Benefits of Socialism mixed with Capitalism to produce the good life for all

Socialism is immoral because it denies people freedom......capitalism is moral because it gives people freedom.....lazy and stupid people would disagree with me because they want to steal from the smart and hard working.....

Define your problem with education? Originally Posted by boardman

I did not say I had a problem with education.

I asked you how you would pay for education via pure Capitalism. Sorry I did not make myself clear...

.

In short a capitalist believes that 1000 merchants competing for the same dollar is much better than one company telling us what we are going to pay. Originally Posted by boardman

The problem with a true Capitalist society is that eventually one company will come to control what will be paid. Look how Wal-Mart has driven all the Mom and Pop stores out of business.

Look at the consolidation in the airline industry. Look at the ticket price jump.

Without Anti trust legislation/enforcement then a Capitalist society will turn into a Fascist society where risk is the burden of the taxpayers and profits are the reward of the insiders. That is where we are at in this country IMHO.



.

I did not say I had a problem with education.

I asked you how you would pay for education via pure Capitalism. Sorry I did not make myself clear...

. Originally Posted by WTF

Hey Shit4brains.....everybody pays their own education.....

The problem with a true Capitalist society is that eventually one company will come to control what will be paid. Look how Wal-Mart has driven all the Mom and Pop stores out of business.

Look at the consolidation in the airline industry. Look at the ticket price jump.

Without Anti trust legislation/enforcement then a Capitalist society will turn into a Fascist society where risk is the burden of the taxpayers and profits are the reward of the insiders. That is where we are at in this country IMHO.



. Originally Posted by WTF

Even though we don't live in a true Capitalist society there are plenty of mom and pops that have adjusted their business model to compete for those dollars. Sure, price is king for the most part but Target has a pretty good market share and that competition keeps WalMart honest.

Amazon has taken competition to a whole new level and given smart small retailers an outlet to compete.

Ace Hardware is a great example of competing with the big box stores. I find them to be very price competitive and the service is outstanding. Ace figured out a way to keep the hometown feel of a hardware store and consolidate it's buying power. Tru-Value seems to be struggling.

Nordstrom doesn't seem to be hurting because of WalMart.

Do you remember the airline industry when it was highly regulated? Ticket prices are based on supply and demand now and there are plenty of airlines competing for that dollar. What happened to TWA and Pan-Am when they couldn't respond quickly enough to the new competition that came their way.

Anti-Trust legislation protects the largest of the corporations and eliminates competition. It also creates corruption in those doing the regulating. In a Capitalist society Facism would not be possible because consumerism would drive everything. Taxes would be based on what we use not what we produce. Government would then have no need to control production. When allowed to do so naturally, the marketplace will always, always adjust to consumer forces.
I remember the early years of Cable TV. Two or three providers running their own lines into my apartment building and offering me incredible deals every three months or so. I would just switch back and forth with the one offering the best deal for the content I wanted. At the same time Ma Bell had a monopoly on phone lines and I had no choice if I wanted a phone in my home. Electricity too! I pay less now than I did 30 years ago.
As a libertarian I would think that you are supportive of more choice in the marketplace and less government involvement. Or do you just want the government to stay out of your business but remain in everyone else's?


Oh, and to answer your other question. Home schooling.
Realistically, I want qualified teachers teaching our kids and producing real results not results based on a graduated scale or socio-economic curves. I'm willing to pay for that but support schools competing for the right to teach them. I just can't see where competition for my dollar is a bad thing.

Even though we don't live in a true Capitalist society there are plenty of mom and pops that have adjusted their business model to compete for those dollars. Sure, price is king for the most part but Target has a pretty good market share and that competition keeps WalMart honest.

Amazon has taken competition to a whole new level and given smart small retailers an outlet to compete.

Ace Hardware is a great example of competing with the big box stores. I find them to be very price competitive and the service is outstanding. Ace figured out a way to keep the hometown feel of a hardware store and consolidate it's buying power. Tru-Value seems to be struggling.



Do you remember the airline industry when it was highly regulated? Ticket prices are based on supply and demand now and there are plenty of airlines competing for that dollar. What happened to TWA and Pan-Am when they couldn't respond quickly enough to the new competition that came their way.

