Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Which one do you guys want america to be?

Capitalism is the idea that if people work hard, they get paid a lot, and if people dont work hard( a.k.a bums) they dont get rewarded. Also means that private owners own there own businesses and the government doesnt interfere.

Socialism is the idea that people get equal rights and rewards no matter what. So no matter how much harder you work than the person next to you, youll always get the same pay/rewards. Also means the government will interfere with busnisses.

So which one would you like america to be?( by the way, america is currently capitalism)

If its going to be capitalism, let it be capitalism. You cannot pick and choose regulations and still call it a free market or capitalism. One could argue the whole mortgage crisis never would have happened if we were truly capitalist.

edit: And I am a capitalist, I don't believe in rewarding failure.

I think a mainly capitalist system with a (very) few social(ist) security measurements in place, is a good way to go for most countries. If you would force me to decide though, I would choose Capitalism without a doubt.

And America is currently NOT capitalistic. It's is more of a mutated capital-socialist corporate cluster ****.

Capitalism at least gives you a chance. Socialism tends to send everyone spiraling into chaos. That said, I think most people really want socialism they just know it doesn't work out in the end.

I'm with Bardock on the "capitalism + security measures" being a generally effective way to go. I don't think you can morally leave people completely their own devices (actually I don't think you can leave most people to their own devices at all) knowing that there are problems that need to be addressed but don't appeal to private businesses.

Originally posted by KidRock
One could argue the whole mortgage crisis never would have happened if we were truly capitalist.

You could say with certainty that it wouldn't have happened if the nation were truly socialist.

Capitalism for sure is the beter way, we have been moving towards socialism for some time, and now it looks like the democrats are going to claim they have a mandate and move us even further away from capitalism.

I fully expect things to get worse and not better with Obama rolling over for Pelosi.

Socialism is like adrenalin, when one is dying, a dose can save a life, if applied constantly, it will kill you.

Pure socialism will destroy a country but it does wonders when it comes to saving collapsing economies i.e. the US in the great depression or Chile after Pinochete/milton friedman's failed economic experiments.

Who in their right mind would want Socialism in America? Heck! even so-called socialist nations want America to stay Capitalistic.

The nation is in quite a pickle not in a coma.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=475376&highlight=title%3A%28free+market%29

My thoughts.

herb

Though the "capitalism with a few security measures" that Bardock proposed summarizes my thoughts admirably without going into details.

is no one going to point out that the proposed definition of socialism has nothing to do in any real sense with actual socialism, which is the nationalization of market sectors.

Originally posted by inimalist
is no one going to point out that the proposed definition of socialism has nothing to do in any real sense with actual socialism, which is the nationalization of market sectors.

damn, i was just about to.

Just to make a humorous remark, some of my friends feel that America is going to become a socialist nation under President Obama and so they want to leave for Canada... which is much more liberal and socialist than America is in the first place, so their comment is ignorant.

Capitalism has been working so far, hasn't it?

Virtually no unemployment and no poverty.

in a 1st world country, a mix of the two is neccessary otherwise it wont be a 1st world country...

in a purely capitalist country then people at the top would outsource the jobs to the cheapest labour market meaning there would be massive unemployment...literally over 50% as there would be no manufacturing whatsoever....the service industries would also collapse as there would be noone able to buy services...because of pure capitalism there would be no social security and so no benefits for those unemployed to fall back on

there would also be far less tax going to the government to provide any kind of service the people and so infrastructure would begin to fail

needless to say...after 10-20 years of pure capitalism the 1st world country would end up a 3rd world country

in a purely socialist state there is little incentive for big business to stay located there...they have the finances and resources to upsticks and move to a more capitalist friendly country...

so the best working model is a mix of the two...a capitalist friendly tax system to encourage big business as well as a decent social security system to allow support of people who fall on hard times

i think the US doesn't really have the right balance at the moment and it needs to change now while it is the sole economic superpower because once China and India gain more power then it's not unfeasible that large US businessess that would foot the extra cost for more socialist policies (a publicly funded healthcare system for all...better benefits for unemployed) would indeed upsticks and move to one of those countries.

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
Capitalism has been working so far, hasn't it?

Virtually no unemployment and no poverty.

Yeah...it's worked great in Africa!

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Yeah...it's worked great in Africa! There's capitalism in Afrika? I thought the problem there was the strong and almost totalitarian leaders, governments or warlords...which seems contrary to the principles of capitalism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There's capitalism in Afrika? I thought the problem there was the strong and almost totalitarian leaders, governments or warlords...which seems contrary to the principles of capitalism.

Actually, it's just all the riches stay at the top. The situation in Africa is still deeply affected by Colonization if it just occurred a few years ago.

Most capitalists societies have socialist stuff in them as jaden already mentioned so I won't take credit for that.

You need a healthy dose of one to go with the other. You do need to allow markets to regulate business themselves. But in a country that stands on equity, those who aren't at the top need an opportunity to make it.
To go more socialist is kind of an auxiliary maneuver designed to help stabilize a business that practically everyone depends on. Like the airplane business in the 1970's, the New Deals, and even the current bail-out.
Nationalization should be undertaken carefully, so the government can have the proper assets to ensure for the public defense and provide some basic measures of welfare.
Go mixed-economy.

Capitalism does make for a stronger individual, I think. One who realizes hard work pays off and to rely on your strengths and determination. That outlook on the economy is essential for massive growth.

Originally posted by k1Lla441
Which one do you guys want america to be?

Capitalism is the idea that if people work hard, they get paid a lot, and if people dont work hard( a.k.a bums) they dont get rewarded. Also means that private owners own there own businesses and the government doesnt interfere.

Socialism is the idea that people get equal rights and rewards no matter what. So no matter how much harder you work than the person next to you, youll always get the same pay/rewards. Also means the government will interfere with busnisses.

