Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

So if I don't make millions I'm living an economic nightmare?

I can't take trolls or idiots seriously.

 

As someone said earlier, "we could equalize wealth today and not too long in the future the rich would be rich again."

- - - Updated - - -

Baloney!

 

I am changing nothing. I posted the dictionary definition of socialism. I am not discussing Statism.

- - - Updated - - -

General welfare does not mean general prosperity and there is no implication that it does. Multiplier effect has to do with how many times a $ put into the economy will be rotated between people to other people.

 

Some rich people are pains, others are not. My personal experience is that most are not.

- - - Updated - - -

If we were ever to lean further toward socialism I expect the overall prosperity of the country would suffer and when the dust settles most would be in the same quintile but with less prosperity.

 

The big difference is, in socialism EVERYBODY is less wealthy but the few leaders of state.

At least in a capitalist economy EVERYONE has the right to excel. In a socialist state only the leaders excel and eventually those leaders are dictators if the state survives long enough.

 

Capitalism works well when companies are lightly regulated and government keeps their hands off. It's when government gets involved with business that the trouble begins. Our history for the last 15 years should show us that much.

 

Depends on who you ask, which is why scientists do not generally respect "economics" as a field. The "experts" can't even agree on a basic definition. Do you see debates about chemistry or physics devolving into infantile bickering matches because two chemists or physicists cannot agree on what an "atom" is? Not unless they are debating the merits of the original CONVENTION (which economics does not have), otherwise they have an objective standard and criteria to reference so no confusion over analysis or implementation exists. How can you have a rational dialog if you can't even agree on the meaning of basic terminology?

 

Inflation robs the poor on behalf of the rich, so it shouldn't be any surprise that we've become more unequal under the reign of FIAT money and central banking.

 

That's not even a logical reason to why there is an income gap, lol. You are infatuated with your weak talking points.

 

That is why I chose to use a dictionary definition. Whether you want to believe it or not, there can be a rational discussion about economics if you use common human behavior as a guide.

Of course, chemistry discussions are all about the same atomic variations of the different elements. Economics is not as hard a science as chemistry, but there is certainly room for various theories IF human behavior is considered.

 

But if you own your labor, don't you also own the fruits of your labor, which would include things you've exchanged for that labor? For instance, if you worked and then purchased a home with your earnings, wouldn't you own the home? Using your logic, the people who built your home would also own it! How is that right?

But you admit they are already being "compensated" for their labor. If they are being "compensated" for it, who's to say it's not "full" compensation, whatever that means?

It's been the opposite in practice. Huge, powerful central states are the norm under socialism.

This is just contradictory nonsense.

 

It is a good logical reason considering inflation increases the dollar value of assets held by the rich. The poor have no assets to reevaluate so they gain nothing of even a nominal value.

 

Our monetary system is a centrally planned state monopoly. Is that "socialist"?

 

I'm talking about income.

 

Answer your own question. Does the state control production? Or does the state simply regulate the producers to prevent fraud and unfair competition?

 

Well then let me be more detailed about how I view human behavior, wealth and position.

Reading all the pros and cons of capitalism got me to thinking about a pattern I have witnessed all my adult life.

I spent 27 years in the Army and observed it full time. There are a percentage of enlisted persons have the same attitude toward senior NCOs and Officers as some people view the rich on this forum; that they are priviliged, unfairly take advantage of their rank, earn substantially more money etc etc.

That is common human behavior, the lowly tend to envy the more wealthy, yet there is little done in the way of action to change their position from the lowly to get the advantage of more wealth or power.

I don't chalk that up to issues with the wealthy or higher ranked, I chalk that up to ambition, motivation, labor and attitude of the one who envies the wealth and the power.

I have seen low ranking soldiers work their way up rapidly and steadily and I have watched the grumblers stagnate as a result of their own shortcomings.

Similar situations occur with regularity in economies as well. There are the grumblers and their are the high achievers. The grumblers remain stagnated and the high achievers advance. In my opinion that is exactly the way it should be. No one has the absolute right to wealth or position, it must be achieved. The people with whom I am familiar who advanced in rank and wealth deserved what they achieved.

 

Logic is just old, philosophical crap they test people about in college. I work in the real world with graphs and operational realities...








[video=youtube;9QpD64GUoXw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QpD64GUoXw[/video]

 

It controls production. That's what centrally planned monopolies are intended to do.

 

Well I appreciate your opinion and your service. But I'm an economist. I really couldn't care less how rich people are or what people do with their money. I care about economic efficiency as a country and it has nothing to do with my own life. Generational wealth and large disparities of income are disastrous to the economy.

- - - Updated - - -

Lmao, can I ask you what do you think you just proved with those graphs?

 

Proving how little value there is in the title of "economist"...

 

You wouldn't understand, you're a libertarian.

 

I'm not about explaining the operational realities and graphs of the economy to philosophers like you, talking all that old logic crap that they test people on in college.

 

I just want to know what you think you proved by showing those graphs? See when I show graphs, I have an understanding of what I'm showing. And when I do show it, you know full well it does prove my point and you usually resort to the old "correlation does not imply causation" meme.

 

I don't agree that the government controls production beyond minor regulations. Controlling production requires that the what, the how many, the price and myriad other factors beyond the regulation as it is now.

 

I would have to use old, philosophical crap like "logic" to explain it to you, and we all know how you feel about philosophical crap. Just use your understanding of the operational realities of the economy to read the graphs. It shouldn't be hard for a genius like you...

Basic statistics is a "meme" to you? More comedy gold!

Our monetary system is a centrally planned government monopoly, therefore, they control the production of money and, by extension, the price of money (interest rates) and, by further extension, general price levels for the entire economy.