Socialism reminds me of a religion.

[zombflux]

Socialism can not work.

However, a lot of people are greedy and selfish- so capitalism seems to work for greedy, selfish people.

In an ideal world, I'd kill you all.

 

[jman737]

As has been pointed out, there are some things capitalism does well such as encouraging good car manufacture. However, it falls in the face of the human bottom line which will always crimp optimal productivity. Leaving everyone to fend for themselves in the face of a free market with conglomerates and the like is simply stupid. It doesn't work because there aren't enough jobs for everyone, the differences in background -do- impact upon what people can become, and the second you start looking for numbers above and beyond everything else you're going to hamstring the people on the bottom.

I understand that there are bitter feelings towards the inhumane treatment of those who are less fortunate in capitalism. One example, that I heard from the Colorado State Speaker of the House (who actually does know what he's talking about), was his life story. He grew up in one of the worst neighborhoods in Washington DC, has a bald spot from when he was hit in the back of the head with a baseball bat, and had only a single mother to take care of him. Yet, he did become the Speaker of the House of the State of Colorado, was an Eagle Scout, went to nationals in track, and went to one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. Apparently, the slums of Washington DC are a breeding ground of success, or capitalism gives the opportunity for people to strive to work out of the set background.

 

[jman737]

But definitions are flimsy things that break under the stress of reality. The reality of modern communism (take in mind that modern communism has absolutely nothing to do with theoretical communism) is more akin to a dictatorship than it is to its definition. Unfortunately, that's how reality plays out sometimes: It takes a pristine definition and ends up breaking it over its harsh and bony knee with no consideration what the author had in mind. Stupid reality. [insert shake of fist towards the sky]

But Moaism, Stalinism and the various other 20th century self labelled 'communists' were not actually consistant with any communist ideals. The big three being complete freedom of speech, completey democracy and complete freedom of religion were all ignored. It's just plain wrong to attribute communism to those who used it's name in their propoganda to seize power.

Accepting them as communists and therefore using them as examples of communist trends is like deciding that the 'Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea' is a good example of democracy, and thus claiming that all democratic ideals are flawed because you'll invariably get a currupted leader desperately trying to hold onto power. Or that Christianity as a whole is evil and encourages hate crimes and terorism because of a handful of extremists, it's just an unfair and innacurate generalisation.

I'm sorry, I unfortunately made some writing errors in my post. What I was trying to say was that "modern communism" is not communism at all and that associating modern communism with communism is vastly incorrect.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

As always, science tends to throw our sweet dreams into a trash bin and anchor us to the cold harsh reality. Scientific method has brought us proof that Capitalism is in every way a superior way of handing the economy, yet it constantly faces harsh opposition from believers who represent the "moral option" and deny science partly or completely. Even worse, it's impossible to argue with such people, because you are using logical arguments, models and principles they have abandoned altogether and more sophisticated proof requires years of studying.

Capitalism vs Socialism -threads seem to be doomed into falling to the same "YES, NO" -type of arguing that makes religious threads so tiresome.

I don't care about the socialism thing. That's fine, because you are right, fanatical socialists are like that. So are fanatical communists. So are fanatical...well anything.

However, your analysis of Capitalism is a bit off. If you would like to say science proves all of this I am going to have to ask for one very important thing: a source. If you don't have one than it is not science proving this. It seems that you may be reaching to say that history has proven this, the problem is, it hasn't. America is a great example of a capitalist society. It seems great for everyone, they all get the sweat of their own brow and all that. However, it doesn't take long for one person to rise to the top and earn more than others while the sweating occurs on other peoples brow.

While Competition often breeds success, and even has in the US, it also does one other thing: Discourage anyone else who would like to compete with those who were already successful. Why would they after all? Loose all of my money and get bought out before I can even get my company on it's feet? I think I'll pass. Of course, if someone doesn't do the illogical thing and compete with them, then how do we keep a check on the people that are currently successful. How are we supposed to keep them from charging exorbitant fees? This is how monopolies are made. This is why MS was split into two. This is why capitalism without any socialist values doesn't work.