So which one would you like america to be?( by the way, america is currently capitalism) Not really. We can have different wages but still be socialist. It's just redistribution of the wealth, that can be full redistribution or partial.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There's capitalism in Afrika? I thought the problem there was the strong and almost totalitarian leaders, governments or warlords...which seems contrary to the principles of capitalism. I think he meant global capitalism, where the west exploited the **** out of Africa.

Originally posted by lord xyz

I think he meant global capitalism, where the west exploited the **** out of Africa.

Ah okay. So not capitalism, but something else. Fair enough.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ah okay. So not capitalism, but something else. Fair enough. That's a result of capitalism.

Originally posted by lord xyz
That's a result of capitalism. Not really. What exactly that happened in Africa do you think is Capitalism?


We shouldn't argue though, apparently our debates put threads into deep distress...either that or someone is childish and on a silly power trip.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. What exactly that happened in Africa do you think is Capitalism?


We shouldn't argue though, apparently our debates put threads into deep distress...either that or someone is childish and on a silly power trip. US and other counties' interests were to trade with Africa, but because Africa was already in shit, they got the short end of the stick. It's like how the Native Americans lost their land.

I didn't get it either, oh well.

Originally posted by lord xyz
US and other counties' interests were to trade with Africa, but because Africa was already in shit, they got the short end of the stick. It's like how the Native Americans lost their land.

I didn't get it either, oh well. You think that what happened to the Natives is also Capitalisms fault?

I mean, I do see a lot of blame towards capitalism, but I don't see exactly how it really applies.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President on the Socialist Party

Originally posted by KidRock
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President on the Socialist Party

I'm not sure I care what a six time loser socialist has to say.

Capitalism affected African and Latin American countries IF by capitalism you mean:

The American government using its clout to encourage international organizations like the IMF and WTO to open boarders into economically unstable markets with specific policy instructions that controlled the ability of the foreign government to set its own import/export policies and protected American corporate and economic interests.

I know a lot of people think that is what capitalism is, so one can be forgiven, but that isn't Adam Smith style, no invisible hand, free trade.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You think that what happened to the Natives is also Capitalisms fault?

I mean, I do see a lot of blame towards capitalism, but I don't see exactly how it really applies. Woah, woah, woah. I'm not gonna go as conterversial and say the killing of NA were because of capitalism. But there was that whole selling the land for worthless shit.

It's the whole free trade thing. Exploiting others for your benefit is the system, and that's why Africa sucks. We sold shit for their goods. It happened in Latin America and Asia as well.

Originally posted by lord xyz
But there was that whole selling the land for worthless shit.

the state bought the land from the natives and the state violated those contracts

Originally posted by lord xyz
It's the whole free trade thing. Exploiting others for your benefit is the system, and that's why Africa sucks. We sold shit for their goods. It happened in Latin America and Asia as well.

All of which was done with heavy involvement of the American government, local governments, and international governmental institutions.

Trade with Africa, Latin America and South East Asia has never been free, in the sense that it has never been capitalistic (ie, free of the state)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure I care what a six time loser socialist has to say.
He's 100% right though.

We've been accepting policies with socialist leanings on them for decades.

It's unfortunate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There's capitalism in Afrika? I thought the problem there was the strong and almost totalitarian leaders, governments or warlords...which seems contrary to the principles of capitalism.

Oh...I didn't realise you were totally ignorant of the Large MegaCorps which exploit African Nations and subscribe to capitalist ideology...

However, it should be noted that the Capitalist system of economic management is not at fault but rather the corporate greed which it accommodates and in many ways encourages...Therefore, Capitalism is the root fault.

I'm not a socialist, just pointing out that even Capitalism has its flaws...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Oh...I didn't realise you were totally ignorant of the Large MegaCorps which exploit African Nations and subscribe to capitalist ideology...

However, it should be noted that the Capitalist system of economic management is not at fault but rather the corporate greed which it accommodates and in many ways encourages...Therefore, Capitalism is the root fault.

I'm not a socialist, just pointing out that even Capitalism has its flaws...

except for the fact that the national governments of Africa are heavily involved in those deals, and the American government uses bodies like the IMF and WTO to protect its corporate interests abroad

making the process entirely anti-capitalistic, and close to corporate socialism

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Oh...I didn't realise you were totally ignorant of the Large MegaCorps which exploit African Nations and subscribe to capitalist ideology...

However, it should be noted that the Capitalist system of economic management is not at fault but rather the corporate greed which it accommodates and in many ways encourages...Therefore, Capitalism is the root fault.

I'm not a socialist, just pointing out that even Capitalism has its flaws... Oh I didn't realise you chose to call non-capitalist, state sanctioned exploitation capitalist. My bad.

What happens in Africa is not capitalist, and though people like to blame capitalism for everything, it is a misunderstanding that capitalist means everything big corporations do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh I didn't realise you chose to call non-capitalist, state sanctioned exploitation capitalist. My bad.

What happens in Africa is not capitalist, and though people like to blame capitalism for everything, it is a misunderstanding that capitalist means everything big corporations do.

Your being pretty pedantic in your defence...

Question: Is the capitalist system responsible for the large corporations- such as Nestle for example...

Answer: Yes

Therefore, the actions of the corporations are connected to the capitalist agenda.

is catholicism responsible for priests?

thus catholicism is responsible for priests touching little boys

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Your being pretty pedantic in your defence...

Question: Is the capitalist system responsible for the large corporations- such as Nestle for example...

Answer: Yes

Therefore, the actions of the corporations are connected to the capitalist agenda. You're. And no, I don't think using the correct word when trying to attack the concept it describes is pedantic. I mean, what would you say if I say Socialism is shit because they burn Jews. Yes, burning Jews happened, and yes, the people that did it claimed socialism in their name...but is socialism responsible for that?


The answer is no.

