Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

I understand the graphs fully which is why I'm wondering what you think they proved, lol. And your constant uses of emoticons tell me you are overcompensating right now.

It's an overplayed meme used on the Internet by people to end a debate because they don't have any real rebuttal.

 

If you are an economist you should know about this: http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/ The graphs back that up.

 

I don't blame the wealthy for anything. I blame policy.

 

I know what they proved but I can't explain it to you without using old, philosophical crap like logic.

Just because it's repeatedly used to shut down your infantile arguments does not mean it's an "overplayed meme". It just means you refuse to accept basic statistical principles.

 

The government controls the medium of exchange, not whether or not the economy is capitalist of socialist. An essential for any economic system.

- - - Updated - - -

Policy certainly plays its part, but again, it doesn't change the basic type of economic system in the US.

 

A "medium of exchange" is just ONE of the FUNCTIONS that money IN GENERAL is supposed to perform. The other two functions of money are "store of value" and "unit of account". Money is a good and/or a service, just like any other, and in our country the monetary system is a centrally planned monopoly. The price of money is interest rates, and the central bank manipulates the supply of money in order to set interest rates. It's just convoluted price fixing.

 

You are simply appealing to authority without any logic and reason of your own, and that is a form of fallacy since that definition can be considered a form of special pleading. Can you provide a logical rationale as to you believe your definition of socialism is more correct than one that relies on socio-economics?

 

You have never told me what you mean by "special pleading." I do not do what the standard meaning of special pleading means and I do not want special privilege. In so far as appealing to authority, I use standard definitions when possible so that everyone is on the same wave length.

As to my "logic" for stipulation that social programs ARE NOT SOCIALISM but rather a means by with our constitutional requirement of provides for "the general welfare." ( assist those who cannot help themselves,) We can only do that with a capitalist system which provides sufficient prosperity to enable us to give the help that is needed.

 

Pretty close! The point being that somebody else benefits from your labor. The laborer benefits the least.

- - - Updated - - -

Me either.

 

When "business" is left unregulated, that's when the trouble truly begins. Before you know it, everyone is working 60, 70, 80 hours for 20 hours of minimal compensation (or less). Left unchecked, it would be not much different than prisoners in jail, working for 3 cents a day. We're already headed that way now, via "corporate" America (where the rich get richer and the poor get f'd).

 

"Control" what others produce, being key. Our systems pays those that are good at manipulating, or extracting, the profit from the work of others. CEO's, for example, are paid very well to do this kind of thing. Then, conning everybody else into believing that THEY earned it. It's a neat trick, and apparently it works.

 

Don't blame the thief. Blame the existence of money. That makes sense.

 

I may believe more in anarcho-communism when we evolve sufficient morals to accomplish a Heaven on Earth.

Why do anarcho-capitalists think they can do better than that, on a for profit basis and moral Standard?

 

Unless the laborer is laboring at his own business there can be no other way. If the entrepreneur cannot make a profit from the labor of his company he won't stay in business and both he and his labor both lose.

 

I have never met an anarcho-capitalist Daniel. Your suggestion that there is a major lack of morality appears to me to be little more than envy on your part. I don't believe any form of socialism or communism will ever achieve the prosperity for a country to do what socialists claim they want. Socialists equalize wages alright, by lowering the wages at the top down to the same buying power as the poor.

 

Did you know that non sequiturs and ad hominems are usually considered fallacies; are you fixing that Capital based Standard for your Cause, simply on the basis of my lack of capital in current political-economic times?

 

I do not use ad hominem with people who are polite with me, and I never use a non sequitur . I also do not use fallacious arguments.

 

How do you solve the economic calculation problem?

 

By capitalism making our economy more prosperous and by using social programs to help the needy.

I noticed your Hayek quote. You may be interested in reading "Capitalism: A treatise on Economics," by George Reisman. The theories on economics outlined in that book coupled with understanding basic human behavior are worth the read. After earning my MBA with economics as a second concentration, I went on to take and receive an EdS in Psychology with counseling. Had I not read Reisman I likely would have stopped at the Masters level.

 

I may believe more in anarcho-communism when we evolve sufficient morals to accomplish a Heaven on Earth.

Why do anarcho-capitalists think they can do better than that, on a for profit basis and moral Standard?

 

I don't have the slightes idea who anarcho-communists s are or what they do in your world Daniel. I do not advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property), in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[ direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"... Much like LVT, I think anarcho-communism is a pipe dream whose time will never come.

I do not believe that any system of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" has a rats butt chance of survival in the real world as it eliminates individual motivation, ambition and does not reward high achievement. I don't believe any system remotely similar to a socialist economy can survive without autocracy or dictatorship, and I certainly would not want to live in one.

 

So others produce wealth, so that some class of people can then take it by force and give to those they think should benefit. Or do you mean social programs not operated by government?

I might be. However, the quote is one about ethics, not economics specifically.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you familiar with the United States Commercial Code?

 

I assume you mean by that sentence you do not believe in taxation by government. I disagree with that right from the get go. The government must have at least enough power to tax for a reasonable function of taking care of the "general welfare" of the people.[/quote]
I might be. However, the quote is one about ethics, not economics specifically.[/quote]I do not see it as unethical for taxation used to build and maintain superstructure or take care of the needy.

Vaguely, but at my age I am more concerned with basic morality, prosperity for as many people as possible, and for a smooth functioning republic.(with out regard for party, though I am a moderate democrat) You might go back and recheck the quote of mine you reproduced as I completely changed it, though I do not agree with anarchic-capitalism either.

 

That's your opinion, as I have mine. However, "social welfare" targets specific classes of people. It is not in any way, "general."

You wrote "Nor do I believe that personal and economic activities could be reasonably regulated by privately run law rather than through politics.." The United States Commercial Code is a body of law that was derived from the Lex Mercatoria, a system of laws created by private traders in the Mediterranean and successfully used by them for hundreds of years. They managed to regulate their activities through privately run law.

As for taxation, if it's not unethical for someone employed by government to take it from one person and give it to another, by threatening the former with dire punishments, why is it unethical for a mugger in an alleyway to do essentially the same thing?

 

Social programs? Such as?