Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Lotharr

Socialism Vs Capitalism (round one)

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

Originally posted by Enigma:

QUOTE]Oh nothing wrong with simply
pointing short range ballistic missiles at us!!
Not sure about you but that really doesn't place Castro on my list of favorite people.

As for bay of pigs... yeah we trained them, but Kennedy backed out on the support end of the bargain. And of course the invasion failed, I've yet to see one work too well without it.

ummm Eclipse, update on things in Cuba. former president Jimmy Carter visited the island country yesterday.

Fidel even invited Carter to see the chemical factories just to prove that what we are saying "Cuba is sellnig chemical and biological weapons to hostile countries" is wrong.

personnaly what i think we are saying is complete BULL**** . even if he's been selling weapons to hostile countries why hasn't radar or jets that pass by over my house every now and then noticed?

anyway these are just my 2 cents. kick me if you want.

[ 05-13-2002, 21:07: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

to claw there way to the top and should do it at the expense of those less capable

That's so morally bankrupt.

What happened to making a good product or taking beneficial opportunities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kush...you actually make me want to like Canadian's.....heh heh.....New Michigan...has a ring to it....

quote:

You could a)

Re-distribute wealth a little, give these people a monthly allowance. They go out and lease a television set. (The ones that aren't too bright lease the TV set.) The money gets put back into the economy through i) retailer for sale of television set ii) interest to leasing firm iii) manufacturer of television set etc. so on

Sorry will have to disagree...giving people any thing without a cut off is creating a welfare state type o deal....not good. Must motivate.

quote:

You could
B)

Give the poor bastard nothing. They go out, break into someone's house. Beat up the owner, and steal the television set. Now we're paying all over the place. In insurance goes up. We pay for the hospital bills, the police report.

That's an over simplification of a very complex process that happens every day in a capitalist society. Certain countries use a, certain countries use b. All I'll say is, I'm going to feel much safer walking the streets of Brussels than I ever felt walking through South Central LA.

There's a reason why there are low crime rates in certain countries and high crime rates in others. Is it socialists that are responsible, or Keynesians? You be the judge.

Look all you have to do is the next time your in L.A. is buy a gun and walk like you own the place....no matter what you win...heh heh....

Good points.

quote:

Heeeeey... I drink lots of wine, and I make tons of crappy art! So what!

Nothin....I'll get there one day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kush, et.al.;

What happened to c) the poor bastard earns a little more by: c1) taking a second job, c2) taking a night class and getting a job, or c3) does without?

Why do people feel entitled to own the things that others own? Whatever happened to "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"Oh nothing wrong with simply pointing short range ballistic missiles at us!!"

Errmm.. and how many nukes does (and did) the US have pointed at almost everyone else? Carpe diem baby.

Personally, I dont like capitalism because it turns intangible things, mainly money, into a religion. You either have it, follow it, or worship it or you're SCREWED. Even in the US, if you dont have the money, you cant pay for health services... and you die (aka screwed). Not much different from Jamaica. Capitalism makes a society turn on itself, with the individual working for his own benefit , stepping over others for his own benefit. And in the end, only those on top of the pyramid are the sole receivers of the benefits, those underneath live in constant stagnation. Participation of the many, benefits of the few.

Socialism... well, i havent lived in it so I can't really say. Too bad most if not all socialist nations have been twisted dictatorships.

My ideal place to live would be a nation where health and education are fully provided by the gov. (paid out of taxes of course), with the freedoms of any democratic nation (speech, life, human rights, legal rights) and where salaries (meaning you work) were based on your age and not your occupation or position. The whole idea would be to provide a place where money is not the primary persuit, but personal achievement. But then again, its just a utopian idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Charles Lindsey:

quote:

to claw there way to the top and should do it at the expense of those less capable

That's so morally bankrupt.

What happened to making a good product or taking beneficial opportunities?


Well sure, there is a place for that, but look at the demographics and you canÔÇÖt fail to realize that success is always at the expense of others. I canÔÇÖt quote figures off the top of my head, but the top 1% of the population (in terms of wealth, in America) have an incredible percentage of the total money, maybe as much as half. Thus, to succeed means that others donÔÇÖt, plain and simple

Oh, and by the way, morals are a form of social control. By following a moral code a person limits their freedom to aid the society at large. Thus, moral bankruptcy equates to greater personal freedom (that is, freedom from a form of social control). I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I see no reason to work under the yoke of morality except where required by law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


I don’t know about you, but I see no reason to work under the yoke of morality except where required by law.