And no, capitalism is not responsible for those either, really. Again, corporate socialism or totalitarian dictatorships are generally to blame for those.

And if capitalism was applied it wouldn't happen. Capitalism isn't applied, so it happens, in fact, that's the opposite of Capitalism's fault.

Whats the difference between socialism and communism? I mean if there is one then my point is void but I am just gonna say it anyway: Communism doesnt work because human beings need incentives to work otherwise why bother working harder then the other guy? If your on about better rights and such for workers as in thats what you mean by socialism then basically tbh someone out there has to bridge the two ideas with a compromise that incorporates aspect of capitalism and socialism to realise, And make whatever socialist ideals a socialist has work.

Originally posted by inimalist
is catholicism responsible for priests?

thus catholicism is responsible for priests touching little boys

Of course it is...do you think Rome's rules on celibacy, the shuffling of priests from parish to parish and so on have nothing to do with it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You're. And no, I don't think using the correct word when trying to attack the concept it describes is pedantic. I mean, what would you say if I say Socialism is shit because they burn Jews. Yes, burning Jews happened, and yes, the people that did it claimed socialism in their name...but is socialism responsible for that?


The answer is no.

And no, capitalism is not responsible for those either, really. Again, corporate socialism or totalitarian dictatorships are generally to blame for those.

And if capitalism was applied it wouldn't happen. Capitalism isn't applied, so it happens, in fact, that's the opposite of Capitalism's fault.
You're spewing out lots of wonderfully rehearsed pre-packaged excuses to try and clean the hands of Corporate Directors...

Let me ask you another question, has capitalism allowed these Corporations to flourish?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Of course it is...do you think Rome's rules on celibacy, the shuffling of priests from parish to parish and so on have nothing to do with it?

do I, of course

I wouldn't say "Catholicism" is the cause of it though

basically just echoing Bardock's point. I think you get what I am saying, as you pointed to specific practices, as opposed to the concept in itself, that cause the behaviour.

Much like capitalism, because the economic elite and political elite blur (especially given how much it costs to run for office) certain policies are developed that are not capitalistic (like how shuffling priests around is not a catholic dogma, I assume).

This almost seems like a XYZ style infinite regression, what stops your line of logic from saying: Money creates capitalism creates corporations creates corruption creates exploitation, thus money should be eliminated?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
has capitalism allowed these Corporations to flourish?

(not to answer questions not asked of me, but...)

no, it is not. Some companies, potentially, but in the modern economy, the economy and government are so interconnected through donations and lobbying that it really isn't appropriate to call them "capitalist". The 700b bailout is a perfect example of this, but it goes back decades.

I personally believe that the number of super conglomerated mega corporations would be less and local, potentially even chain, buisnusses would be far more prominent. Economic and market poliy of the American government is to protect its mega-corporations from financial problems and the natural capitalistic consequences of bad business practices.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Of course it is...do you think Rome's rules on celibacy, the shuffling of priests from parish to parish and so on have nothing to do with it?

Hmm feel I am gonna have to speak up although I aint religious I was baptised catholic. Yes the celibacy thing could be a factor and the shuffling a cover up for incidents that occured but you must also take into consideration:

- That type of person could have went for the job in order to get access to little boys for example just like those nutty nurses you see on the news that abuse there patients they took the job for access thus putting the blame at the said individuals doorstep
- I dont agree with alot of romes policies so I doubt I can consider myself a praticising catholic anymore but the celibacy thing is really about money...If priest where allowed to marry and have partners the church would have to allocate more money to them etc
- In response to the parish shuffling I aint aware of alot of that going on I mean I know priests that have served a community for years even until they died. Those cases of foul play it was perhaps a cover up method I would concede to but it sure as hell aint standard practice shuffling priests about.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav

You're spewing out lots of wonderfully rehearsed pre-packaged excuses to try and clean the hands of Corporate Directors...

Let me ask you another question, has capitalism allowed these Corporations to flourish?


No. Where do we have capitalism? Name one place.

Originally posted by inimalist
do I, of course

I wouldn't say "Catholicism" is the cause of it though

basically just echoing Bardock's point. I think you get what I am saying, as you pointed to specific practices, as opposed to the concept in itself, that cause the behaviour.

Much like capitalism, because the economic elite and political elite blur (especially given how much it costs to run for office) certain policies are developed that are not capitalistic (like how shuffling priests around is not a catholic dogma, I assume).

This almost seems like a XYZ style infinite regression, what stops your line of logic from saying: Money creates capitalism creates corporations creates corruption creates exploitation, thus money should be eliminated?



(not to answer questions not asked of me, but...)

no, it is not. Some companies, potentially, but in the modern economy, the economy and government are so interconnected through donations and lobbying that it really isn't appropriate to call them "capitalist". The 700b bailout is a perfect example of this, but it goes back decades.

I personally believe that the number of super conglomerated mega corporations would be less and local, potentially even chain, buisnusses would be far more prominent. Economic and market poliy of the American government is to protect its mega-corporations from financial problems and the natural capitalistic consequences of bad business practices.

I understand your point, however while Catholicism might not deserve all the blame for the priest scandal it does have to be held accountable for SOME of the blame.

In the same vein, Capitalism must accept that its methods lead to the greed, corruption and so on you describe- Capitalism has flaws, one of those flaws is the accommodation of corporate greed which leads to corporate abuse of others...if governments are involved or not is irrelevant.

I was thinking of the Nestle selling baby milk powder- which nearly every health agency in the world has said they must stop doing. However, they don't because of the profit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. Where do we have capitalism? Name one place.
Lets operate within the sphere of the economic system which is known by the world as Capitalist- even if it is not pure capitalist. (which is no doubt your ultimate get out clause, however as I recall you once didn't accept that my saying the USA wasn't a democracy thus couldn't be used to critique democracy was invalid as it was the public perception of democracy, thus the same must apply here I think. )

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I understand your point, however while Catholicism might not deserve all the blame for the priest scandal it does have to be held accountable for SOME of the blame.