Also, think, which country had one of the greatest depressions of all time? The good old US of A. It took a war and selling to other nations on the blood of dead soldiers to even get back to normal. I don't really feel like getting into this too much, as it should be obvious that this was on giant hole in capitalist America.

You could also look at the typical, "It hurts the lower class and keeps the homeless, homeless," argument. However, I feel that gets done to death.

You are a primary example of precisely why people are in the position they are in and thus why they abhor capitalism. You have defeated yourself before even trying and now claim capitalism is the reason you cannot compete. Nonsense. Microsoft is one of the highest grossing companies in the entire world and yet it was created by a college student with a good idea in the city that housed the already gargantuan IBM. Is IBM more successful than Microsoft? Significant however when you are clearing billions a year do you honestly hold concerns of being in second place?

People cannot succeed simply because they do not attempt to. The 'evils' of McDonalds, Wal*Mart or Starbucks is just too intimidating. How you compete with them is you either accomplish what they have yet to or find something that has yet to be properly marketed and do so yourself. Netflix chose to run with an online rental service and look at their financial figures today.

Are you required to gamble money? Of course however if you are afraid to risk something for a potential success, you have no reason to complain about your current standing. You never tried to improve, thus you never did. Why should you expect any less and why should it be easy to be successful?

Nonetheless capitalist is superior in my opinion however and there is always a "however", not in its purest form. There are some aspects of socialism I can agree upon, such as free healthcare and a wage increase (The US should at least match Canada.)

 

[Labyrinth]

I understand that there are bitter feelings towards the inhumane treatment of those who are less fortunate in capitalism. One example, that I heard from the Colorado State Speaker of the House (who actually does know what he's talking about), was his life story. He grew up in one of the worst neighborhoods in Washington DC, has a bald spot from when he was hit in the back of the head with a baseball bat, and had only a single mother to take care of him. Yet, he did become the Speaker of the House of the State of Colorado, was an Eagle Scout, went to nationals in track, and went to one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. Apparently, the slums of Washington DC are a breeding ground of success, or capitalism gives the opportunity for people to strive to work out of the set background.

I find your example distinctly similar to the victory touted by say, the lottery. Or by weight-loss diet ads with those before and after shots. If you look at the statistics it is a case of "Results not typical" for the success stories.

 

[Skeleon]

There are fanatics on both sides of the argument, as always. Saying that Socialism is religious-like is pretty narrow-minded, though. Same thing would go for Capitalism if you look at the most fanatical supporters. Truth is, both are flawed systems.

 

[Thaius]

Really? I've heard religious misconceptions before, but this is the first time I've actually heard someone compare their horribly misconceived notions of religion to something like socialism; not to mention you've actually managed to hate on two things at once. Bravo, sir: you've managed to find a whole new level of flaming.

 

[Agema]

You're really talking about ideologies.

Someone who believes strongly in any ideology can apply that ideology without reference to pragmatism and reality.

I could make the same accustaion of being treated like a religion against capitalism. There are plenty of examples where, in the real world, people have thrown capitalism at a problem and the result has been a godawful, stinking mess. This is because extremist capitalists have just assumed their ideology works on everything, and not bothered to look at real-world reasons it might not. People have argued on these forums that capitalism solves all manner of problems, probably the craziest of which I've seen was someone claiming it's the best way to combat discrimination.

So, yes, people can cling to socialism like a religion. But the same applies to pretty much any -ism you can mention: in each one there are extremists who look at the ideology before pragmatism.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Now, take for example, car production. It has been proven, time and again, that this lies best within the hands of a capitalist free market. Put simply, the free market is far, far better at producing cars. The goods produced are cheaper, faster, more reliable, more efficent and, all in all better. And you don't have to wait three years to get one (Unlike, say, a Trabant.) And yet there are many socialists who would argue, to the bitter end, in the face of the overwhelming evidence that the free market is the most productively and allocatively efficent means of car production and distribution, that car production should be nationalised, and cars distributed on basis of need, not ability to purchase.