...Except that 95% of law is derivitive of some incarnation of morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Tac:

"Oh nothing wrong with simply pointing short range ballistic missiles at us!!"

Errmm.. and how many nukes does (and did) the US have pointed at almost everyone else? Carpe diem baby.

Personally, I dont like capitalism because it turns intangible things, mainly money, into a religion. You either have it, follow it, or worship it or you're SCREWED. Even in the US, if you dont have the money, you cant pay for health services... and you die (aka screwed). Not much different from Jamaica. Capitalism makes a society turn on itself, with the individual working for his own benefit , stepping over others for his own benefit. And in the end, only those on top of the pyramid are the sole receivers of the benefits, those underneath live in constant stagnation. Participation of the many, benefits of the few.

Socialism... well, i havent lived in it so I can't really say. Too bad most if not all socialist nations have been twisted dictatorships.

My ideal place to live would be a nation where health and education are fully provided by the gov. (paid out of taxes of course), with the freedoms of any democratic nation (speech, life, human rights, legal rights) and where salaries (meaning you work) were based on your age and not your occupation or position. The whole idea would be to provide a place where money is not the primary persuit, but personal achievement. But then again, its just a utopian idea

You do know that Carpe Diem means cease the day, right?

Your idea is utopian, but thatÔÇÖs not all. Maybe you havenÔÇÖt notices, but elder worship has gone the way of the dinosaur. There is a reason for this, with the pace that technology moves these days, unless one really tries to keep up to date old people tend to have the least job skills. Furthermore, by making no difference between jobs that are difficult and those that are easy, and especially between those that are high risk and those that are low risk, you create an environment where people will gravitate towards easy and low risk jobs knowing that there is no need to work at harder jobs (or those that require education). Unless everyone just gives up on seeking material pleasures for some abstract form of personal achievement (what does that mean by the way?) there will be a lot of enmity between the old and the young, and succeeding in life will be a matter of living long (and, as older people would make more money it would be in the states best interest if people didnÔÇÖt grow old).

[ 05-14-2002, 02:05: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

quote:

I don’t know about you, but I see no reason to work under the yoke of morality except where required by law.

...Except that 95% of law is derivitive of some incarnation of morality.


So what? For the most part, obeying the law is simply prudent, but law does not cover many things covered by morality. I could lie to someone and, with a few specific exceptions, there would be nothing illegal about it. This is only the beginning, abuse of power, privilege, and a number of other amoral acts are covered, if at all, only minimally by the law. Then, of course, there is manipulation. I canÔÇÖt think of any law that prevents me from manipulating people into doing as I wish so long as I donÔÇÖt use an illegal form of coercion or such. And we simply canÔÇÖt forget greed, nothing illegal about being greedy though many would consider this amoral as well. I could go on, but whatÔÇÖs the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Errmm.. and how many nukes does (and did) the US have pointed at almost everyone else? Carpe diem baby.

Then they should either call their bluff or fold. Carpe diem... "Let the chips fall where they may."

quote:

I dont like capitalism because it turns intangible things, mainly money, into a religion.

There are people who do this, but they missed the point.

When I lived in South Florida (with my grandparents) in the early '70s, there were mostly elderly retired couples from the North in all the communities. In fact, they settled the place and developed it for the rest of us. Anyway, they were children of the Depression, and they were "saving their money for a day." Let me tell you, there are many rainy days in South Florida, but the eldery would still go to $4.95 Early Bird Specials and Dollar Night at the theater. My grandparents would tell me stories of neighbors who would died and then their widows would find $500,000 in their savings accounts. They were shocked because they used to eat tuna for dinner every night.

Money is a fungible representation of one's own labor. You work to obtain money to obtain the means to acquire the things that you need and the things that you want. The question is, How much of your labor do you own? If the answer is close to 50% or less, then you are a slave.

quote:

My ideal place to live would be a nation where health and education are fully provided by the gov. (paid out of taxes of course)

Taxes that you paid, not the government. The government pays for nothing, they confiscate the worth of your labor.

quote:

elder worship has gone the way of the dinosaur. There is a reason for this, with the pace that technology moves these days, unless one really tries to keep up to date old people tend to have the least job skills... and, as older people would make more money it would be in the states best interest if people didn’t grow old...

Logan's Run.

Work is only a small part of life. You spend 1/3 (of a day) of 1/3 (years) of your life working. You don't begin to understand life until you're 30. You can still learn a lot from someone who's VCR blinks 12:00am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Welfare and Keynesian Capitalism

It is an unavoidable fact that no capitalist economy, regardless of its productivity or efficiency, is capable of sustaining full employment. Even during the peaks of boom periods, when the economy is at its largest, the rate of unemployment almost never falls below 5 percent, especially in a Laissez Faire system. What's worse is that by the time the boom period reaches its peak, the economy has already expanded beyond its sustainable capacity, which is why there are subsequent recessions in the first place.