In the same vein, Capitalism must accept that its methods lead to the greed, corruption and so on you describe- Capitalism has flaws, one of those flaws is the accommodation of corporate greed which leads to corporate abuse of others...if governments are involved or not is irrelevant.

ok, absolutely. Don't take me for a capitalist apologist (though, I guess I am one, eh?), as I am more than willing to admit the problems with capitalism. The accumulation of power by the wealthy and their ability to manipulate the political system are things made possible in certain ways by capitalism.

I think it depends on where we want to place "fault" here. Be it a personal bias or not, I feel the blame should go on the direct actor, so the corporation doing the exploitation or the priest committing the abuse, though you are totally correct, in both cases an ideology has set up a context for that behaviour to flourish.

We could cut straws about government policy, like passing laws making shareholder profit the #1 goal of corporations, and their effect on corporations and greed, but I do see where you come from, and in any realistic sense, I know myself for sure but I also think Bardock, "capitalists" should be willing to accept some restrictions on trade until it is assured that it can be free.

To offer some pessimism to that last point, even under NAFTA, the Canadian and American governments are not able to practice free trade. If Canada and America can't do it, America and Tanzania are unlikely to.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I was thinking of the Nestle selling baby milk powder- which nearly every health agency in the world has said they must stop doing. However, they don't because of the profit.

agreed, now that you mention it I remember that case.

They still ship it all over the developing world don't they?

Tainted Chinese products also offer a good example of free trade ideology having more influence on policy than trade reality.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, absolutely. Don't take me for a capitalist apologist (though, I guess I am one, eh?), as I am more than willing to admit the problems with capitalism. The accumulation of power by the wealthy and their ability to manipulate the political system are things made possible in certain ways by capitalism.

I think it depends on where we want to place "fault" here. Be it a personal bias or not, I feel the blame should go on the direct actor, so the corporation doing the exploitation or the priest committing the abuse, though you are totally correct, in both cases an ideology has set up a context for that behaviour to flourish.

We could cut straws about government policy, like passing laws making shareholder profit the #1 goal of corporations, and their effect on corporations and greed, but I do see where you come from, and in any realistic sense, I know myself for sure but I also think Bardock, "capitalists" should be willing to accept some restrictions on trade until it is assured that it can be free.

To offer some pessimism to that last point, even under NAFTA, the Canadian and American governments are not able to practice free trade. If Canada and America can't do it, America and Tanzania are unlikely to.
I am happy to agree with what you have said.



Originally posted by inimalist
agreed, now that you mention it I remember that case.

They still ship it all over the developing world don't they?

Tainted Chinese products also offer a good example of free trade ideology having more influence on policy than trade reality.

Yes indeed, they still sell it and no one seems to be willing to apply the appropriate pressure to stop them...free trade might sounds like the most desirable option- but I think some sort of social conscience must go along with it, even if it must be forced. (i.e. min wage, job protection etc)

Originally posted by inimalist
the state bought the land from the natives and the state violated those contracts



All of which was done with heavy involvement of the American government, local governments, and international governmental institutions.

Trade with Africa, Latin America and South East Asia has never been free, in the sense that it has never been capitalistic (ie, free of the state) Aye, the venus project and zeitgeist movement however, argue that the reason this happens is because the incentive is profit, and people are willing to do anything to have more profit.

The solution would be to eliminate the need for profits.



Also, the governments are owned by the corporations. It's not freedom from the state, it's freedom from corporations, as they are the emperors of the world. However, capitalism encourages corporatism. So it doesn't work.

Originally posted by inimalist

This almost seems like a XYZ style infinite regression, what stops your line of logic from saying: Money creates capitalism creates corporations creates corruption creates exploitation, thus money should be eliminated? Corporations don't creat exploitation.

Simple equation:

(You're being simple, so I thought, why not?)

Power corrupts, Money = Power. Therefore, Money corrupts.

Lol, now it's time for Bardock to say I'm an idiot.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav

Lets operate within the sphere of the economic system which is known by the world as Capitalist- even if it is not pure capitalist. (which is no doubt your ultimate get out clause, however as I recall you once didn't accept that my saying the USA wasn't a democracy thus couldn't be used to critique democracy was invalid as it was the public perception of democracy, thus the same must apply here I think. )

Oh okay, no problem then. Yes, the system that makes Africa be exploited which you choose to call capitalism has this fault.

Can we also add that Capitalism as it is actually defined, and as we talked about it before on the other hand doesn't?

And my argument was that the US is a democracy because the definition applies, not because the public perceives it as one.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh okay, no problem then. Yes, the system that makes Africa be exploited which you choose to call capitalism has this fault.

Can we also add that Capitalism as it is actually defined, and as we talked about it before on the other hand doesn't?

And my argument was that the US is a democracy because the definition applies, not because the public perceives it as one.

We can do all those things...but just for you.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Aye, the venus project and zeitgeist movement however, argue that the reason this happens is because the incentive is profit, and people are willing to do anything to have more profit.

interesting

Capitalism also assumes people will work for profit...

my point was that, in terms of government control of the market in question, Native land issues are not a consequence of Capitalism.

Sure, you can say greed

Originally posted by lord xyz
The solution would be to eliminate the need for profits.

fiscal profits, not profit in general

There will still be haves and have nots in a system without money

Originally posted by lord xyz
Also, the governments are owned by the corporations.

Thats a rather limited way of putting it, but ok

Originally posted by lord xyz
It's not freedom from the state, it's freedom from corporations, as they are the emperors of the world.

lol, no. The definition of capitalism, going all the way back to Smith, is the non-involvement of government in the marketplace.

a potential criticism of this is that, 200+ years ago, Adam Smith could not foresee global corporations (which are propped up by legislation he would disagree with). However, by definition, capitalism talks about the separation of economy and state.