Well, a free market with regulation -- most prominently, safety regulations that define acceptable standards for a drivable car. That's a "free market" in terms of being a capitalist system with lots of competition, but it's not a "free market" in the crazy-libertarian-fapping sense of the term that's popular on talk TV and the Internet.

-- Alex

Damn right. I see we both have the same requirements for capitalism.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

Pure capitalism is Somalia.
The practice of Socialism or mixed economies as it were is actually far superior to pure capitalism.However if you completely remove capitalism, and not everyone has voluntarily agreed to this, you will destroy everything.

And I don't see as Socialists like religious people, because there has been nothing that says it just can't work.

Sadly there is. Ever heard of the Prisoner's dilemma?

Yeah, and what does that have to do with anything?
Also, I'm still waiting for Scandinavia and Western Europe to spontaneously collapse.

 

[paragon1]

Pure capitalism is Somalia.
The practice of Socialism or mixed economies as it were is actually far superior to pure capitalism.However if you completely remove capitalism, and not everyone has voluntarily agreed to this, you will destroy everything.

And I don't see as Socialists like religious people, because there has been nothing that says it just can't work.

Sadly there is. Ever heard of the Prisoner's dilemma?

Yeah, and what does that have to do with anything?
Also, I'm still waiting for Scandinavia and Western Europe to spontaneously collapse.

It shows that people can be confronted with a situation where what's best for them isn't best for the group. And people have to do what is best for the for socialism to work. Oh, and then there's the studies on group loafing. Which is basically the phenomenon where people don't work as hard on a group effort where they won't get full credit. Perhaps I misunderstood your eariler statement. Are you referring to pure socialism or mixed economies?

 

[jboking]

However, your analysis of Capitalism is a bit off. If you would like to say science proves all of this I am going to have to ask for one very important thing: a source. If you don't have one than it is not science proving this. It seems that you may be reaching to say that history has proven this, the problem is, it hasn't. America is a great example of a capitalist society. It seems great for everyone, they all get the sweat of their own brow and all that. However, it doesn't take long for one person to rise to the top and earn more than others while the sweating occurs on other peoples brow.

While Competition often breeds success, and even has in the US, it also does one other thing: Discourage anyone else who would like to compete with those who were already successful. Why would they after all? Loose all of my money and get bought out before I can even get my company on it's feet? I think I'll pass. Of course, if someone doesn't do the illogical thing and compete with them, then how do we keep a check on the people that are currently successful. How are we supposed to keep them from charging exorbitant fees? This is how monopolies are made. This is why MS was split into two. This is why capitalism without any socialist values doesn't work.

Also, think, which country had one of the greatest depressions of all time? The good old US of A. It took a war and selling to other nations on the blood of dead soldiers to even get back to normal. I don't really feel like getting into this too much, as it should be obvious that this was on giant hole in capitalist America.

You could also look at the typical, "It hurts the lower class and keeps the homeless, homeless," argument. However, I feel that gets done to death.

Actually, a great example of a capitalist society is the Chinese "special economic zones". America could really never be called completely capitalist, what with protectionist tariffs and government subsidies to farmers and other industries (not to mention the biggest bailouts).

It is, however, the longest lasting 'capitalism' and of course, I wasn't referencing contemporary America.

Also, you and I seem to have some very different ideas on economics, especially when it comes to small businesses. 1.Now,please forgive me for not having source, I learned this in Economics class, the majority of businesses are small business. This requires a LOT of entrepreneurs. I happen to know several, and (GASP!) they even manage to be successful despite the dreaded Wal-Mart being within walking distance.