Where does that leave the 5 percent of people who will never get a lasting job regardless of how hard they try? Note that the unemployment rate only counts the workforce, which is usually little more than 65 percent of the total population (see Participation Rate). The existence of dependents within families of the unemployed means that at least 8 percent of the total population would live in absolute poverty. In this condition, they are incapable of consumption.

The purpose of state welfare is to give this percentage the means to consume, thus increasing the health of the economy by inflating Aggregate Demand (a term that anyone who has studied Keynes would be familiar with).

Now, anyone who knows basic economics must admit that the economy is worse off when 8 percent of the population doesn't consume. Therefore, a welfare system within a capitalist economy is beneficial.

Big business, which is almost invariably pro-Laissez Faire, vigorously disagrees for one of two reasons (sometimes both): 1) they don't know basic economics, or 2) they want that 8 percent to live in absolute poverty, because it would scare the workers into doing more for less.

[ 05-14-2002, 03:53: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

Kush, et.al.;

What happened to c) the poor bastard earns a little more by: c1) taking a second job, c2) taking a night class and getting a job, or c3) does without?


The whole point is, in a Keynsian (sp?) capitalist society you don't have to. In Sweden, you don't HAVE to struggle to live. You don't have to hold down two jobs to have a little more. If you want to earn more money, you get a job that pays more money. If you like to work hard, go for it, have two jobs. No one's stopping you. Working hard is a good thing and is rewarded. But you don't HAVE TO. Not to live. Not to survive.

The idea that you would actually have to have a firearm in your possession to simply walk down the street of a city... sadens me. It's... it makes me very sad for the people who live there. You may not feel the paranoia that someone living in Cuba may feel, but what's the difference really? You're not afraid of the government, but you're still afraid of losing your life. In my books, that's the same.

I grew up living in a city where you can walk down any street. Say hello to anyone. You may need to know French for them to respond, but no where in the city, do you have to worry about getting shot at, or mugged. There are poor people in Ottawa. They're just not desperatly poor. That's not luck. That's not breeding, or the result of genetic experimentation. It's social policy.

I think really we are all debating what flavour of Capitalism do we like the best. I think sometimes some people label anything that smacks of compassion as being socialist, and therefor communist, and therefor evil. I think you can have a Capitalist society and also have a compassionate society. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Where does that leave the 5 percent of people who will never get a lasting job regardless of how hard they try?

Do you assume that this 5 percent is the same group of people over and over, or is it a revolving five percent that comes and goes as people retrain and acquire new jobs?

quote:

In Sweden, you don't HAVE to struggle to live. You don't have to hold down two jobs to have a little more.

Sweden isn't being asked (no, demanded) to solve the world's problems like the USA is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Furthermore, an explanation of how the government uses welfare to ÔÇ£put a gun to your headÔÇØ would be nice as well.

I'm going to give an example I've given before.

You have 3 people living in an apartment, you, Socialist Bob, and Slob Jim.

Slob Jim is down on his luck and needs money to help pay his rent. Being such a good Samaritan - you give Slob Jim $250 in order to help him out, which is fine because it is your choice.

A month down the road and Slob Jim is still in trouble, he blew the $250 you gave him on booze and other items, but maybe one of the lottery tickets he purchased will pan out, there's always hope.

You aren't willing to give him another $250 because your kid needs braces and you are saving up to afford them.

Socialist Bob sees you not helping, and knocks on your door.

QUESTION:

Does Socialist Bob have the right to pull a gun on you and force you to give Slob Jim money to pay for his lifestyle?

If your answer is no, why then does the Federal government have the right to do something which if a private citizen did it it would be illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$iLk, I guess that from your last post, ANYONE on welfare is worthless and will spend it's money on what he shouldn't? Not true. Sure there are too much people that way, but alot of those on welfare make good use of the money, and TRY to get out of it.

Alot of people don't know how to spend correbtly their money event if they are working! (like my mother's sister, which complains that she doesn't have food and has heavy debts but keeps on buying fancy clothes on Saturdays) ... so you can't expect those on welfare to do better. It's the nature of humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

I think sometimes some people label anything that smacks of compassion as being socialist, and therefor communist, and therefor evil. I think you can have a Capitalist society and also have a compassionate society. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Your right, capitalism can be compassionate. Compassion is good, without compassion the human race would never have gotten where it is today. If, for whatever reason, I feel like being compassionate to someone then I am, no big deal. If, however, I am expected, no, required, to pay for a bunch of losers whom I neither know nor care the least about then I'm being robed. Plain and simple, itÔÇÖs legalized robbery.