Originally posted by lord xyz
However, capitalism encourages corporatism.

I take it you are referring to corporate domination of the political process, and not the actual doctrine of corporatism?

Originally posted by lord xyz
So it doesn't work.

it doesn't work at what?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Corporations don't creat exploitation.

that seems odd, and the opposite of what you are arguing, can you clarify for me a bit?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Simple equation:

(You're being simple, so I thought, why not?)

Power corrupts, Money = Power. Therefore, Money corrupts.

that sort of misses my point, but ok...

money=power=corruption should also mean that no money=no power=no corruption

I don't know about you, but poor people have lied to me before. Also, plenty of poor people have had a major affect on the world, and thus were powerful.

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting

Capitalism also assumes people will work for profit...

my point was that, in terms of government control of the market in question, Native land issues are not a consequence of Capitalism.

Sure, you can say greedGreed, the venus project argues comes from money, not human nature.

Since you mentioned work, I find it worrying how people justify people being forced to do shitty jobs in order to get some money for basic survival instead of simply giving it to them, since there is so much abundance of it.

Originally posted by inimalist
fiscal profits, not profit in general

There will still be haves and have nots in a system without money My bad.

Originally posted by inimalist
Thats a rather limited way of putting it, but okWhat do you mean, limited?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, no. The definition of capitalism, going all the way back to Smith, is the non-involvement of government in the marketplace.

a potential criticism of this is that, 200+ years ago, Adam Smith could not foresee global corporations (which are propped up by legislation he would disagree with). However, by definition, capitalism talks about the separation of economy and state.I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about eliminating the problems with the shit in Africa by having capitalism without government, and then I said, the corporations are the real problem.

Originally posted by inimalist
I take it you are referring to corporate domination of the political process, and not the actual doctrine of corporatism? Capitalism has winners and losers. The winners become corporations.

Originally posted by inimalist
it doesn't work at what?Again, I thought you were saying the problem with capitalism is government (corporations), and since capitalism encourages corpratism, it doesn't work.

Originally posted by inimalist
that seems odd, and the opposite of what you are arguing, can you clarify for me a bit? The exploitation would be there if it was a corporation or not.

Originally posted by inimalist
that sort of misses my point, but ok...

money=power=corruption should also mean that no money=no power=no corruption

I don't know about you, but poor people have lied to me before. Also, plenty of poor people have had a major affect on the world, and thus were powerful. I'm not saying there would be no power if money was gone. There would still be strength, speed and knowledge being power, but the fact is, money is a corrupt system. It uses hyperthetical values to get people to do what you want, because we've been told we need these supposed valued items to survive.

Healthcare in the US is a system where if you can't pay your bill, or come up with a good enough case for the insurance companies to pay, you die.

How do you guys feel about introducing Capitalism to 3rd world nations?

Transfering from one system to other is not as easy as it may seem. Case in point Russia or Central America. Nations that have evolve with Capitalism have the experience of how the system will react. I don't think new nations should be "BAM" get hit with the Capitalist system. But rather introduce part per part.

However, there have been countries that been with Capitalism for awhile longer and have trouble getting in all gears....such as Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina.

Capitalism is like riding a bull the size of a mountain and thinking you're going to dominated by the end of the day....not gonna really happen...learn and then practice.

I think it would need to be rapidly introduced as in there no better way to learn than being plunged into the deep end. Having said that those places you mention have obvious regime problems. As for providing a example of its success you only have to look at the asian economic power house known as china which at one point was pretty much communist and is still ruled by a socialist party to this day. They took to capitalism rather well dont ya think?

I think a true capitalism, is not a problem in any country. What Gav might mean is that it can possibly be abused (and thereby not becoming capitalism) by people in power, as happens in Latin America and Africa (and also in the US). Though I don't think capitalism is to blame for it. Fair, free trade between all human beings is a very, very good idea, for any country.

The Capitalist system is very massive and it does require proper education on how to work it. Sure, the people in the nations I mention earlier CAN comprehend and learn the system. But it is a schooling process that must first be establish. Corruption and greed from leaders are the results of lack of educating the people on how to use their money (i.e. the private property)

There is a market for 3rd world countries...they're willing to be consumers but before in endulging in such pleasures they must first be guide on the system.

As a matter of fact...every generation (including nations which are well acquainted with the system) must be educated on how to spend their money.

I'm making Marx proud.

(the man talk more about Capitalism than Communism) hehehe...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think a true capitalism, is not a problem in any country. What Gav might mean is that it can possibly be abused (and thereby not becoming capitalism) by people in power, as happens in Latin America and Africa (and also in the US). Though I don't think capitalism is to blame for it. Fair, free trade between all human beings is a very, very good idea, for any country.

The problem is that it will, without question, be abused, namely because fair trade doesn't give you the best profits.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The problem is that it will, without question, be abused, namely because fair trade doesn't give you the best profits. That's why the conception that there is no government or other regulating force involved is a bit incorrect.

Originally posted by JayJohn85
Whats the difference between socialism and communism? I mean if there is one then my point is void but I am just gonna say it anyway: Communism doesnt work because human beings need incentives to work otherwise why bother working harder then the other guy? If your on about better rights and such for workers as in thats what you mean by socialism then basically tbh someone out there has to bridge the two ideas with a compromise that incorporates aspect of capitalism and socialism to realise, And make whatever socialist ideals a socialist has work.

seeing as noone answered then i guess i will

the difference between socialism and communism is that in communism, everyone deemed to be within a certain level of skill or education earn the exact same money...everything is state owned and the state pay wages based on where your skills and education fit in with societies needs...hence there would still be incentive to better yourself because you would still get more for doing so

socialism allows for private companies...all it does differently from capitalism is that it levvies higher taxes on individuals and companies making more money and distributes in to the poor via higher benefits of higher wages

Not a lot of open-minded people here, plenty socialism hate : D

Socialism works great here.