Define Successful. I know people who owned their own businesses who got no further than being able to pay for their half of the bills and then eventually went under do to increasing competition from a larger company. They got left with the left over expenses after closing down too.

2. No one is going to buy you out unless your already quite successful. After all, why on Earth would anyone spend money to buyout a business that's going to fail anyway?

By out was hyperbole. As most large companies won't have to do anything to stomp out your company but naturally compete.

3. In America, the people who prevent abuse by ANY company are called the Better Business Bureau (BBB, for short), monopolies are usually closely monitored (like Major League Baseball) or broken up, and many lawyers are willing to help people form class-action lawsuits.

And this is an example of a non-capitalistic ideal, as it's government intervention in business.

4. When was Microsoft split into two?

I'll edit this when I have the time to look it up, it's been withing the last 20 years, naturally.

5. America didn't have the biggest depression in history. That honor falls to the Roman Empire. Lasted for a lot longer than ten years, as I recall. Also, The Great Depression and WWII were events that were caused by many, many bad things happening at the same time. While the war did help end the depression, we could have gotten the same results (and basically were) by fixing prices for a little while and paying a bunch of people a lot of money to dig a big ass hole and fill it up again.

and the Roman Empires depression couldn't have been basically the same thing. Tons of bad things all happening at once. It wasn't a matter of the bad things all happening at once, but our inability to handle them. I'm sorry to say I disagree with the idea that we were coming out of the depression. In fact, while we were rising out due to public work projects providing jobs to workers, we saw a recession the year before the war that looked like it would lead straight back to the hole we were already in.
ps. I'll submit that it wasn't the biggest depression ever, but you would be a fool to state that it wasn't large or detrimental to the country. To put it simply, it doesn't have to be the largest depression to prove that our system didn't work at the time.

There are some good ideas in socialism, but I'd suggest you try to focus what those are and how they'll work, or ,if your utterly convinced that capitalism is an evil to be scourged from the Earth, come up with slightly better arguments.

I was never said capitalism was evil in the first place, that would be putting words in my mouth. It was not the point of my argument at all, it was that the OP made wild claims that he refused to support. Even if his argument that 'capitalism is best!!1!!' is true to some extent, he argued it like it has absolutely no problems. That is likely why I quoted him, in order to have a conversation with him. I'm not arguing that socialism is better, simply that his idea regarding capitalism was unsupported and misleading.

 

[paragon1]

However, your analysis of Capitalism is a bit off. If you would like to say science proves all of this I am going to have to ask for one very important thing: a source. If you don't have one than it is not science proving this. It seems that you may be reaching to say that history has proven this, the problem is, it hasn't. America is a great example of a capitalist society. It seems great for everyone, they all get the sweat of their own brow and all that. However, it doesn't take long for one person to rise to the top and earn more than others while the sweating occurs on other peoples brow.

While Competition often breeds success, and even has in the US, it also does one other thing: Discourage anyone else who would like to compete with those who were already successful. Why would they after all? Loose all of my money and get bought out before I can even get my company on it's feet? I think I'll pass. Of course, if someone doesn't do the illogical thing and compete with them, then how do we keep a check on the people that are currently successful. How are we supposed to keep them from charging exorbitant fees? This is how monopolies are made. This is why MS was split into two. This is why capitalism without any socialist values doesn't work.

Also, think, which country had one of the greatest depressions of all time? The good old US of A. It took a war and selling to other nations on the blood of dead soldiers to even get back to normal. I don't really feel like getting into this too much, as it should be obvious that this was on giant hole in capitalist America.

You could also look at the typical, "It hurts the lower class and keeps the homeless, homeless," argument. However, I feel that gets done to death.

Actually, a great example of a capitalist society is the Chinese "special economic zones". America could really never be called completely capitalist, what with protectionist tariffs and government subsidies to farmers and other industries (not to mention the biggest bailouts).

It is, however, the longest lasting 'capitalism' and of course, I wasn't referencing contemporary America.