Anti-Trust legislation protects the largest of the corporations and eliminates competition. It also creates corruption in those doing the regulating. In a Capitalist society Facism would not be possible because consumerism would drive everything. Taxes would be based on what we use not what we produce. Government would then have no need to control production. When allowed to do so naturally, the marketplace will always, always adjust to consumer forces.
I remember the early years of Cable TV. Two or three providers running their own lines into my apartment building and offering me incredible deals every three months or so. I would just switch back and forth with the one offering the best deal for the content I wanted. At the same time Ma Bell had a monopoly on phone lines and I had no choice if I wanted a phone in my home. Electricity too! I pay less now than I did 30 years ago.
As a libertarian I would think that you are supportive of more choice in the marketplace and less government involvement. Or do you just want the government to stay out of your business but remain in everyone else's?


. Originally Posted by boardman

You are living in lala land.

According to Public Citizen, the states that still regulate power rates saw an average annual rate increase of 4.2 percent between 2002 and 2007. Deregulated states saw increases of 7.3 percent.

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/facts_7318034_de...-industry.html


And Norstrom does not compete with Wal-Mart....yet. Effective Anti-Trust would not have allowed United and Continental to merge. The airline industry is consolidating and ticket prices are going up.

Oh, and to answer your other question. Home schooling.
Realistically, I want qualified teachers teaching our kids and producing real results not results based on a graduated scale or socio-economic curves. I'm willing to pay for that but support schools competing for the right to teach them. I just can't see where competition for my dollar is a bad thing. Originally Posted by boardman

The question was how does one pay for education in a Capitalist Society?

''qualified teachers'' teaching is just some subjective mumbo jumbo....how do you pay for ''qualified teachers'' teaching in your ideal Capitalist Society? That is the question. Please explain how that happens in your ideal Capitalist Society. Do children whose parents can not afford to pay for their education go without like a poor person does when they want a Hamburger they can't afford in a Capitalist Society?

You are living in lala land.

According to Public Citizen, the states that still regulate power rates saw an average annual rate increase of 4.2 percent between 2002 and 2007. Deregulated states saw increases of 7.3 percent.

From what to what? Were regulated states already higher or did regulation not allow them to increase rates at a necessary percentage?

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/facts_7318034_de...-industry.html


And Norstrom does not compete with Wal-Mart....yet. Wait, you just said that Walmart has monopolized the market and set prices. Which is it? You Walmart bashers amaze me with your hypocrisy.


The question was how does one pay for education in a Capitalist Society? I told you, taxes.

''qualified teachers'' teaching is just some subjective mumbo jumbo....how do you pay for ''qualified teachers'' teaching in your ideal Capitalist Society? That is the question. Please explain how that happens in your ideal Capitalist Society. Do children whose parents can not afford to pay for their education go without like a poor person does when they want a Hamburger they can't afford in a Capitalist Society?




Originally Posted by WTF

Taxes are not disallowed in capitalism...
I mentioned the basis for taxes in my response. As usual you comprehend only what you want so that you can then distort the meaning.

Taxes are not disallowed in capitalism... Originally Posted by boardman

Oh so then it is just a question of personal fairness....Gotchaya. Reminds me of the start of a Talking Heads song...all you have done is confirm the premise of the OP.



http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...2A7D6805E17B2A

Oh so then it is just a question of personal fairness....Gotchaya. Reminds me of the start of a Talking Heads song...all you have done is confirm the premise of the OP.



http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...2A7D6805E17B2A




Originally Posted by WTF

What?

Here's a little article on the top Ten socialist countries. Although their economies have slight variations they all posses one thing in common and that is huge welfare programs primarily in the areas of Healthcare, Education and Employment. Although no economic system is perfect our system of capitalism seems to attract many people from other countries that function primarily under Socialism. So Capitalism can't be all that bad.

Jim


http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-mos...-in-the-world/

Taxes are not disallowed in capitalism...
I mentioned the basis for taxes in my response. As usual you comprehend only what you want so that you can then distort the meaning.



Originally Posted by boardman

Distort....taxes and regulations are fascism/socialism.

So do you agree with the OP point or is it just the degree of regulations and taxes you disagree on.

You do understand that this bs you come up with about a little as possible is very subjective from person to person. I want anarchy, you want very little regulation, Z wants maybe more so....it sall just becomes personal choice. Anarchy gives you the most personal choice one can have.

Wait, you just said that Walmart has monopolized the market and set prices. Which is it? You Walmart bashers amaze me with your hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by boardman

They haven't monopolized all markets....at least not yet.

I will try and explain what Z is saying in simple terms.

There are two players and one referee. Capital vs Labor with the two via'n for control of the Referee (Government). If Labor grabs control of government you have what is call Socialism. If Capital grasp control you have Fascism.

Hopefully you can have Labor and Capital going back and forth winning control of the Referee, which is what we have had. But any delusion that there is some true Capitalist State or society is a notion for the home schooled!

