Do You Prefer Capitalism or Socialism?

I hate to break this to you, but EVERYONE knows that inner city gangs killing each other is what drives the high murder rates in inner cities. Therefore, if anyone in this conversation is pushing misinformation, that would undeniably be you.

What sources are you using that have you so misinformed?

 

Fox

 

Whatever you are doing for info....it is obviously NOT working.

 

He's likely doing it for more general investing reasons.

The people with money are trying to take it off of other people--as much as they can get as fast as they can get it.

 

No. It's called 'popular use' that is how dictionaries define words, though they are usually a decade are two behind society, often.
Your calling it 'propaganda' IS propaganda.

Sorry, 80 years of popular use has expanded the term.

Can't help if it doesn't square with your agenda.

"Liberal" isn't a dirty word, it takes more than half of the electorate to change the meaning. With 'socialism', both sides refer to it in a new way, hence the updated meaning.

No, conversation with you is pointless given your incapacity to deal with reality.

 

1) Yes, he's investing in the certain knowledge that every year there are less home owners and more life-renters.

2) You can't 'take it off' someone who is willing to sell it. It's a mutually agreed upon transaction, voluntarily entered into.

 

He couldn't care less about homeowners and life renters. His certain knowledge is that owning land legally entitles him to steal from everyone in the community.

I guess you have never read The Count of Monte Cristo. Get yourself a competent dictionary of the English language and look up, "duress."

 

"Liberal" may not exactly be a dirty word--depends on how one uses it. But anything associated with the word "socialism" is certainly associated with a liberal or with liberalism.

 

What? That's a mutually exclusive proposition. Either he cares about his investment or he doesn't. If he does .. then of course he cares that there are more people choosing life-renting every year.

He absolutely cares about working and middle class people becoming life renters .. he wants that more than anything. That's WHY he's investing in land FFS.

 

Seems the people who advocate for socialism publicly prefer capitalism.

Beanie Sanders has several houses. Some social media stars do as well.

 

Regarding your meme:

If I believed have of what conservatives say about liberals I'd still be one.

 

From what I've seen of your posts and responses on this forum, I would say that you are indeed the epitome of what one would consider to be a liberal. Next, you'll be saying that you're a die hard Conservative. LOL!

 

Not 'seems'. They're raging capitalists.

Try taking their comforts and freedoms away from them and see what happens. Try asking them to conform (because that's what socialism actually requires), and see what happens. Try taking away their soy lattes and see what happens.

 

Capitalism describes a free market economy. Socialism describes government services to improve quality of life for those in need. The two are in no way mutually exclusive, as evidenced by the fact that the entire world has some balance between the two in this day and age.

 

That is correct .. but what you conveniently left out was HOW that is achieved.

Hint: it's not by taxing the pants off hard working citizens to fund those who cry poor.

Finally, there is no active state socialism anywhere in the West. None.

 

According to Investor's Business Daily the middle class lost under Obama. "After six-plus years of President Obama's big-spending, tax-raising policies, middle-class families have seen their incomes decline and more families have fallen into poverty, Census data show."... I'm afraid your data doesn't hold up.

 

They enjoy so much of capitalism it makes me wonder what their motives are for advocating against everything they have.

My thoughts are they're just doing it to be edgy and appeal to rebellious youth.

 

Neither really. A religious devotion to the purity of either is foolish. Capitalism and socialism are both just tools that have different pros and cons depending upon the sector, and cons that must be managed. Healthcare delivery I'd take socialism every time, but you have to guard against undertreatment (as opposed to overtreatment with capitalism). Smart phones I'd take capitalism every time, but as with all corporations regulation is needed to manage externalities.

 

Question, are you or have you ever been in business for your self?? I was and had the left tell us when we wanted to start a wreaking yard with all the abended vehicles the city, county, and state had us pick up and did not sale at public auction which amounted to about 200 a year that we could not because there were already 5 wreaking yards in the county and it put put pressure on them. Protectionism was never a part of the free market. In this nation when I was growing up, if you could build a better mouse trap and sell it cheaper, that's what we were built on, not protecting those already manufacturing or selling a similar product. .
re

 

Taxes really aren't that big a deal. They're an expense that every business and individual can plan around. Of course, a lot of businesses and wealthy individuals also get out of paying them, and that is something that needs to be addressed, but is not really relevant to a discussion about capitalism and socialism, or rather socialist policies in a fundamentally capitalist system.

 

I'm self-employed, actually, and have been for quite a while now, but that's as close as I've been to running a business. Aside from having a higher tax rate than regular employees since I have no employer to share the burden, I'm free as a bird, so to speak.

Sorry to hear that you couldn't have a wrecking yard because of some county ordinance, but I'm not sure it's really pertinent to the matter of socialism. I don't think it would be covered under that umbrella.

 

Nonsense.

He definitely does. But the profitability of his investment only depends on how much it legally entitles him to steal, not what fraction of the population is renters.

Nope. Flat wrong. If people became renters because the exorbitant, increasing, and unsustainable subsidy to landowning was reduced, it would be a disaster for him. He ONLY cares about how much wealth owning the land legally entitles him to steal from the community. One tenant that pays him $2G/yr is better than 1M tenants each paying $1K/yr.

Flat wrong as proved above. He couldn't care less how many are renters as long as he gets to pocket more rent.

Nope. He is investing in land in order to be legally entitled to steal. If he can legally steal $2G/yr from a population of 100M renters, that is better than only being able to steal $1G/yr from 200M renters. Look at some statistics, FFS. In Germany, the majority of people are already tenants. But German landowners aren't getting richer as fast as American ones because German tenancy laws favor the tenant.

 

First, they don't think they advocating against it. They actually think that a socialist/communist life would be exactly like a First World middle class life, full of freedoms and options and comforts. They think socialism is just free money you can order up on Amazon.

Second, damn straight that's why they do it. Now lets look at the psychology of a grown adult who's actually motivated by being seen to be edgy, and in particular by rebellious youth. That's some pretty heavy arrested development, and more importantly, it's ALWAYS a function of privilege. You can't be fey and vacuous when you're dirt poor. It's just not an option.

 

Are you actually on drugs, BIO?

I said very plainly that he cares deeply about an increase in life-renters. His investment depends upon that increase - so how on earth could he 'not care'?

 

There are no socialist policies in the West - NONE. A socialist policy would be regarded as modern slavery, because all socialism and communism is predicated on work-to-eat.

Again, you cannot create socialism via taxes. It's not a purchasable product, it's an actionable product.