Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

How is crony capitalism any better than socialism?

 

I agree to disagree. You haven't demonstrated that government is not a form of Socialism; while my contention is that it must be a form of socialism merely due to the Social powers that created it as compared and contrasted to a market friendly transaction that involves mutually beneficial trade.

In any Case, I don't exploring a hypothetical StateTopia, to explore the concepts. I will use our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land, due to the social nature of laws, as compared and contrasted to Commerce.

How can crony capitalism ever solve simple poverty in our republic? In my opinion, Capitalism has no basis to care about externalities to its own internal markets. Poverty is one example of capitalism no longer having any basis to care about the least wealthy who may be in poverty.

Socialism can provide social solutions using existing legal and physical infrastructure in every State of the Union and the federal districts; which can be used to solve simple poverty through unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines. It really is that simple; all we really need, is sufficient social morals for free to bear true witness to our own laws regarding the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will.

 

Everything is better than socialism, even crony capitalism makes the over all economy more prosperous.

 

You can contend all you want. The government entity tends to be associated with the kind of economy of the nation. Market friendly transactions that involve mutually beneficial trade is more of a description of a market economy than a socialist economy.

Do what you want to, but remember, if it is socialism more people are poor, all are controlled just like production and distribution of goods.

In and of itself it won't. But it will still produce enough prosperity for their taxes to fund social programs.

That is the point of the government in any capitalist economy, to use the prosperity capitalism produces and redistribute some of it to the poor. In socialism there is not enough prosperity generated so most of the people are poor, except of course the leaders of the country.

All you need is an economy which creates enough prosperity, and even in theory a socialist economy has lost before it starts. There is insufficient money to follow those morals to aid the needy. Only in capitalism does that occur.

 

I didn't really address this adequately. We do not need a socialist economic system to solve simple poverty. Nor do we need socialism to provide social solution using our existing legal and physical infrastructure in the country. In fact, if we had a socialist system we would not have enough funds for the unemployment compensation we have now, and that is woefully insufficient. Social morals come in all sizes and shapes in all economic systems regardless of if it is capitalist or socialist and employment at will comes only when there is sufficient prosperity to hire all or at least most of our able bodied workers. The right of our labor force to work is an important part of any economic system and in a capitalist system there tends to be more meaningful work than in a socialist system. Theoretically in socialism every able bodied person is required to work at some state job. It reality that falls flat, and poverty is rampant. The state functions in a socialist system does not produce enough food, products and prosperity for all their people and in every example we have seen on earth there is a huge population who get little or nothing.

 

An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied only a little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied less than what they had. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.
http://www.deeshaa.org/2010/07/09/why-socialism-fails-a-parable/#sthash.ihNqs2fI.dpuf

 

I was in India during the early days of its Independence and its "tryst" with socialism. I saw it in action. I lived on one of its "communes" in the Kashipur resettlement colony. I doubt every socialist experiment is such a dismal failure so quickly, but I can't believe any socialist experiment will ever succeed over a long period of time.

The influence of the socialistic principles is visible in the Constitutional directives to the Government to:

Provide adequate means of livelihood to all its citizens,

Distribute material resources for common good

Avoid concentration of wealth and means of production in the hands of a few,

Right to work,

Equal pay for equal work, to both men and women,

Living wages for all workers, protection of workers especially children,

Humane conditions of work, and

Provide for right to education and public assistance.

http://latasinha.wordpress.com/tag/indias-tryst-with-socialism/

 

How can that be true, when the right is complaining about taxes while the wealthiest are earning record profits?

 

Yes, according to the special pleading of those of your point of view. It does not do much to actually understand the Social dilemmas involved.

A public sector must be a form of socailism. Why is that so difficult for you to recognize? Our public sector was intended to be adequate for the exigencies of our Union; that requires socialism, not capitalism.

The socialism of bearing true witness to our own laws is what can solve simple poverty in our republic; capitalism can never solve poverty through the inefficiency of Any natural rate of unemployment.

 

Simply appealing to emotions through ignorance is no way to inspire confidence in your sincerity due to the subjectivity of your moral values. You keep missing the point about simply being moral enough for free, to solve simple poverty in our republic through unemployment compensation as a form of socialism that conforms to market based principles, but is distinguishable from crony capitalism in that it can actually solve the social dilemma involved.

 

Full employment of resources as a form of socialism for free would have involved making use of the more gifted students to tutor those less gifted in class, in a manner analogous to "from each according to their ability to each according to their need". It was a simple fallacy of false Cause on the part of the instructor.

 

How the heck did he get to be an economics professor without knowing the difference between socialism and communism? Sounds like a story made up by someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

"To each according to their contribution." How can anyone object to that?