Distort....taxes and regulations are fascism/socialism.

So do you agree with the OP point or is it just the degree of regulations and taxes you disagree on.

You do understand that this bs you come up with about a little as possible is very subjective from person to person. I want anarchy, you want very little regulation, Z wants maybe more so....it sall just becomes personal choice. Anarchy gives you the most personal choice one can have.






They haven't monopolized all markets....at least not yet.

I will try and explain what Z is saying in simple terms.

There are two players and one referee. Capital vs Labor with the two via'n for control of the Referee (Government). If Labor grabs control of government you have what is call Socialism. If Capital grasp control you have Fascism.

Hopefully you can have Labor and Capital going back and forth winning control of the Referee, which is what we have had. But any delusion that there is some true Capitalist State or society is a notion for the home schooled! Originally Posted by WTF

And I'm the one living in LaLa land?
Things can't be broken down that simplistically. Unless, of course, your a character on The Walking Dead. It's great TV but I hate to break it to you...It's just TV.

Woo Hoo next Sunday!

Personally, I would encourage you to seek a real education rather than enlightenment on a SHMB.

Butt, since you asked for it...

Uh, OK?

You see Socialism as a panacea, I see it as a scourge.

In short a capitalist believes that 1000 merchants competing for the same dollar is much better than one company telling us what we are going to pay. Originally Posted by boardman

Boardman. I had a fantastic lunch and nap afterwards. Below you'll find your previous feedback in red and my rebuttal in green. I responded to what I thought needed an immediate response I'm sure I've answered your other questions somewhere in there as well.

· A true Capitalist recognizes that resources are finite and works just as hard to replace what he uses because he knows it means sustainability – This is a flat out and out misrepresentation of the truth and antiquated view of reality. Recent history of how Bush and his administration wrecked the economy is prime example. True Capitalists only recognize that resources are finite once the damage has already been done. Thus the rise of the Tea Party after but not before the crash of 2008. Capitalism (as the sole economic system) at its roots is an unsustainable system that gives the façade of material prosperity until the bubble bursts. There will always be the destructive social undercurrent that is shielded from view until the shit hits the fan.

· How do you put anything into the collective hands of the people. By giving government control of the resources and production then letting them take their cut off of the top. Wouldn't that make government capitalists. – My question to you and all the Tea Party enthusiasts is what is government? There is a fundamental fact of government that you guys have lost track of and that is that government is the governing body of a nation, state, or community. In other words its of the people, for the people, and by the people. That can be controlled by corporate interests. Even the Tea party candidates you propose are of the “government” because they were elected into office. So when you say “give the government control” keep in mind you are really saying “give the people control for the most part.” (or those being paid off by corporate interests) I'm always flabbergasted by how you guys miss that simple concept. If the people you vote are skimming off the top vote them out and replace them with another set of people you trust. The bottom line is if there is no government then Capitalism or any other form of economic systems cannot take root in any society. So to answer your question YES the government is Capitalists but it is also Socialist to some degree and should be.

No, it creates an entitled portion of society from those who think that they deserve something they didn't work for. I hear this often it is a fair point but a fairly outdated view especially if you considered the potential hybrid- socialist / capitalist approach which I mentioned from the outset. The system is created for those contributing to the system if there is no conformance then there is no benefit to the lazy. It is as simple as that. However, we have to do something to combat the scourge of Capitalism and your next point opened the door for me.

Socialism creates wage slavery by letting the government determine what is fair rather than letting free markets set the wage. The most productive worker should get the highest pay, No? Again if the government is deciding then they should be deciding what the people want. Not what big companies pay them to decide. You speak of free markets. LOL do you have any idea of how Capitalists wreck free markets? Do you really? Capitalism fuels global depression because it causes over consumption (individually and collectively) based on Corporate greed. While there is some good about Capitalism (and I am personally benefiting from it) by and large I see it as a mostly negative system. Everything is based on fear of losing everything (i.e your job, house, family 401K, etc) and falling into poverty and relying on help from a government (by and large) being run by the same Capitalists who created the system or paying off representatives. (Eric Cantors new job is a good example)

People really are slaves in Capitalism even the ones we want to call somewhat successful and live the good life. In some cases you get a livable wage but the efficiency and productivity improvements go primarily to the benefit of the Capitalists in charge. Look at all the bonuses paid to CEO’s. Do you really believe it’s because they’re smarter or work harder than the masses. If so you’re an IDIOT plain and simple. Some of the masses are even more educated than the CEO’s but in many cases it goes back to ties to entities that can lobby on behalf of their interests.

