Capitalism or Socialism choose a side and state your point

[Rooster Cogburn]

The old boom-and-bust is caused by aberrations in the market, such as when people make inadvisable investments based on bad information. This causes capital to be invested where it will not produce, and therefore will bust. In a free market, this will be possible as long as people are stupid, but the single greatest cause of capital invested where it will not produce is state regulation.

This is where you lost me. Now, I may be ridiculously stupid, don't rule it out, but why would the government have a better understanding of where to invest if the government is run by the same stupid people that make stupid investments? Moreover, wouldn't it be more likely for bad investments to happen with politicians who don't naturally care about the benefit of the country or the people, but for their own personal gain? Wouldn't they just invest money in people who are likely to return their favor with campaign contributions?

You are exactly right. I apologize for being unclear- I was trying to explain that voluntary human action (the 'free market') is good, and government regulation (decree enforced by violence) is bad.

EDIT: CHEER! Indeed.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

Socialism is not communism.

For me, I'd make the sensible choice and take a combination of Capitalism and Socialism, like, I don't know, a good lot of countries are using right now.

You have most defining qualitities of Capitalism, but people who don't have the best jobs or the most money can still benefit from governmental programs that get funded by taxes - you know, stuff like free health care, decent free education, et cetera.

took the words out of my mouth.... or fingers I guess.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

The old boom-and-bust is caused by aberrations in the market, such as when people make inadvisable investments based on bad information. This causes capital to be invested where it will not produce, and therefore will bust. In a free market, this will be possible as long as people are stupid, but the single greatest cause of capital invested where it will not produce is state regulation.

This is where you lost me. Now, I may be ridiculously stupid, don't rule it out, but why would the government have a better understanding of where to invest if the government is run by the same stupid people that make stupid investments? Moreover, wouldn't it be more likely for bad investments to happen with politicians who don't naturally care about the benefit of the country or the people, but for their own personal gain? Wouldn't they just invest money in people who are likely to return their favor with campaign contributions?

You are exactly right. I apologize for being unclear- I was trying to explain that voluntary human action (the 'free market') is good, and government regulation (decree enforced by violence) is bad.

Ah-ha! Fantastic. I'm not as stupid as I thought.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Capitalism <-- If you want money you have to earn it, if you don't get out and earn your cash then you deserve to be at the bottom.

 

[mongolloid]

I'd rather have a system in place that makes use of the nature of mankind for the betterment of mankind. This is why I support capitalism.

my friend you are sadly mistaking.

nature is currently being abused BECAUSE of our current capitalist ways. a few people use nature as a revenue source, such as oil, and end up pillaging the earth, and fighting over the rights for it.

im not 100% sure the socialism is better for nature, but it seems that way, because then everyone shares equal amounts of it

all i have to say about the original question is that pure communism (socialism), is much better for the world as a whole, than pure capitalism

 

[mongolloid]

and for the people who say that there would be no motivation for people with socialism in place, all i have to say is that the motivation would be the promise of a better world for all, and you would be hard pressed to argue that happiness comes from helping others, and yourself, achieve something greater than any individual possibly could

and also you have to realize that the world is symbiotic, maybe in theory, but still you have to put that into consideration.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

I'd rather have a system in place that makes use of the nature of mankind for the betterment of mankind. This is why I support capitalism.

my friend you are sadly mistaking.

nature is currently being abused BECAUSE of our current capitalist ways. a few people use nature as a revenue source, such as oil, and end up pillaging the earth, and fighting over the rights for it.

im not 100% sure the socialism is better for nature, but it seems that way, because then everyone shares equal amounts of it

all i have to say about the original question is that pure communism (socialism), is much better for the world as a whole, than pure capitalism

I meant human nature, not leafy vegetable nature. It is human nature to be greedy. The best way to become wealthy in a capitalist society is to invent the best widget you can and market it. I'll grant you that it wont always work out for the best for earth, but I think that society as a whole is trying not to destroy the planet and as soon as someone is granted lease to actually market a clean energy source(politicians can't ***** about something that isn't a problem, right? I mean, if they really cared about having clean, renewable energy maybe they would stop importing all the oil) then everyone will jump on the band wagon and live better. It's not necessary to legislate people being good to the environment. It can work in a capitalist system.

edit:

and for the people who say that there would be no motivation for people with socialism in place, all i have to say is that the motivation would be the promise of a better world for all, and you would be hard pressed to argue that happiness comes from helping others, and yourself, achieve something greater than any individual possibly could

and also you have to realize that the world is symbiotic, maybe in theory, but still you have to put that into consideration.

You're arguing collectivism vs individualism. People are more likely to work for their personal betterment than the betterment of the whole. It's easier to care about yourself than it is to care if some kid in Africa is getting enough food to eat.

 

[resultsmayvary]

Socialism does give the opportunity for gainful laziness. I am however a fan of universal health care and government funded education for anyone who wants it. I think it betters the society and country as a whole to give full education to everyone who wants it. It leads to have more people that are beneficial to your social structure.

Full Socialism doesn't work in the long run though. It's very taxing on the wallet and needs to be more of an added bonus than an entire economical basis.

 

[101194]

Are you for the money grubbing capitalists or the system thats trying to make everyone equal but is just as corrupt as the other. Let the debate begin!

