Outline of two systems

People tend to be pretty divided when it comes to capitalism and socialism concepts so I will outline two fairly broad and simple systems that represent capitalism and socialism...

System A: In this system if you can afford it, you will be able to get treatment from doctors immediatly as well as being able to easily aqcuire various goods both essential and luxurious. This system has the benefit of giving people a reason to really dig in and work hard for their success. This incintive will insure prosperous growth as people will find it neccessary to develop important skills in order to have a good life. However people who are poorer will recieve no medical treatment whatsoever if they get sick and will have trouble affording basic neccesities. People who work hard and either have a good start or a bit of luck will find themselves very successful, living good lives. Those good lives will, to a certain extent, be built on the efforts of the poor who shall recieve nothing from this system.

System B: In this system societies resources are spread out to assist the poor. Poor people will have access to medical attention and basic essentials however this will have the effect of hospitals having difficulty keeping up with absolutely everyone and certain luxury goods will become uncommon. People who worked hard and have essential skills that perhaps should recieve better compensation will have their success drained away to support poorer people. There will also be little incentive to put in as much effort as poor people will be able to gain a good living despite their lesser compensation.

Which system would you choose? One where you could potentially recieve a better living at the risk of having a terrible living if you become poor. (Or are born poor. Effort = success though ) Or one where you are safe from slipping into utter poverty deprived of essential resources required for life but at the loss of a good living if you have put forth the effort and skill to deserve one?

Please discuss your thoughts on this matter.

 

System A allows the prosperity needed to create philanthropy.

System B suppresses that same prosperity, and creates a dependence. It is the exact same reason why Communism failed when the Pilgrims first attempted it.

 

Neither is realistic nor feasible. They both breed corruption and selective service to the needy (the needy exist in BOTH cases, and no, its not necessarily the fault of the needy that they are such in example A).

Can we please not try and explain complex issues and argue in favor of them using oversimplified innacurate theories. The best country will ALWAYS have a healthy balance between both Capitalism and socialism, we just aren't there right now.

If you want a "theoretical". How motivated and hard working would people need to be if you could replace 95% of the manufacturing workforce tomorrow with robotics, and a true free market environment allowed that to happen unimpeded? Where do those workers go, and how can they be "motivated" to find jobs that simply don't exist anymore? Do you have a solution for 40-50 million newly unemployed people that aren't costing CEO's a dime anymore? Please don't lump all unemployed, destitute people together. I know dozens in my own community who have desperately looked for work nonstop for going on years now.

They are motivated, skilled and willing to do just about anything they can to suppot their family. Don't for a second blame socialistic policies on their misfortune. Without their forced unemployment, corporate America couldn't create the enormous, record breaking profit levels for the rich that they are right now hoarding at those unemployed peoples expense. Don't for a second think that a dime of that money will ever trickle down to you.

 

Socialism essentially holds that an individual person has so right to personal sovereignty. A person's talents and abilities belong to society, not the person him or her self. That is why you can have a person performing and contributing at a much higher level than others in that system, yet being compensated for their contribution as if they were merely making an average contribution.

 

Put down the cool aid Moon Doggy. Corporations that do not make a profit end up not employing anyone. CEOs have a lot of responsibility and are compensated accordingly, I don't see a problem with that.

The fact that socialistic policied kill motivation and stifle productivity are proven. The greater good is served by capitalism. Even the most socialistic societies do not ensure a great standard of living for everyone.

 

It has everything to do with incentive and motivation. When the govt sends everyone a check, or ensures everyone has a certain standard of living, there is a disincentive created that causes people not to try as hard to become educated or skilled. Furthermore, it causes those who are educated and/or skilled to stop trying as hard because there is no reward in doing so.

 

I do not see the value in using health care as a carrot, or poverty as a stick. Isn't that exactly the sort of "big government" manipulation that ALL OF US are constantly complaining about?

People don't need to be forced to work hard. This idea that the economy should be used as a tool to force everyone to do the bidding of the rich, I find that to be entirely too authoritarian. Far more authoritarian, in any practical sense, than taxing the rich a portion of their income to help pay for the society that they enjoy.

 

I strongly disagree. It only creates less incentive for people to become educated and skilled in those things that benefit the wealthy. They still get an education and learn skills, but it's an education and skill-set that actually benefits themselves rather than the holders of the cash and land.