It doesn’t matter how hard people work it’s all form of multi-level marketing and at the end of the day the capitalists win and the workers the wage earners lose. I don’t care if you’re making 25k /yr or 180k/yr its peanut shells compared to the greedy Capitalists. The other thing to consider is most of these capitalists did not work for their wealth it was handed down and all they do is continue the cycle of exploiting their hardest and most productive workers. What makes this system even crueler is that Corporations can literally be some of the most profitable in the world due to their workers production and they still find ways (surpassing market demand) to outsource and lay workers off.

· In short a capitalist believes that 1000 merchants competing for the same dollar is much better than one company telling us what we are going to pay. LOL – you my friend don’t quite understand what’s going on out here. It’s a shell game it’s all a façade like I mentioned before. One company IS “basically” telling us what we’re going to pay directly and indirectly.



Consider this for the Capitalist based on my explanation above. The last sentence below is important:



Just 1 percent of the world's population controls nearly half of the planet's wealth, according to a new study published by Oxfam ahead of the World Economic Forum's annual meeting.


The study says this tiny slice of humanity controls $110 trillion, or 65 times the total wealth of the poorest 3.5 billion people.
Other key findings in the report:

— The world's 85 richest people own as much as the poorest 50 percent of humanity.
— 70 percent of the world's people live in a country where income inequality has increased in the past three decades.
— In the U.S., where the gap between rich and poor has grown at a faster rate than any other developed country, the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of post-recession growth (since 2009), while 90 percent of Americans became poorer.
"Oxfam is concerned that, left unchecked, the effects are potentially immutable, and will lead to 'opportunity capture' — in which the lowest tax rates, the best education, and the best healthcare are claimed by the children of the rich," the relief agency writes. "This creates dynamic and mutually reinforcing cycles of advantage that are transmitted across generations."

In other words, Oxfam says that if trends continue, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.


"[People] are increasingly separated by economic and political power, inevitably heightening social tensions and increasing the risk of societal breakdown," the report says.

It's a win win for all.





First it is important to point out that socialism is an economic system, not a political one. So all of the political propaganda is just that, propaganda. There is nothing about Socialism that is unconstitutional, illegal, or in anyways hinders a democracy, in fact, socialism would tend to have more people involved in the democratic process.

• Capitalism is a system based solely on exploitation whether it be the exploitation of the natural environment or of one another and as such it is ultimately unsustainable and creates an oppressed society under the cultural (or political) tyranny of the elite few and thus has created many of the ills of our society; socialism to the contrary works to eliminate this exploitation.
• Socialism takes the ownership, responsibility, and benefits of resources and the means of productions out of the hands of the elite few and puts them under the collective hands of the people. Contrary to popular belief, this actually increases the quality of goods produced, etc. After all, are you going to work harder to produce a better product or service to make someone else rich or for your own company of which you have a vested interest? With socialism the workers themselves own the companies, resources, and means of productions so they have a very real connection and vested interest in the well being of said companies, etc.
• Socialism creates community values. Socialism reinforces the idea that "we are all in this together" instead of each man fending for himself at any cost. This tends to have positive social benefits while equally distributing the work load.
• Socialism creates an egalitarian society.
• Socialism allows workers to reap the full benefits of their own efforts and ends the institutionalized robbery of the very workers who are producing the wealth in the first place.
• Socialism, when done right, raises the standard of living for the entire nation as a whole.
• Socialism would free workers from wage slavery.
• Socialism would raise the level of education and health services and make them available for all citizens thereby raising the over all quality of life for the entire nation.
• Under socialism need would drive production not profit which means those services and goods which were most needed but which yield little profit in the past would now be available including life saving medicines, new technologies, and better food sources.
• Socialism would end the monopolies and tyrannies of mega-corporations.
• Socialism would end poverty.
• Socialism would result in healthier citizens by increasing the access to healthy food, better nutrition, and healthy lifestyle not available or encouraged under a capitalist regime.
• Socialism creates a sustainable society that can build and flourish both for the current generation as well as those to come, unlike capitalism which is designed to ultimately fail.

True socialism, when done correctly, helps to end political unrest because it gives everyone a chance to participate in the system letting their voices be heard and their needs met in the most efficient and complete way possible. There are of course, many other benefits both minor and major, but at its very core true socialism is about the spirit of community, something that is sorely lacking in America today and the world at large.


Source
Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

I knew you were a fucking commie.

I knew you were a fucking commie. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Now that is some funny chit!


.