That said, paying a minimal (as in extremely small, as in almost non-existent) amount isnÔÇÖt compassion, its common sense. A minimal amount of welfare is necessary (in my opinion, anyway) to keep the mob in check. ItÔÇÖs like paying insurance, pay a little bit regularly and significantly reduce crime, riots and similar nonsense.

Oh, and $ilk, thanks for the example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think that the mob can ever be more than just the mob? Maybe if there was no mob than these problems might not be so severe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Silk,

EXCELLENT example, and EP5, just because someone is on welfare does not make them worthless.

If someone is unable to get work, then there should be a safety net for them, and there is, it is called PRIVATE charity.

The government should NOT be involved in a social safety net, it is NONE of the governments business. The government is not there to make sure that I live at a certain level, that is MY responsibility. The government is there to protect me from other people that might want to take advantage of me, or criminalize me in some way shape or form. The government is there to PROTECT my rights, and to allow me LIFE,LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT of happiness. Do you seee the BOLD, not guarantee happiness, not promise happiness, but allow me to PURSUE happiness. That is what the government is for.

Not to protect me from myself, not to help me in times of financial stress, but to make sure that I am allowed the above, and protected from others that would try to take my rights from me, and punish those that do.

Private institutions have always done a fine job of a safety net, if I need food, I can go to the local PRIVATE food bank, if I NEED help with my mortgage, I can go to A: my family, B: a PRIVATE organization, or C: the bank that holds my note and ask them for help. The government is NOT necessary, nor is it their job.

If a private institution or person is NOT allowed to come take money from me at the point of a gun, then neither should the government be allowed to.

If I wish to give, it is MY choice, but with all the government social programs, it is NOT my choice, and therefore I am NOT free.

It's all about freedom people, that is the BOTTOM line, and as long as the government can take my money and give it to others, then I am NOT FREE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

look at the demographics and you canÔÇÖt fail to realize that success is always at the expense of others.

I can't beleive that. Won't beleive it for a minute. Not "always at the expense of others." Expense meaning detriment in this case.

quote:

Thus, to succeed means that others donÔÇÖt, plain and simple

Nope.

Enron executives got rich "at the expense of others". That was morally bankrupt, exploitative, probably criminal when the trial gets done, and flat out wrong.

Sam Walton made a good discount store that people flocked too and is now the largest retailer in the world.

Bill Gates made an operating system that won out on it's own merits. Since then I think he's been a dirty rotten scoundrel but that's for another discussion.

Anyway, the first is at the "expense of others" and the last two are good healthy competition.

Big difference.

And that ends my point. I'm just arguing that success (and you'll have to define that) is NOT always at the expense of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

If I wish to give, it is
MY
choice, but with all the government social programs, it is NOT my choice, and therefore I am NOT free.

What happens if everyone a little too selfish stops giving money? You have a bunch of people unable to live because they need money. And what does ensure that you can get charity help from private organisations when you are in need?

quote:

It's all about freedom people, that is the BOTTOM line, and as long as the government can take my money and give it to others, then I am
NOT FREE
.

Funny thought, I'm not sure you would be that much happy if you were on the other end unable to get money in time of need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Do you think that the mob can ever be more than just the mob? Maybe if there was no mob than these problems might not be so severe.

Sure, as soon as someone comes up with a reliable and economically feasible form of mass conditioning they will be the thrall rather then the mob.

On a more serious note, though, it is impossible to eliminate the lower class from the equation (at least at the present). If they werenÔÇÖt relatively uneducated and poor then it would be rather difficult for people on top to stay on top.

quote:

I can't beleive that. Won't beleive it for a minute. Not "always at the expense of others." Expense meaning detriment in this case.

Believe it. I donÔÇÖt know about Sam Walton, but Bill Gates is insanely rich. Now, there is an old argument that says that wage labor is inherently exploitative because the laborers are always paid less then there work is worth. For an example, image you have someone working for you making buttons (you know, the kind you pin on your shirt. Take the amount the buttons sell for and subtract the value of the raw material and you have the amount that the labor is worth. But to turn a profit you have to pay the laborers less then their labor is worth, thus exploitation. The problem with this argument is that it doesnÔÇÖt take into account the infrastructure. Obviously the work of hiring salesmen, setting up stores, and other aspects of owning a business are necessary for those buttons (or whatever the product) to sell at all, thus part of that money that doesnÔÇÖt go to the laborer goes to paying for the infrastructure and the management.