No ****ed up economical crisis here.

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
Not a lot of open-minded people here, plenty socialism hate : D

Socialism works great here.

No ****ed up economical crisis here. And where are you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh okay, no problem then. Yes, the system that makes Africa be exploited which you choose to call capitalism has this fault. Rumor also has had it that Africa's problem is not just in it's market, but also in its outrageously high taxes on its market. The source of the need for taxes is uncertain...whether it be an attempt to pay off national debt or support greedy leaders or what...but my main point is that capitalism and socialism often walk hand-in-hand in an economy; blaming either one is a sticky task.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And where are you?

I believe he's from Norway or Sweden.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I believe he's from Norway or Sweden. Ah, I have high admiration for those 2 countries.

Iceland too.

Originally posted by JayJohn85
Hmm feel I am gonna have to speak up although I aint religious I was baptised catholic. Yes the celibacy thing could be a factor and the shuffling a cover up for incidents that occured but you must also take into consideration:

- That type of person could have went for the job in order to get access to little boys for example just like those nutty nurses you see on the news that abuse there patients they took the job for access thus putting the blame at the said individuals doorstep
- I dont agree with alot of romes policies so I doubt I can consider myself a praticising catholic anymore but the celibacy thing is really about money...If priest where allowed to marry and have partners the church would have to allocate more money to them etc
- In response to the parish shuffling I aint aware of alot of that going on I mean I know priests that have served a community for years even until they died. Those cases of foul play it was perhaps a cover up method I would concede to but it sure as hell aint standard practice shuffling priests about.

He asked me that because he knows I am a practising Roman Catholic.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ah, I have high admiration for those 2 countries.

Iceland too.

Norway.

And I wouldn't admire Iceland, the president's ****ed them up royally now. I haven't read into yet, but according to the news Iceland's president screwed something up and now they need billions to get back up on their feet.

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
No ****ed up economical crisis here.

Norwegian Town Hit by Economic Crisis
Al Jazeera English

utys62awDhk

Iceland was like that, only on a national level, and I think they invested in UK firms...

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ah, I have high admiration for those 2 countries.

Iceland too.

How is Socialism working out for Iceland?

Or are the government taking over the biggest banks in the country not socialism either?

Lets ask Obama, his word is law on this matter.

Originally posted by KidRock
Lets ask Obama, his word is law on this matter.

How does one respond to the reality that the word of the people is law? Even if Mr. Obama were a socialist, which he isn't, the people have spoken. His message was delivered for 2 years, so you can't say the case has not been made. Or do you assume that the people don't know what is best for them and you should have the right to decide for them? Which perspective is socialist; yours which dictates what is best for everyone or the hundred and more million people who voted in this election?

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
Norway.

And I wouldn't admire Iceland, the president's ****ed them up royally now. I haven't read into yet, but according to the news Iceland's president screwed something up and now they need billions to get back up on their feet.

Tax the rich and print more money.

Those social programs will get paid for, with blood of the hardest working man in Iceland if need be!

Originally posted by KidRock
Tax the rich and print more money.

Those social programs will get paid for, with blood of the hardest working man in Iceland if need be!

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I wonder who's responsible for brainwashing you. But in the future I suggest you read up (move beyond Wikipedia) on things before making idiot comments. Iceland is loaning money from other nations and the wealthier part of the nation is helping out.

Originally posted by inimalist
Norwegian Town Hit by Economic Crisis
Al Jazeera English

utys62awDhk

Iceland was like that, only on a national level, and I think they invested in UK firms...

Yes, Terra scammed a couple of municipalities. Hardly a national crisis. Narvik's been offered money, they turned it down.

It's hardly a socialist state when the government aids private banks during a financial crisis so that they can get back on their feet and continue the capitalist-oriented agenda.

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
Yes, Terra scammed a couple of municipalities. Hardly a national crisis. Narvik's been offered money, they turned it down.

pfft, thats still not "no ****ing financial crisis"

actually, was skimming through this: http://www.nortrade.com/index.php?cmd=show_news&id=3938

Norway looks pretty good. Slowed growth is probably the best a European nation could hope for. Hopefully having your economy tied directly to those of other EU nations wont cause too many problems.

Also very interesting: Norway is bailing out Iceland... or offered to, I couldn't be bothered to read more than the headline.

Originally posted by inimalist
pfft, thats still not "no ****ing financial crisis"

actually, was skimming through this: http://www.nortrade.com/index.php?cmd=show_news&id=3938

Norway looks pretty good. Slowed growth is probably the best a European nation could hope for. Hopefully having your economy tied directly to those of other EU nations wont cause too many problems.

Also very interesting: Norway is bailing out Iceland... or offered to, I couldn't be bothered to read more than the headline.

We're only lending them about 1/5 of what they need. We've lent the 4'3 billion or something, and apparently they need 20 more.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
It's hardly a socialist state when the government aids private banks during a financial crisis so that they can get back on their feet and continue the capitalist-oriented agenda.

It's much more of a socialist state when the government helps regulate how many private banks, schools and hospitals that exist. It's not a matter of "What's more socialist to do" but "What will benefit the Norwegian people more" Basically every bank in Norway gives out loans to no-credit people and the government later helps them with their mortgage.

How is this a capitalist-oriented agenda?

Norway's got an oil fund that's greater and deeper than your mom! What was that about the financial again?

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I wonder who's responsible for brainwashing you. But in the future I suggest you read up (move beyond Wikipedia) on things before making idiot comments. Iceland is loaning money from other nations and the wealthier part of the nation is helping out.


\

So Icelands 3 biggest banks didnt collapse and their stock market isnt down 75%?

Guess which party has the more votes in Iceland, right wing or left wing.