 

Very accurate description of both systems. I choose neither one, but to create a new system. I have lived and suffered under both systems, and I believe to be capable of understanding what is needed.

 

Correct. and failure to accept the fact that American system also has failed, would only result in a civil war which would be bad for everyone, but the very few

 

The American system has experienced problems because of the pollution of the capitalist system by excessive govt intervention in some areas, and not enough in others.

 

I assume you are trying to compare your vision of the system before "Obamacare" (system A) and the system after "Obamacare" (system B).

If so, then you have a bias representation of system A.

In system A, people are not denied health care. What they are denied is health treatment that does not put them into debt for the rest of their lives should they have a major illness. This is a failure of the insurance and medical system, not a failure of society on the whole.

Instead of wasting time and money making the insurance companies richer, Obama should have focused on regulating the medical and insurance industries and the amount they can charge the consumer. However, he did not, because both industries have powerful lobbies and help put him into office.

The poor are also not denied "neccesities". Every State in the Union has a program to support lower income people, as it should be. The Federal Government has no authority to be in the welfare business.

 

That's what I'm saying. They will get an education because they're human beings and that's what human beings do. They don't need to led around by the nose. What will happen, though, is that they won't be as likely to chase after the specific education that rich people want them to have.

No such thing as what?

 

Not all humans will, just like not all humans will work when they don't have to. Some people will, but some will be quite content to sit at home all day playing Call of Duty.

 

And I strongly disagree with this....for the most part.

If a person is collecting enough money to support themselves at a level that they are comfortable with, most people will not work to better themselves and most will certainly not look for other work.....as long as that money continues to roll in.

There is no incentive to do so. They are not starving and have a roof over their head....and may even be able to afford the latest PS3 game.

I grant you that this does not pertain to everybody and there are a lot of people that have enough pride and motivation that they will continue to improve themselves....however, most will not (unless PS3 is now considered educational and teaches a skill).

 

Not really, just giving a very broad and simple layout of socialism and capitalism. I'm pretty sure real life would require a more complex system than what I threw out but, I figured this would make for a neat discussion.

When it comes to these systems flaws I think the best way I ever heard it put was, "Capitalism fails to account for human greed, Socialism fails to account for human laziness."

 

I reject the premise of that quote. How does Capitalism fail to account for human greed?

Capitalism harnesses the positive aspects (there are positive aspects, despite the drumbeat mantra of some) of human greed while simultaneously suppressing the negative aspects.

The only way that balance gets thrown out of whack is through unwise Government meddling.

 

System B, even it is described wrongly and with the intention that people choose option A.

In option A you leave outside thousand of people without any possibility of treatment. The American system is the worst that you can have. Only is good for some elite, but not for the majority of citizens. And your definition is wrong, because European healthcare has a lot of quality, too.

And for example Spanish healthcare is one of the best of the world, well was. Now is being destroyed to become an American healthcare but worse. So a catastroohic healthcare system.

 

Facts few people are aware of............thanks for noting.

 

One more time
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A"]Milton Friedman - Greed - YouTube[/ame]

 

Patently false. Our "poor" arguably live better than the "rich" in most countries. This is due to the over abundance of resources created by the wealthy, and opportunities provided by a capitalist system. Those wealthy countries that flirt with socialism can only do so when propped up by the economy of our capitalist system... which is why when WE have a housing bubble, their economies start failing.

 

Okay. I still disagree -- men will still fish and hit each other with sticks, and women will still clean and organize their living spaces and chase after children. But let's say you're right, and they'll just waste all their time doing nothing worth doing. Worst case scenario. You've got a bunch of people with lots of time on their hands.

What's the worst case scenario if I'm right, and how does it compare?

 

If I'm right, 1 - we are heavily taxing everyone who does work to pay for those that don't. What level, in today's dollars, are you looking at for their income? Right now the current median household income is about $40,000. If you are going to support everyone at $20k, you will have to tax every dime of income that everyone else earns above that amount.

2 - more importantly, those people who aren't working will still find a reason that things aren't "fair". They will not only want more of something - whatever thing it is that they feel they are missing - but they will also have plenty of time to protest or cause even worse trouble trying to get it.

3 - our economy will suffer dearly. Fewer people working will lower production. National productivity and therefore GDP will drop. The economy will go downhill.

What is the worst case scenario if I am wrong?

 

Actually... Your right. I assure you I hadn't meant to bias people towards system A but upon re-reading I see I may have placed a more negative spin on it then I had meant to.