Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

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 (and that form of misdiagnosis of the Body politic) on the part of the instructor.

 

Even command economies still exist; thus, you are still misdiagnosing the Body politic while laying some claim to the virtues of the subjective value of morals. That is my current argument, through that form of proof.

In any Case, a government must be a form of socialism simply because it does not rely upon capitalism to function. Capitalism is usually dependent on some form of Government to function efficiently. Fuel prices in the Middle East are the result of global forms of anarchy than they are global forms of government. Less stability equals riskier markets and one basis for the socialism of States and statism to evolve.

 

So, what objection can there be to solving simple poverty in the US through the socialism of bearing true witness to our own laws regarding employment at will and that also functions as a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

In my opinion, such a simplification of a social safety net would have a positive effect on even any form of lazy capitalism simply due to the positive effect of a positive multiplier on our economy through that form of increase in the circulation of money in our Institution of money based markets and that form of capitalism.

 

You have got to be joking! Communism or socialism cannot exist without an absolutist government.

Equal distribution of wealth does not exist in any system, including Communism or Socialism. The top political party figures always get more than the people.

 

What does that mean Sir?

There is no such thing as full employment of resources, physical or human and nothing is free under socialism. The 'simple fallacy' is that there is anything fair about socialism. socialism is nothing more than a fancy word for dictatorship telling every one what t do and how to do it. Socialism in any form can only be argued in a specious manner.

 

There is nothing moral about socialism, and your argument that there is shows how little you know about the subject.

Proof of what? MOD EDIT>>>insult/rule 2<<<

Holy moly Batman, but did you actually say that?

All economic systems rely on government to either protect the rights of people or to oppress them. Socialism and Communism are two of the most oppressive forms of economic system and government ever created.

 

Socialism is incapable of what you wish it to do. Socialism depletes the wealth of the people and as a result there is not enough wealth left to redistribute, equally or otherwise. In spite of the ridiculous claims that socialism the lowly is a lie told to the gullible who fall prey to this inherently inhuman system. Socialism is a cruel hoax sucking people into total control by a dictatorial government.

 

And your evidence for this is what, exactly? I could just as easily proclaim "anarcho-capitalism cannot exist without a hereditary monarchy!". Maybe then I'd point to the United Kingdom as an example. But of course that would be silly, because by definition anarcho-capitalism is stateless, and so the UK is immediately precluded from being one. Communism is similarly stateless, by definition, and so I fail to see how one could possibly have an absolutist government. The USSR wasn't communist. The USSR didn't claim to be communist. The USSR was socialist, and socialism is what this thread is talking about, so let's use terms correctly.

But then in what conceivable sense is it even remotely communism? You're pointing at something that has none of the defining characteristics of communism, declaring it to be so, and then acting as though you've made some sort of point. In any case, I think top political party figures getting more is a feature that tends to exist independent of the underlying economic model.

 

Unregulated capitalism is incapable of what you wish it to do. Unregulated capitalism depletes the wealth of the people and as a result there is not enough wealth left to redistribute, equally or otherwise. In spite of the ridiculous claims that unregulated capitalism the lowly is a lie told to the gullible who fall prey to this inherently inhuman system.

 

Actually he has made a very good and valid point. Proof you ask? You can't point to a single example of communism which has ever succeeded for more time than it took for the people to throw off the shackles of tyranny and oppression. The issue here is human nature. That human nature/behavior of high achievers will ultimately tire of carrying the dead weight of repressive leaders and of low achievers. As such over the long term, as happened in the USSR, small private enterprise becomes allowed, and the much more rapid accumulation of wealth in those small enterprises prove the fallacy of communism or socialism for a more capitalistic endeavor which will be borne out not only by more wealth being created by the people but more prosperity being added to the total economy. There has never been a successful socialist economic system when measured over time or compared to any capitalist system. Looking at the definition of Communism and Socialism shows how little difference there is between the "two" systems.

com·mu·nism
A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

so·cial·ism
Political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

Nothing like a little mockery to show just how little you understand the situation.

 

Full employment of resources is a basic assumption of the theory of demand and supply. It is a benchmark Standard from which to better, centrally plan for Things external to the Institution of money based markets in our political-economy.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not sure what you mean; it is merely due to a lack of adherence to social morals for free that prevents us from achieving a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

A social Power to do some Thing is a basic fundamental of socialism. A Constitution is a Social Contract and example.

 

Your red herring argument would be interesting, but you may need to attend some classes on better propaganda and rhetoric; otherwise, non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies.