Originally posted by KidRock
So Icelands 3 biggest banks didnt collapse and their stock market isnt down 75%?

I never disputed any of this.

I merely commented on your other ridiculous statement.

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
I never disputed any of this.

I merely commented on your other ridiculous statement.

Giving a serious reply to a ridiculous statement. Whats the point?

Originally posted by KidRock
Giving a serious reply to a ridiculous statement. Whats the point?

How can socialism be working for Iceland, when their president is a member of the right wing party?

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
Norway.

And I wouldn't admire Iceland, the president's ****ed them up royally now. I haven't read into yet, but according to the news Iceland's president screwed something up and now they need billions to get back up on their feet. Don't put it past anybody.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Don't put it past anybody.

What do you mean?

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
What do you mean? What did Iceland do to deserve your contempt? Economic problems are in the norm. Countries get over them in a decade or whatever. America and Russia are fairly good examples.

Originally posted by KidRock
Tax the rich and print more money.

Those social programs will get paid for, with blood of the hardest working man in Iceland if need be! So...every country is socialist.

Originally posted by Quark_666
What did Iceland do to deserve your contempt? Economic problems are in the norm. Countries get over them in a decade or whatever. America and Russia are fairly good examples.

Oh no, you misunderstand.

I don't have anything against Iceland, it's just that these problems do not create themselves and I feel bad for the Icelandic people. Apparently this crisis is mostly due to a small number of people who control the banks.

Originally posted by k1Lla441
Which one do you guys want america to be?

Capitalism is the idea that if people work hard, they get paid a lot, and if people dont work hard( a.k.a bums) they dont get rewarded. Also means that private owners own there own businesses and the government doesnt interfere.

Socialism is the idea that people get equal rights and rewards no matter what. So no matter how much harder you work than the person next to you, youll always get the same pay/rewards. Also means the government will interfere with busnisses.

So which one would you like america to be?( by the way, america is currently capitalism)

You evidently know no differance between communism and socialism (by deffinition).
You also are pretty clueless about what capitalism is.

''Capitalism is about reward for hard work''. Karl Marx is spinning in his grave right now.

Originally posted by KidRock
If its going to be capitalism, let it be capitalism. You cannot pick and choose regulations and still call it a free market or capitalism. One could argue the whole mortgage crisis never would have happened if we were truly capitalist.

edit: And I am a capitalist, I don't believe in rewarding failure.
Such mortgage crises could only happen in caitalist societies.
By deffinition, socialist system could not come to a brink of ressesion, since it is controled by the state and it is not free.

Current credit crunch happened because of recklessness and greed not because of ''socialism''.

In a socialist society that could indeed not have happened (in fact, worse economic things happen in those), but certain socialist influences in a capitalist society can (and did) advance the current troubles.

I'm curious, what would non-money based capitalism be like?

Once again, I didn't read everything on the thread, but I would say that Capitalism is better.

In socialism, it doesn't matter how hard you work, because you get the same as the dude who does nothing. It that fair? No. Not only do you have no motivation to do anything, but the country won't be successful because no one will try to do anything.

I think its funny how people make the comment "Capitalism rewards hard work" So Paris Hilton Deserves to be a millionaire due to her hard work and the Guy Who has a wife and two kids working 2 jobs to support them with no time to go to college (Which is free in a Socialist state) deserves to live pay check to pay check barley paying the bills and having very little to show for his hard work other than a Roof and a car and debt? Capitalism doesn't reward Hard work. It rewards the 15% of Millionaire corporate Moguls who dangle the brass wring in front of the workers (keeping that dream alive) who labor for pittance to make the Millionaire Billionaires. The 15% can send their kids to college and have jobs ready for them when they get out . This perpetuates the schism between the haves and have nots.

I'm not an economist just and average joe who "WORKS HARD" and isn't seeing much for it. So please if you want to comment don't just call me an idiot, realize that on the surface Capitalism doesn't seem to benefit the"Hard working" class who do what they can to survive, who cant afford insurance, who cant afford to send their children to college.

The fault of any of these ideas of Govnt is "Man" they could all work but humans are greedy, self centred animals ,who rarely do anything to benefit another human being.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I think its funny how people make the comment "Capitalism rewards hard work" So Paris Hilton Deserves to be a millionaire due to her hard work and the Guy Who has a wife and two kids working 2 jobs to support them with no time to go to college (Which is free in a Socialist state) deserves to live pay check to pay check barley paying the bills and having very little to show for his hard work other than a Roof and a car and debt? Capitalism doesn't reward Hard work. It rewards the 15% of Millionaire corporate Moguls who dangle the brass wring in front of the workers (keeping that dream alive) who labor for pittance to make the Millionaire Billionaires. The 15% can send their kids to college and have jobs ready for them when they get out . This perpetuates the schism between the haves and have nots.

I'm not an economist just and average joe who "WORKS HARD" and isn't seeing much for it. So please if you want to comment don't just call me an idiot, realize that on the surface Capitalism doesn't seem to benefit the"Hard working" class who do what they can to survive, who cant afford insurance, who cant afford to send their children to college.

The fault of any of these ideas of Govnt is "Man" they could all work but humans are greedy, self centred animals ,who rarely do anything to benefit another human being.

Paris Hilton's father provided shelter and food to millions of people. Paris Hilton gets millions to watch her shows and movies, and millions to buy her shitty music. So, yeah, she deserves it, because the dumbasses that works two jobs to provide for their family can't help but spend billions on the shit she provides. Yeah, it's sad, but it's the fault of the many, many idiots who think she is worthwhile. Same with Basketball players and the like. In a socialist system the guy with two jobs wouldn't exist, everyone would get the same and no one would be interested in doing the needed, but shitty jobs.That's why it doesn't work. And yes, I honestly think that people that provide more and better services (as evaluated by the demand of the masses) do deserve the better lives they can afford with it.

