Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

Why would capitalism need to regulate fraud under any truer form of Capitalism where only voluntary and mutually beneficial market transactions take place, that have the effect of improving the standard of living of the market participants involved?

 

If you want a fair and glorious earth, then you hit a reset button and even things out between men from what's happened with these centuries of worldwide war and fraud. Then you practice what your mama taught you, which no state has ever adhered to. The transition would be painful and none of us would live to see the benefits.

If you want a disaster, jump right into fascistic socialism as the west has done.

If you want a decent life, push to break up that fascist system starting at the head of the snake, the central power.

 

You may want to convince gun lover to stop engendering a one nation, unitary form of federal government, through the process of incorporation.

 

Won't matter if you hit the reset button. If you took every penny in the world and piled it all together and then spread it evenly to every person out there... The people who used to be rich will become rich again and the people who used to be poor will go back to being poor.

Rich people understand that they need to invest and save... and when they do purchase they purchase assets not liabilities.

Poor people do not invest and save. They spend their money. And worse still, they don't spend their money on assets, they buy cars and rims and tvs and cable and jewelry... they purchase liabilities.

You will eventually come back to the same type of monetary distribution that you had before.

 

Capitalism is the ONLY viable long-term economic option.

 

Capitalism doesn't intrinsically care about rights one way or the other - it's an economic model, nothing more. For instance, you can have capitalism is a society with slaves, and you can have capitalism in a society where slavery is outlawed. Seems to me the questions of 'rights' is in many ways tangential to whether the means of production are traded on the market.

Not sure how it's a political system, exactly, but otherwise true.

False. There are a lot of different models of socialism, and a lot of different ideas about how to calculate value under a socialist model. And the involvement of a state is optional. If 'socialism' is just a society where the companies are jointly owned by it's employees, then I see no reason for a state to interfere with things.

Points for expressing as an opinion. At first glance, you seem like someone reasonable enough to have a discussion with.

Why do you believe this to be the case?

 

Not very well, which is why most formulations of socialism go with something closer to "To each according to his contribution". "To each according to his needs" is communism.

As explained above, not applicable.

Depends on the version of socialism. The state, the market, powerful computers, direct vote...could be anything.

And again, none of that has anything to do with socialism.

 

Because there will always be socialists trying to take someone's money without earning it. I mean criminals.

 

You're talking about lifestyles really, not economic systems. Capitalism allows free choice of such lifestyles, whereas socialism doesn't really allow the choice.

 

Cause the economic principles of capitalism are obviously totally different when you go from DVDs to lettuce.

Garbage.

- - - Updated - - -

Excuse me for pointing out truthes, I hope they don't inconvenience you further.

 

Socialism allows one to avoid the consequences of failure by means of limiting the consequences of success.

There currently exist two types of socialism in the world de facto and de jure. Under de jure the state owns the means of production out right, and the concurrent head aches of trying to run those businesses without pissing of enough of the electorate that they get booted from office a la pre Thatcher labor in England. This is largely why De jure has passed from the scene in Western Democracies to be replace by de facto socialism in which the facade of private ownership remains but the owners are so hemmed in by rules and regulations enforced by an ever growing body of government flunkies that for all practical purposes the owner is little more than another bureaucrat trying to implement the policies establish by a largely unaccountable body of bureaucrats. It works some what smother in Europe than it does in the US because Europe only has to level of bureacracy the EU and the bureacracies of the member states and they usually though not always agree as to policy. In the US it barely works at all because there are four different bureacracy in play and all are constantly jockeying for position and are frequently at logger heads over what is the proper way to proceed and the top level does not always automatically get the last say simply by virtue of being the top level for in the end the judicial bureacracy has the final say.

 

The ONLY place where socialism works in in revenue sharing among sports teams. Football is more socialist in that regards compared to baseball and you end up with a much more competitive field from year to year because there aren't such huge discrepancies how much is spent on getting the good players.

 

In other words, it is "criminals" now who refuse to bear true witness to our own laws regarding employment at will simply for the sake of morals and a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

 

There IS a difference. Lettuce could be considered a necessity. You need food to live. You don't need DVDs to live. This was the distinction I was making. To corner the markets on things people cannot live without is in essence a form of oppression if you start price fixing for profit.

 

Capitalism and socialism are economic systems. Social programs in a capitalist economic system is not socialism. Neither does a very small private business in a socialist economic system make the system capitalist.

- - - Updated - - -

In any system some people are dishonest and want to take advantage of others. Regulating a system to prevent that does not change what the basic system is.

 

There is a lot of truth to that assertion. I have seen people get rich, make a bad decision and go broke, start over again and get rich again. In some cases several times. Ambition, motivation, willingness to take risks.

 

So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," if the publicly created value of land is not appropriated and pocketed by greedy, privileged private landowners, then there is no private property....?

If the things no human being created aren't forcibly appropriated as private property, then nothing that humans created is private property, either?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that.

In my opinion, if there was a vicious, evil, lying sack of $#!+ who was as stupid as a bag of hammers and as dishonest as a mob lawyer running for Congress, he would claim that as the oceans, the atmosphere, and the alphabet are not private property owned by people who live as parasites by charging the rest of us rent for using them, then there is no private property of any kind.

 

Ambitious and motivated people become resentful if their actions enrich others the same as it enriches themselves. Only an autocratic government can force acceptance, but no forever.

- - - Updated - - -

They were questions thrown out for people to think about. I believe everyone of them is relevant to one form of socialism or another.

 

IME the most important qualities in predicting whether someone will get rich are sense of entitlement and lack of scruple. Those who get rich are almost always utterly convinced that they deserve much, much more than other people, and don't care what they have to do to get it.

 

Actually they are economic and political systems.

 

Very confusing assertion. Please interpret into plain English.

 

I find that premise very difficult to believe. Yes, call it refusal.

 

Not at all. As one of the definitions said, publicly or cooperatively owned land is part of socialism.

No, you figured it wrong again. That seems to be a habit with you. Most land is not forcibly appropriated as private property. What is offered for sale is purchased, at the market prices and the title in freehold is passed on. It is a form of tenured possession.

It seems you can't write a post or message without insulting someone, whether it is an individual member you are addressing or some vague class of people you don't like. Even though landowners as a group are no more parasitic than any other group you insist on disparaging them. Owning land for rent is a valid and productive investment.

BTW, insults of landowners shows your lack of ability to communicate reasonably.

 

Corporations do not "invest" in the labor force any more. They take. If you took every penny in the world and piled it together, as you suggest, the corporate rich would slip and fall into oblivion. Money off of money, off of money. That ISN'T actual growth. It's tyranny.

 

So now you are insulting everyone who is ambitious, motivated, intelligent and a high achiever and has the good fortune to get wealthy. Of course some are villains, but not all, not by any means.