Why not solve simple poverty in our republic...

Yet, in modern economic times, mixed (social and capital) economies have the highest standards of living when compared to less developed economies that may not even be social enough to have a central Bank, under Any form of Capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

We already have the infrastructure in our republic.

Supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

 

Yes and they all have yachts, maids, butlers, groundskeepers, personal chef's, a big screen projection TV in every room in all their houses, gold teef, and tax shelters for the income they don't claim from their minimum wage job at Burger King, in the Caribbean.

 

I believe that because it is historical fact. There has never been a socialist country which did not fail miserably. Social contracts are exclusive to socialism and our constitution simply lays out the basic rules for what is our capitalist economic system.

What is curious is your suggestion in spite of all the definitions of what socialism is and what social contracts are, not a single one complied with your opinion. You appear to be ineducable.

 

We are supposed to be following the Order established by our Founding Fathers, and pursuing Happiness as a result.

- - - Updated - - -

pleading, specially, for his Cause, seems to be his strong suit.

- - - Updated - - -

Wikipedia has an encyclopedia entry, not merely a dictionary entry.

 

Nope! "Ludwig von Mises Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism."

Yep! Bought and paid for by taxation on our capitalist economy.

It can't unless there is a corresponding demand side as well.

 

It depends on the amount and application of socialism; why you believe I not only claim, but proclaim and even declaim and sometimes perhaps, even decry the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers from the public domain; Our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Here is our mission statement:

It could be the purest Application of socialism there is.

 

To put it in language you like, we are expressing true witness to the freedoms envisioned by our founding fathers with our capitalist economic system.

The only special pleading going on is your misguided efforts to suggest socialism of any form or depth can be successful. It can't!

It doesn't matter. It is still a user edited reference. All of the reasonable definitions tells, and wiki as well, that socialism is defined as government owned or controlled production, distribution and wealth. You simply cannot get around that as the proper definition of socialism.

 

The most important part of socialism is government owned or controlled production, distribution and wealth. Without that specific element it is not 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."

Nothing in the preamble nor in our constitution is there and inference, implication, suggestion or even a hint it is socialism.

All of that is in place as our social contract to ensure private property, defend our country and protect our capitalist economic system.

 

Can you explain the two distinct patterns, in our mixed-market economy?

Simply having a public sector is a form of socialism due to income transfers that may be accomplish through the coercive use of force of the State and simply termed, taxation.

 

Simply claiming your source is exhaustive is special pleading; all of my hypotheses have more sound reasoning than your appeals to emotion and non sequiturs.

- - - Updated - - -

Socialism simply calls it Taxation through the social Powers delegated through that social Contract.

 

Can you cite, specifically, which phrases of our preamble, are the capital Part?

 

The fact is, we only have one kind of economic system, capitalism. The fact that our capitalism creates enough prosperity to fund social programs is not a second pattern, it is part of the first and it is not socialism.

Wrong! Having a public sector, or distribution of income to the needy, whether there is or is not coercive use of force and taxation is used to fund our government does not make us socialist in any way. You can't have it both ways. Either private enterprise is allowed or it is not. You have wriggled around trying to find some way to call our system either socialist or part socialist from the very beginning, and you have yet to understand what the meaning of socialism really is.

 

None of your reasoning is sound because you are basing it on a fallacy that government is socialism and that we have any form of socialism in the US.

Having the powers to tax is not socialism. Our social contract is not socialism. Social programs are not socialism. None of those things are socialism because our country lacks the one thing that must exist for it to be socialist; that being government ownership and/or control of production, distribution and wealth. Until those elements exist, and until we no longer have private enterprise as our economic system, we are not socialist.

- - - Updated - - -

The relevant issue is, there is no mention of socialism by name or by context. It is nothing but the introduction to our constitution which is written as a guide to creating laws and it all supports capitalism, not socialism.

BTW, when do you expect to graduate from grade school Daniel?

 

So what you are saying is our government supplies socialist components within the government that are socialist by nature but we are in no way an economy with socialist influence or control? BS.

Those components influence our economy each and every day. Without things like roadways and bridges our economic structure would come to a standstill.

Without our military intervening throughout the world protecting corporate interests, those interests could very well be lost. In fact if the government protection of national resources, we could be slaves to the Middle East or on the verge of being. That's why we use their resources and so little of our own. We also have the FBI, CIA, NSA, OSI, and whole bunch of other government entities which have over the years been supporting dictators, over throwing democracy, and protecting corporate interests throughout the world.

Without law enforcement and the court systems, standing by efficiently/effectively protecting both private and public interests, our economy would be in turmoil.

Only an idiot wouldn't recognize those socialistic components of our government yet fail to comprehend how instrumental they are in manipulating the economy for American interest both at home and abroad.

How about all those corporate subsidy programs? Corporate welfare is just as important to this plutocracy of ours (yes I realize it is an oxymoron but I'm on a roll dammit) as a semi free, government influenced market as anything else tossed into the mix. Hell even food stamps/medi-whatever/welfare itself are all about helping selective corporate interests, and has basically little to do with actually looking out for the poor and downtrodden, and nobody really gives two squats about those hungry malnourished peasants kids anyway.

You must be delirious to pretend that socialistic components have not been instated within the government for the good of capitalism, cronyism as it may actually be, but arguing the point makes you look foolish and in total denial. Deny it all you want but it doesn't make it go away.

We are a socialistic/capitalistic economy whether you wish to accept the reality or not. Thank you and buy bonds.

