many to catch-on to more and more, lately.

We will have capitalism... but it WILL surely be controlled. That is as it should be.

 

laissez-faire politics is what you need , this can be achieved either by direct democracy or by disconnecting wealth from political power .

 

Sure thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, because it made us the most powerful nation in the world. Who awful is that!

 

I say get the money out of politics; the sooner the better.

 

To get the money out of politics you have to get as much power out of the hands of the state as possible. Money is always attracted to power and the more you give to politicians... well there is a reason that the richest part of the country is the area surrounding D.C.

 

Counter that, then. If we allow a corrupt system... we're ALL screwed, always.

 

With all due respect the people living on the very bottom in this country have it far better than at any time in history. Go back 100 years and look at life expectancy alone which was something like 47. The leading cause of death was pneumonia and the flu, nowadays it kills about 50k a year (less than .2% of the population), most of those being very elderly or extremely young. Now our leading cause of death his heart disease and we are one of the most obese nations on earth. It used to be that being fat was considered attractive because it meant one had wealth... just think on that a bit.

Fact is poverty will always exist because some people don't have the will to not do self destructive actions, no political or economical system is going to change that, but to claim that the poor are worse off then before private property and capitalism is crazy. Especially since private property existed with the first permanent civilizations such as the Sumerian. I highly doubt the poor today are worse off then the hunter gatherer societies that followed migratory herds of animals. Hell they to probably had private property in the form of favorite hunting spears, and mammoth hide undies.