What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in the US through the socialism of bearing true witness to our own laws regarding employment at will and that also functions as a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Simplification of a social safety net would have a positive effect on even any form of lazy capitalism simply due to the positive effect of a positive multiplier on our economy through that form of increase in the circulation of money in our Institution of money based markets and that form of capitalism.

 

The communism of Religion and most professional militaries in more developed economies are all based on communism with capital elements for ease of exchange purposes.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought he was just being a sarcastic smiley guy about it. It is about the use of labels to plead, specially whenever those of that point of view don't have any logic or reason to explore.

 

I can't point to a single example of anarcho-capitalism that has ever succeeded for more time than it took for people to throw off the shackles of tyranny and oppression either. What's your point? I can't point to a single example of an FTL spacecraft that hasn't magically turned into a yellow rhinoceros exactly 5.2 minutes after launch and declared it self emperor of Austin, TX. Communism hasn't been attempted, and won't be for a long time because it relies on higher levels of technology than currently exist. You can't point to examples of communism because no such examples exist.

Repressive leaders and low achievers exist in any system. "To each according to their contribution". This is an ideal that both capitalism and socialism aim to approximate. Capitalism does well as estimating the value of one's contribution through the free market, but can also fail in many cases, such as those involving monopoly or rent-seeking. Socialism, by taking control of the means of production out of public hands, can make sure people aren't rewarded for doing zero work, but at the cost of being sometimes less efficient at allocating resources in response to changing demand. "Human nature" has absolutely nothing to do with anything, since the goal is one that almost anyone can agree with. It's simply a question of trade-offs, and whether you think some errors in your approximation of 'contribution' are better or worse than others.

 

Theory, not reality, it is a goal to be sought. Central planning falls short of creating full employment of resources, as does capitalism. But capitalism comes much closer to the idea. The reason that even capitalism cannot achieve "full employment of resources" is that only laissez-faire capitalism has even a chance; but regulated capitalism is more desirable because the wealth created by regulated capitalism comes closer to meeting the needs of the less able people. Priorities Daniel, Priorities.

What he appears to mean as I read his comment is, the evil of socialism/communism is that neither of them have any morals at all. That is true because socialism/communism causes more sacrifice, more poverty, more unhappiness than properly run capitalism which makes for greater prosperity thus building the wealth critically needed to care for the needy.

All that socialism has the power to do is create less wealth in the hands of the majority of the people, more poverty in the populous, leaving the only people, the leaders to gain comfort life standards.

 

He posted no non-sequitors or fallacies. He was correct in his judgement that socialism or communism are evil systems sucking the value of life out of the masses.

You are trying to do to crisismanagement exactly what you tried to do to me, suggesting that he is averse to solving poverty in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). He is putting forward the correct premise that only capitalism creates enough prosperity to reduce poverty.

A mouthful Daniel. The social safety nets in the US can only exist with the prosperity capitalism brings to our country. BTW, in order to have a positive multiplier in our economy there is a requirement for the prosperity to exist before hand. With socialism it won't exist so there is nothing to "multiply."

The multiplier effect http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Managing_the_economy/The_multiplier_effect.html

Every time there is an injection of new demand into the circular flow there is likely to be a multiplier effect. This is because an injection of extra income leads to more spending, which creates more income, and so on. The multiplier effect refers to the increase in final income arising from any new injection of spending.

The size of the multiplier depends upon household&#8217;s marginal decisions to spend, called the marginal propensity to consume (mpc), or to save, called the marginal propensity to save (mps). It is important to remember that when income is spent, this spending becomes someone else&#8217;s income, and so on.

Also;

Multiplier Effect http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/multipliereffect.asp

The expansion of a country's money supply that results from banks being able to lend. The size of the multiplier effect depends on the percentage of deposits that banks are required to hold as reserves. In other words, it is money used to create more money and is calculated by dividing total bank deposits by the reserve requirement.​

 

He was a sarcastic guy, mocking a good post erroneously. BTW your special pleading does not have any logic or reason to explore.

 

Neither can I. That is why I only use examples of regulated capitalism which has been proved in the US and in Western Europe, Asia and Australia to work very well.

Nor can they ever exist because human behavior won't accept any system which curtails the value of high achievement. BTW high achievement should be rewarded highly, thus I agree with the comment "to each according to his contribution."

I don't agree that socialism can do what you want it to do, and I recognize that there is no perfect system; but socialism and communism are both on the bottom of the potential scales as a reasonable system.

What I mean by "contribution" is, the level of production either in wealth or in humanity through altruism.

AAH, but I hear the joyful sound of "DINNER TIME," at which we will have leg of lamb roast with spaetzle and petit pois. I am a little bit German and a little bit French and a whole lot hungry

 

I understand how unregulated markets don't work.