Also, you and I seem to have some very different ideas on economics, especially when it comes to small businesses. 1.Now,please forgive me for not having source, I learned this in Economics class, the majority of businesses are small business. This requires a LOT of entrepreneurs. I happen to know several, and (GASP!) they even manage to be successful despite the dreaded Wal-Mart being within walking distance.

Define Successful. I know people who owned their own businesses who got no further than being able to pay for their half of the bills and then eventually went under do to increasing competition from a larger company. They got left with the left over expenses after closing down too.

2. No one is going to buy you out unless your already quite successful. After all, why on Earth would anyone spend money to buyout a business that's going to fail anyway?

By out was hyperbole. As most large companies won't have to do anything to stomp out your company but naturally compete.

3. In America, the people who prevent abuse by ANY company are called the Better Business Bureau (BBB, for short), monopolies are usually closely monitored (like Major League Baseball) or broken up, and many lawyers are willing to help people form class-action lawsuits.

And this is an example of a non-capitalistic ideal, as it's government intervention in business.

4. When was Microsoft split into two?

I'll edit this when I have the time to look it up, it's been withing the last 20 years, naturally.

5. America didn't have the biggest depression in history. That honor falls to the Roman Empire. Lasted for a lot longer than ten years, as I recall. Also, The Great Depression and WWII were events that were caused by many, many bad things happening at the same time. While the war did help end the depression, we could have gotten the same results (and basically were) by fixing prices for a little while and paying a bunch of people a lot of money to dig a big ass hole and fill it up again.

and the Roman Empires depression couldn't have been basically the same thing. Tons of bad things all happening at once. It wasn't a matter of the bad things all happening at once, but our inability to handle them. I'm sorry to say I disagree with the idea that we were coming out of the depression. In fact, while we were rising out due to public work projects providing jobs to workers, we saw a recession the year before the war that looked like it would lead straight back to the hole we were already in.
ps. I'll submit that it wasn't the biggest depression ever, but you would be a fool to state that it wasn't large or detrimental to the country. To put it simply, it doesn't have to be the largest depression to prove that our system didn't work at the time.

There are some good ideas in socialism, but I'd suggest you try to focus what those are and how they'll work, or ,if your utterly convinced that capitalism is an evil to be scourged from the Earth, come up with slightly better arguments.

I was never said capitalism was evil in the first place, that would be putting words in my mouth. It was not the point of my argument at all, it was that the OP made wild claims that he refused to support. Even if his argument that 'capitalism is best!!1!!' is true to some extent, he argued it like it has absolutely no problems. That is likely why I quoted him, in order to have a conversation with him. I'm not arguing that socialism is better, simply that his idea regarding capitalism was unsupported and misleading.

Well, excuse me for mistaking this for an open thread. If you wanted to have a private conversation with him, then you should have used the PM function. First, I define successful as turning a profit consistently for the past 20 years, and having run their business for 30. Pretty good considering that 90% fail within the first 5 or 10 years.
Second, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was trying to address one of two possible attitudes on capitalism. If you'll reread the first half of that sentence, you'll see I was taking into account the possibility of you being slightly more rational as well. I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume things about me, either.

I'm sorry your friends didn't succeed. Although, if they live in my country, they should be aware of something called bankruptcy for small business owners (if I recall, its not the same as personal bankruptcy) which would get them out of those debts.

Now, I see your not referring to America today (something you failed to mention in your OP, btw) but many of the examples I've listed have been around since Andrew Jackson (tariffs in particular). It also seems (to me anyway) that in your original statement you called America's depression "one of the greatest of all time" and then go on to imply that it took a lot of dead soldiers to get out of it, and then further imply that this lay at the feet of "capitalist America". I simply wished point out that none of those were necessarily true.
Now your saying that we couldn't have come out of the Depression without the war? And how did we win that war?