There is a problem is this reasoning, as well. In most companies the upper management gets paid much more then the work they do is actually worth. This money doesnÔÇÖt come out of thin air, rather it comes from those at the bottom (the laborers) who are in fact being paid less then their labor is worth. Thus monetary success REQUIRES exploitation of workers. This, by the way, is an abuse of power by the upper management, they control the company and thus they control how much they get paid and how much the laborers get paid, and itÔÇÖs never fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

What happens if everyone a little too selfish stops giving money? You have a bunch of people unable to live because they need money. And what does ensure that you can get charity help from private organisations when you are in need?


Will NEVER happen, Bill Gates gives over 1 BILLION dollars a year to charity, the Rockefeller still give over 100 million dollars a year to charity, and there millions of others.

People, if given the chance are more then happy to share thier wealth voluntarily, it is only when the government forces them that they become stingy and try to figure out ways to keep more of it for themselves and their family.

quote:

There is a problem is this reasoning, as well. In most companies the upper management gets paid much more then the work they do is actually worth. This money doesnÔÇÖt come out of thin air, rather it comes from those at the bottom (the laborers) who are in fact being paid less then their labor is worth. Thus monetary success REQUIRES exploitation of workers. This, by the way, is an abuse of power by the upper management, they control the company and thus they control how much they get paid and how much the laborers get paid, and itÔÇÖs never fair.


And who are you to say that they get paid too much or not enough.

A worker is NOT forced to stay at a job, the manager doesn't sit there with a gun and say, "you have to work, and you have to work for this much" The market decides the value of a person's labor, if a company pays more, then that worker will leave his low paying company for the higher paying one, this in turn drives up the labor at other companies as they try to retain thier employees. That is the way capitalism works.

Nothing unfair or wrong with it, you are payed what the market thinks your labor is worth, nothing more, nothing less. That is the way it works in the US, unless you work for the government or a union of course. then you are paid arbitrarily based on what the government or union thinks you should be payed and so your job is shipped overseas so that your company can compete in the world marketplace and your job goes POOF, all gone.

Thank you government, and thank you Unions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Sure, as soon as someone comes up with a reliable and economically feasible form of mass conditioning they will be the thrall rather then the mob.


HA HA!!

...as I was....

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

look at the demographics and you canÔÇÖt fail to realize that success is always at the expense of others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't beleive that. Won't beleive it for a minute. Not "always at the expense of others." Expense meaning detriment in this case.

I won't either.

quote:

This, by the way, is an abuse of power by the upper management, they control the company and thus they control how much they get paid and how much the laborers get paid, and itÔÇÖs never fair.


Here in lies much of the meat of the issue and why it smacks in the face of fair play values most Americans believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Believe it.

Nope. (Scrunches up face like a three year old.)

Sam Walton = Wal Mart. He's dead now. But he was a more modern reference than Henry Ford.

Bill Gates is insanely rich. He deserves most of it.

quote:

Now, there is an old argument that says that wage labor is inherently exploitative because the laborers are always paid less then there work is worth.

Sweat shops yeah. But not in mainstream I don't think.

quote:

Snips buttons argument

I think it's called overhead. To extract the raw material costs more than it is inherently worth. Thus you can't just add labor + raw material = worth. It's more like you said. labor + cost of raw material + cost of equipment + cost of sales + cost of warehouse + cost of distributing + cost of electricity = worth + profits = total cost to consumer. Probably just showed my lack of knowledge there. But anyway, pressing on.

Is that exploiting the laborer? No. If they are happy with whatever wage they make then that should be ok. Unless it's a sweat shop or some other illegal thingy.

quote:

In most companies the upper management gets paid much more then the work they do is actually worth.

That I mostly believe. Sports Stars too. But hey, if that company makes a profit under Joe X's leadership who is to say?

quote:

This money doesnÔÇÖt come out of thin air, rather it comes from those at the bottom (the laborers) who are in fact being paid less then their labor is worth. Thus monetary success REQUIRES exploitation of workers.

Nah. If they are happy with their wages....

We must have different ideas about "exploitation".

I mentioned in my above post that I took exploitation to mean "to the detriment" of the worker. To the damage of the worker. If the worker is happy with it then it is not exploitation. And once again I am excluding illegal sweat shop type things.

Miss Dragon Lady, thank you for the nice discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×