 

You do? I didn't think they worked too well either. I prefer a regulated capitalist market to protect consumers and prevent fraud.

 

That theory is perfectly compatible with our existing system of metrics, and the legal and physical infrastructure already exists in every State of the Union and the federal districts. It wouldn't be so much central planning, but merely bearing true witness to our own laws as a form of social goodness that promotes the social, general welfare. Most of the several States of the Union already have laws regarding employment at will.

Only the inefficiency of Capitalism can afford to disregard social metrics external to its Individual markets. It is about full employment of resources in the market for labor. Unemployment compensation, merely for being unemployed would solve the problem of simple poverty when due to a simple lack of income that would normally be obtained in a more efficient market for labor. Socialism merely can be used to correct for that form of "market failure" of Capitalism; while laying some claim to the Social goodness of a moral of "goodwill toward men".

How can an economic system ever meet the needs of the People of a Body politic that is external to the Institution of money based markets in our political-economy? Capitalists never seem to have a coherent rationale for that.

Public goods and public services, as a socialized form of (Post) infrastructure, are anecdotal evidence that gainsays your contention due to the capital based concept of the tragedy of the commons. We have a more developed economy due to infrastructure than we do due to the wealthiest being able to simply purchase private goods and privates services in conformance to the marginal utility of their wealth.

Truer forms of socialism can create sufficient synergy where "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" could become a practical reality through the socialism of Government.

Our mission statement is a form of socialism not capitalism:

 

systems of infrastructure exist, but it does not mean that any of the states would have people compatible with Socialist ideas. But it isn't the infrastructure that we would need to introduce Socialism, it would be require change in human behavior patterns that you would need. You would have to insure that people who excel, people with initiative, ambition, motivation were not the ones in the state you want to socialize, because people like that won't stand for socialism. Hard working ambitious people want to be properly compensated for their efforts. They want to see results commensurate to their contributions.

We certainly don't need socialism to do that. What we need is compassionate capitalism, because it takes capitalism to have enough funds to do those social programs that promote the general welfare.

Employment at will is not an evil, it is the socialist concepts of employment at will which is the wrong element. The very idea of to each according to his needs can be great, but we could never provide for those needs unless we have a mans to create the wealth to fund the needs, and socialism can't do it.

Only the efficiencies of Capitalism is able to increase prosperity such that social metrics can be carried out.

As a humanist I agree with the Social goodness of a moral of "goodwill toward men" but I am intelligent enough to know Socialism will never create the wealth to put it into practice.

Bad question Daniel. But I will answer what it seems you are trying to ask. Only an economic system which creates wealth enough such that the process of distributing prosperity to the most people in the best way possible, can do the things you want to do for the people. And that economic system is not socialism because it fails at the first step, SOCIALISM CANNOT CREATE THE NECESSARY WEALTH to do those things, it will take capitalism, and in my opinion regulated capitalism.

It appears you are trying to say, that after the wealth is created by capitalism which then finances the infrastructure, that the infrastructure could be used to better distribute wealth to the less wealthy. The problem is, it won't last, because the infrastructure must be continuously maintained, and Socialism does not create enough prosperity to do that.

No Daniel it can't. Human nature will not allow it to. High performing humans will not continue to carry the load for the low performing ones forever, and in Socialism the only people paid enough for high performance are the leaders, not the high performing people.

Our mission statement is a document designed to allow men to work at their best, with private property protected such that personal initiative, motivation and ambition can bring rewards commensurate with their actions. IE CAPITALISM!

This cannot be carried out with socialism:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ​

 

Why not, if as is claimed by those of that point of view; not only should unfettered markets be more prevalent, but they should also be doing wonders for their "constituencies" due to all the savings from not having the Expense of Government.

 

People by nature, seem to be compatible with social ideas or Religion would have never been an issue in our historical record.

However, you seem to be missing the concept of merely engendering enough social morals to bear true witness to our own laws, for free, which usually results in changes to peoples behavior.

Why do you believe a market friendly public policy that relies on the socialism of bearing true witness to our own laws regarding the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will, would have any deleterious effect on the People?

In other words, if we are only providing for the social Blessings of economic forms of Liberty, why do alleged Capitalists have a problem with it?

How can ensuring full employment of resources be a bad thing for labor, in that market? I justify the label, full employment of resources due to the positive effect of more money circulating in our Institution of money based markets and our form of Capitalism.

What Aristotle claims of democracy should hold true for Institutions of money based markets under our form of "democratic capitalism".