 

Your link is broken and you should indicate your example is fiction, not data.

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

 

What do I care about the right complaining? I don't, so what is the point of that special pleading?

 

Those with my point of view know that the social dilemmas cannot be solved with anything but capitalism. If you call that special pleading, so be it. I am a humanist, ie I am for the little guy, and the best way to help him.

Horse manure! The public sector is only the entity which protects the rights of the people through security, personal property and other government issues. It is not socialism unless they control production, distribution and wealth; and in every successful economy it has been capitalism which made it work.

Because it is flat out not the case, and your special pleading won't change that.

Nope, it doesn't. In fact if our public sector was socialist in nature our economy would not be prosperous. How can you not see that?

The only true witness to our laws is the faithful carrying out of those laws, protecting capitalism so that we at least have the prosperity to reduce poverty and minimize unemployment.

 

There is nothing wrong with my morality Daniel and I resent the implecation, and it takes ignorance not to recognize that.

In fact the point is, I chose capitalism because it is the only way our society can fund the moral requirements our poor need. Even crony capitalism will do more to solve poverty with its lack of morality than socialism; thus I question how anyone who special pleads for socialism can call themselves for the needy.

Socialism simply does not work, and it cheats the people, the working class and the poor. I sure don't call that good morals. Good economics is not about kumbaya Daniel, it is about creating wealth for the country so that more people can share in that wealth. Capitalism is the only answer, coupled with that morality you are crying about, using the wealth capitalism creates to help those who need it.

 

Not at all. After helping the weak students the gifted students made higher grades anyway and the instructor took from the high achievers and gave to the low achievers. That little parable is the epitome of Socialism and why it won't work over time. The high achievers get tired of carrying the low achievers at their own expense.

 

It is a parable which has been around for years. Socialism is but a step in the direction of dictatorial communism.

I agree, "to each in accordance with his contribution" is a good way to look at it. Then those high achievers can help the ones who can't help themselves.

 

That socialism must be better than capitalism, simply because our Social Contract states that securing the free social Blessings of Liberty is the objective of our Government.

 

I gave the link. Sorry it didn't work. That story has been around for so long everyone knows it is a parable, not at a true story. Snopes be damned, who cares? http://www.deeshaa.org/2010/07/09/why-socialism-fails-a-parable/

 

Because I am not the one resorting to special pleading with obsolete definitions of forms of government that do nothing to better understand the social dilemmas facing our republic.

Income transfers as a form of income redistribution are typical of socialism, not capitalism. In any case, why do we have a nationalized and socialized War on Drugs, under our form of alleged Capitalism? Shouldn't we be billed wartime tax rates merely to not spare the tax rod on wealthy children.

In my opinion, the socialism of wartime tax rates, even for a war on drugs, would change our public policy choices for the better.

What does capitalism offer, but free riding on the socialism of social programs through income transfers that should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

 

The blessings of liberty do not socialism make, or protect or anything. Socialism can't exist where there are the blessings of liberty.

 

Can you explain how capitalism can supply any demand for the Blessings of Liberty, with the inefficiency of any natural rate of unemployment?

 

In fact you are daniel, making special pleadings about a system that can't work with no viable argument to support your case.

Except that those social programs could only exist with a capitalist economic system to create the wealth to redistribute.

Capitalism is what gives us the wealth for the social program to deter drugs.

Taxes are taxes, and I agree, raising taxes on personal incomes in a progressive manner beyond what it is now would help. But it still isn't socialism, it is the funding of a social program. Why do you believe a capitalist economy can't take some of the few good points socialism has (like helping the poor) and using those social programs to help the needy? We know socialism can't create the wealth needed to accomplish them so why are you so dead set on destroying the one system that can?

You got it backwards, the social programs are free riding off of the wealth created by socialism, and without capitalism we would have little or nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's put it this way, capitalism creates more employment than socialism because it creates more wealth. Socialism is trying to divide a dime into 10 pennies.

Good night Daniel. I am a little tired of explaining the same truisms over and over and over and................................................................

 

"Dictatorial communism"? Sounds like a contradiction in terms. How can a stateless society have a dictator? Even the USSR never claimed to be truly communist. Rather, they claimed to implement "lower communism", which is just another term for socialism. So I'm curious what your evidence is that "Socialism is but a step in the direction of dictatorial communism" when, at least as far as I know, there haven't been any socialist states that have even claimed to have made the transition to communism. I'm no expert, mind you, but I'd suspect that even in N. Korea, a scientist gets paid more than a factory worker. Now we can talk for as long as you want about how socialism might go wrong, but we can do so without constantly revisiting the false notion that it calls for equal distribution of wealth.