Well thank you for such an enlightened response.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Well thank you for such an enlightened response. You're welcome.

aren't you guys confusing socialism for communism?

Doesn't a socialist state require a capitalist economy in the sectors not controlled by government?

Originally posted by inimalist
aren't you guys confusing socialism for communism?

Doesn't a socialist state require a capitalist economy in the sectors not controlled by government?

I think we are discussing socialist states as Lenin or Marx or the DDR would have considered them. I did adress the concept of partly socialist inspired governments.

fair enough, I was a little confused for a second.

Socialism imho is more like Norway or whatever, where capitalism still supports the lion share of the nation's economy, just with more controls.

my bad is all

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, I was a little confused for a second.

Socialism imho is more like Norway or whatever, where capitalism still supports the lion share of the nation's economy, just with more controls.

my bad is all Well, different people have different ideas of what the word means. In Germany we call the system not "socialist", but social market economy. It's the mix of Free Market and "necessary" socialist intervention.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, different people have different ideas of what the word means. In Germany we call the system not "socialist", but social market economy. It's the mix of Free Market and "necessary" socialist intervention.

totally.

I've heard it described as "democratic socialism" or whatever. I guess it is a far cry from what Lenin was talking about.

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
Oh no, you misunderstand.

I don't have anything against Iceland, it's just that these problems do not create themselves and I feel bad for the Icelandic people. Apparently this crisis is mostly due to a small number of people who control the banks. Oh...sorry for jumpin on ya!

Socialism just means collective ownership, so you can't criticise it because of Lenin.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Socialism just means collective ownership, so you can't criticise it because of Lenin. Ok?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Socialism just means collective ownership, so you can't criticise it because of Lenin.

True.
I don't even know why Lenin is mentioned to begin with.
Marx and Engles descriped, defined and were fathers of communist ideology.
Lenin marely studied it.

Marx (although he made u dozens of phrases and words in Das Kaital) clearly defined socialism, communism and caitalism.
Its not open for interpretation.

Then again, peole claimed that dictatorshis were communism, so...people like to interpret shit that is not open to interpretation, or claim its something it blatantly isn't.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
True.
I don't even know why Lenin is mentioned to begin with.
Marx and Engles descriped, defined and were fathers of communist ideology.
Lenin marely studied it.

Marx (although he made u dozens of phrases and words in Das Kaital) clearly defined socialism, communism and caitalism.
Its not open for interpretation.

Then again, peole claimed that dictatorshis were communism, so...people like to interpret shit that is not open to interpretation, or claim its something it blatantly isn't. So, what is that definition which is "not open for interpretation"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Paris Hilton's father provided shelter and food to millions of people. Real estate agents are worse than Paris herself.

All they do is starve you from your money just so you can live a normal life.

To put it another way, we have enough houses (and resources to make more) so everyone can have a decent home and lifestyle, real estate agents just get in the way of that.

I'm more in favour of Capitalism...but a certain level of Socialism is needed as well. There should be a healthy mix between the two. One where poor people are given a chance...yet also where high-income earners aren't penalized for, well, making money.

I believe health care is a basic human right, and should be afforded to everyone. But at the same time I dislike how my government spends erroneously on programs that benefit only a few...(while here in Toronto we can't even get our transit system fully funded by the federal government because they're too busy spending money on useless crap.)

The thing I despise the most about the ultra left-wing Socialist attitude is the idea that the more money you make, the more taxes you should pay.

Why?

As if making money a crime...or some form of evil. We all grow up in this country taught and conditioned to believe that we should go to school, study hard, work hard, get a good education...which will lead to a good job. Many of us do that...while many of us don't...but those of us who do it - do everything we're supposed to do - are the ones who get punished for it in the end...while the lazy, weak, and inept of society are the ones who benefit off of the hard work and sacrifices you made to get where you are. Does that sound fair? It's like all of a sudden you're a bad person who should be penalized for doing what you were trained to do all along.

So yeah, Socialism can be pretty retarded.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Real estate agents are worse than Paris herself.

All they do is starve you from your money just so you can live a normal life.

To put it another way, we have enough houses (and resources to make more) so everyone can have a decent home and lifestyle, real estate agents just get in the way of that. Nevermind, I didn't do the research, you are right about her father.

On the other hand you are not right about the real estate market.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nevermind, I didn't do the research, you are right about her father.

On the other hand you are not right about the real estate market. I'd argue against that, but last time I got banned.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'd argue against that, but last time I got banned. Yeah, lets not.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'd argue against that, but last time I got banned.
You wouldn't get banned if you did it without being abusive...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You wouldn't get banned if you did it without being abusive... I wasn't abusive last time.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You wouldn't get banned if you did it without being abusive... Lets not discuss it further.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lets not discuss it further. That's how Robtard got banned.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I wasn't abusive last time.

That was what my ex-girlfriend told the judge. He didn't believe her either.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That was what my ex-girlfriend told the judge. He didn't believe her either. I really don't care about you're girlfriend.

I wasn't at all being abusive, and that's what we're discussing.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I really don't care about you're girlfriend.

I wasn't at all being abusive, and that's what we're discussing.

That's funny because I was imply you were.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's funny because I was imply you were. That's because you're an idiot.

Originally posted by lord xyz
That's because you're an idiot.

You're not helping your case . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're not helping your case . . . Like I care if you think I was being abusive?

It's painfully obvious how I was acting, you're just being a tard. Anyone who saw the debate knows I wasn't being abusive, I regret carrrying on arguing, but abusiveness was something not played on my part.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Like I care if you think I was being abusive?

It's painfully obvious how I was acting, you're just being a tard. Anyone who saw the debate knows I wasn't being abusive, I regret carrrying on arguing, but abusiveness was something not played on my part. Was it just me, or did somebody mention a debate on this thread?