 

What I am saying is, and I iterate,

Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done ​

Nothing in our economics system, nor in our government is by definition socialism. Do we have social programs? Of course we do. That does not make us socialist.You can whine and cry BS all you want. Those are the simple facts.

Our infrastructure was paid for by taxes and that does not indicate socialism.

Defense and law enforcement is a function of government and it can be present in a capitalist economic system like the US or a socialist state like the USSR.

The fact that we are good citizens of the world, whether you like that part or not, we are still not socialist.

All very true, but it is still not socialism.

They are social components, not socialism, because our economic system is capitalistic.

In fact I well comprehend how instrumental all of those government functions are, but we are still not socialist.

Neither corporate welfare/subsidy or government influence through regulation or monetary and fiscal policies make us socialist. Private enterprise still makes all of the primary decisions of what to produce, how to price it, how to distribute it to the consumer.

Your problem is trying to equate social programs to socialism, whether those programs are good, bad or indifferent and whether you like them or not.

There cannot be a mixed economy. It is either capitalist or socialist, and nothing you have mentioned suggests to the contrary. Social programs do not make us socialist.

There is one other element which will tell you if we are, or not socialist. Socialism cannot exist without an autocratic/dictatorial government.

BTW, I note your insults and I suggest you not insult me again whether it is specific or in a round about way.

 

It's not my problem. You are simply saying it is all or nothing. Well that just isn't true. If it is then we are not capitalist either. You can't have it both ways. You are going to have to come up with a name that includes an economic structure that utilizes bits and pieces of socialism, and bits and pieces of capitalism, or you are just going to have to accept the reality, that the economic structure of this country is diverse, and fits no exact definition.

 

What I am saying is, either a system is capitalist or socialist. There is no such thing as real mixed economy. The most important issue of socialism, something which must exist if it is to be socialism is, ownership or control of production, distribution and wealth. The fact that a socialist system allows some small enterprise businesses does not make it capitalist. We do not have government telling private enterprise what to make, how to make it, how much to make or what price to charge thus we are not socialist. The issue that is obviously baffling you is, the existence of social programs; none of which makes us socialist. You may also be baffled by regulation which is there to prevent fraud and unfair business practices. That doesn't make us socialist either. I really on't have to come up with anything other than to post the actual definitions. If you choose not to believe them that is your affair, but those definitions were written for a reason, that being to differentiate between the systems.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

1.
a 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.

Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapətlˌizəm/
noun
noun: capitalism

1.
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Full Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market ​

IOW Joe, I have no intention of trying to change existing definitions, nor will I get into a p...ing contest with you about it.

It is obvious that all countries have elements of both systems, but that does not make them mixed. The important issue is which system dominates the individual country and its economic system. Capitalism dominates the system in the US. It is not a mixed economy, it simply has some social programs.

It appears that what you don't like are all the social programs in the US. I don't either, but most of them are essential to a mature economy. Mature capitalism has some regulation and some social programs. Mature socialism has an autocratic/dictatorial government and some small businesses which the state allows or chooses not to be involved with.

 

It may be many things but it isn't necessarily racist, as every race in America has people on welfare.

 

Joe read your own sig line. That is what von Mises is, in essence, arguing will always be the end result of government control of the economy.

 

I meant his post was. The comments were aimed at black people specifically so I called them out. No disagreement that we have all races represented by need.

 

I read the same thing. I must ahve missed something...

 

Why do you believe income transfers and the coercive use of force of a State, is not a form of socialism? Can you name any command doesn't resort to that form of socialism? Our public sector is that form of socialism.

- - - Updated - - -

Our preamble enumerates Social goals not Capital goals; working back from that, you previous arguments are much less relevant.

 

Because to be socialism the government would have to own or control production, distribution and wealth. Income transfers and what you call coercive use of force by a state are not socialism. Our public sector is government and government is not socialist unless 1. it owns or controls the production of goods and services, the distribution of that production and wealth of the country.

Our preamble is an introduction to our constitution. It says nothing about what kind of economic system. My previous arguments have all been right on point. Our government is not socialist and our economic system is not socialist. You have presented no argument thus far suggesting anything about our country or its economic system is socialist. All you are doing is special pleading for socialism and you have no argument; and you have not posted a shred of support to back your point of view, while I have posted definitions and examples of everything I have posted.

 

Let us try something very simple. Water is made up of two parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. Both parts are important to being water. One cannot say hydrogen is water any more than one can say oxygen is water. It takes all of the important elements, in this case 2, to be water.

That is like you saying government, the public sector is socialism without the other key elements, that being government ownership or control of production and distribution are key elements of socialism. One can't look at production which is not owned and/or controlled by the state and call it socialism. In the US the government does not own or control the production of goods and services so that element is missing. In the US the government does not control the distribution of goods and services so that element is missing. Therefore, since the two most important elements of socialism are both missing here in the US anyone with two brain cells to rub together know for an absolute fact that the US is not socialist. In addition, one other requirement for socialism to stand even a temporary period is an autocratic/dictatorship type of government. So the third most important element is also missing. In other words Daniel, the US is not socialist, is not partially socialist, is not in any way socialist, period.

 

Well we can agree to disagree on that point, since the government we have meddles and manipulates the economy at such extreme and drastic levels it can hardly be considered totally capitalistic. And as you mention below in the bold;

Some I do not like many I believe I understand their importance, but for the most part we agree on that whole paragraph.