I did this thread like two months ago, Use the search bar please, Russia calls us Communist, It should be there, Basicly like this thread.

 

[Kollega]

I'm taking position perfectly at the center,a tiny bit closer to Capitalism. That's because Capitalism taken to the extreme is Cyberpunk,and Socialism taken to the extreme is Nineteen-Eighty Four,whereas a good mix of systems can provide not perfect but best solution. But i lean a bit towards Capitalism,since political and economical freedom go hand-to-hand,and i like the concept of freedom.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I'd rather have a system in place that makes use of the nature of mankind for the betterment of mankind. This is why I support capitalism.

my friend you are sadly mistaking.

nature is currently being abused BECAUSE of our current capitalist ways. a few people use nature as a revenue source, such as oil, and end up pillaging the earth, and fighting over the rights for it.

im not 100% sure the socialism is better for nature, but it seems that way, because then everyone shares equal amounts of it

all i have to say about the original question is that pure communism (socialism), is much better for the world as a whole, than pure capitalism

I meant human nature, not leafy vegetable nature. It is human nature to be greedy. The best way to become wealthy in a capitalist society is to invent the best widget you can and market it. I'll grant you that it wont always work out for the best for earth, but I think that society as a whole is trying not to destroy the planet and as soon as someone is granted lease to actually market a clean energy source(politicians can't ***** about something that isn't a problem, right? I mean, if they really cared about having clean, renewable energy maybe they would stop importing all the oil) then everyone will jump on the band wagon and live better. It's not necessary to legislate people being good to the environment. It can work in a capitalist system.

Indeed. In the early nineteenth century, if a nearby railroad or factory polluted your water or warmed your globe, you sued their ass for damages. This was the free market at work. It meant that businesses had to be environmentally friendly to be profitable. But, because government exists to serve the interests of a privileged elite, Progressive courts ruled that the interests of a privileged elite were the interests of 'the people'. Therefore, a select few were allowed to pollute with immunity from those they harmed, free market be damned.

The oil industry is not an example of a free market. I don't know how you're defining Capitalism, but some privileged government stooges fighting over table scraps from state controlled resources has nothing to do with any concept of a 'free market'.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Socialism is not communism.

For me, I'd make the sensible choice and take a combination of Capitalism and Socialism, like, I don't know, a good lot of countries are using right now.

You have most defining qualitities of Capitalism, but people who don't have the best jobs or the most money can still benefit from governmental programs that get funded by taxes - you know, stuff like free health care, decent free education, et cetera.

Yea, that could all work. I mean, it's not like those things cost an ungodly amount of money. Thank goodness there's no way for our countries to become bankrupt from too much spending...

Yes, yes, sarcasm is a very great thing.

I think the Obama/Bush administrations have proven quite well that the government can spend as much as they like with absolutely no direct effect on the economy. [/sarcasm]

 

[Cuniculus]

I don't see why it has to be either one. Both have good ideas. They say that nationalizing health care is a socialist move, but it's good to have health people, even if they can't afford to be.

The problem with nationalized, universal healthcare (at least for me) is that it'll accelerate the growth of a serious problem already present in industrialized nations. namely "Speciel Weakness" (sometimes called "Special Weakness"). The growing rates of cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, weak immune systems, allergies, birth defects, and innumerable other diseases is no coincidence, and it doesn't just link to our food and exercise habits. As our healthcare has advanced, so has our ability to survive. While this may sound good on the surface (and it generally is), over time, people that would NEVER survive in the wild now live as long, or longer, than people who are naturally healthy, and generally pass on their genes accordingly. This means that each generation is progressivly weaker than the last.

Universal healthcare, by extending healthcare to millions more people, would be like throwing an enourmous amount of wood on a fire in an attempt to put it out (temporarily covering up the problem, instead of solving it, but making it worse in the end).

The only way I would vote for national healthcare is if it included a "Eugenics" (Selective breeding of humans) clause, meaning that people that can genetically pass on their diseases to the next generation would not be allowed to (or be discouraged from) breeding. This would make the system serve as an investment in the future, instead of as hort-sighted action for the "here and now." As time went on, and artificial selection took the place of natural selection, fewer and fewer people would get sick and, eventually, the "healthcare crisis," as we know it, would be over for good.

Other then the Hitler mindset, that makes sense.

Anyone know what the downsides to national health care are to people who aren't breeding a superior race?

 

[fenrizz]

Socialism doesn't try to make everyone equal. Socialism believes in giving everyone a fair chance at success. Ideas such as security benifits and unemployment benefits (the dole) are socialist by nature. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive.

This.

OT: Socialism, because it works.

 

[A random person]

I'm for a mixture. People can try to become rich and competition is good for the consumers, but wealth gets spread around so no one has to be poor and businesses are regulated to stop monopolies and bad business practices that hurt the consumers (if it wasn't for consumer advocacy we wouldn't have airbags as standard).

Really, I believe in a comfortable living always being available and allowing people to strive for greater wealth and power through superior business (the wealth spreading would just inhibit hilarious amounts of wealth that's only useful if you want to gold plate everything).

But definitely have universal healthcare. Peoples lives aren't just a business.