Fine leadership aside, we won it by outproducing the enemy in guns, vehicles, trained soldiers, etc. Now, did we ever expect to see any of those back for full value? No, we could have just as easily dumped all that raw material into the ocean with the same result in material wealth. What the war DID do was provide the government a reason to spend a LOT of money. Which resulted in people getting jobs, which resulted in people having the confidence to spend money, etc. We could have just as easily spent all that money on something else. Oh, and that recession you referred to? That happened right AFTER Roosevelt pulled support from a lot of public works, because he thought it had recovered enough. That's why it was called the "Roosevelt Recession".

I happen to agree with you about the OP, but frankly, I couldn't tell you were trying to say any of that from your original statement. It seemed like a lot of the same socialist rhetoric I frequently hear on this site when discussions on macro-economics pop-up.

 

[CosmicCommander]

I've noticed that to OP, it's pretty funny, how they are always at each others throats, but their methods are the same.

 

[jboking]

Well, excuse me for mistaking this for an open thread. If you wanted to have a private conversation with him, then you should have used the PM function.

Sorry. It's how I felt and this was more convenient.

First, I define successful as turning a profit consistently for the past 20 years, and having run their business for 30. Pretty good considering that 90% fail within the first 5 or 10 years.

That is a fine definition, but I think you've already proved one of the points I was trying to make. 90% of them fail within the first five to ten years. It think it ignorant to say they that all of these people just managed things wrong. The fact is, if you start a business in the United States the most likely outcome is that you will fail.

Second, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was trying to address one of two possible attitudes on capitalism. If you'll reread the first half of that sentence, you'll see I was taking into account the possibility of you being slightly more rational as well. I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume things about me, either.

I'm sorry that you brought up something tangential to what I was saying and I misinterpreted it as something directly regarding me. I was in a defensive mood in the first place, and you know how the filtering system works with text.

I'm sorry your friends didn't succeed. Although, if they live in my country, they should be aware of something called bankruptcy for small business owners (if I recall, its not the same as personal bankruptcy) which would get them out of those debts.

Yes, File bankruptcy so you can go right back into it in a short few years.

Now, I see your not referring to America today (something you failed to mention in your OP, btw (didn't feel I needed to, my bad)) but many of the examples I've listed have been around since Andrew Jackson (tariffs in particular). It also seems (to me anyway) that in your original statement you called America's depression "one of the greatest of all time" and then go on to imply that it took a lot of dead soldiers to get out of it, and then further imply that this lay at the feet of "capitalist America". I simply wished point out that none of those were necessarily true. Now your saying that we couldn't have come out of the Depression without the war? And how did we win that war?

Fine leadership aside, we won it by outproducing the enemy in guns, vehicles, trained soldiers, etc. Now, did we ever expect to see any of those back for full value? No, we could have just as easily dumped all that raw material into the ocean with the same result in material wealth. What the war DID do was provide the government a reason to spend a LOT of money. Which resulted in people getting jobs, which resulted in people having the confidence to spend money, etc. We could have just as easily spent all that money on something else. Oh, and that recession you referred to? That happened right AFTER Roosevelt pulled support from a lot of public works, because he thought it had recovered enough. That's why it was called the "Roosevelt Recession".

The war occurring and us not participating for a number of years and instead selling munitions was an excellent way to pull us out of the depression. It made jobs(as you said) and it gave us the chance of income, or at least an IOU with another nation(given IOU are barely ever payed off in the international community). However, we were selling guns that we knew would be used to kill(naturally). From all economic standpoints, this was an okay idea; From a moral one, not so much. After we got into it we were pulling out of the depression thanks to the increased industrial economy. That was my only point to be made there. As for the Roosevelt Recession, it reinforces the point that the war helped pull us out of debt that we were seemingly going to slip directly back into as it occurred right before the war began. It further proves that the war and our selling and job making during it(most of which was directly related to it) got us out of the depression.

As for tariffs, I don't have an argument against that other than to say we were following a precedent set by other nations. A precedent of "This is how we can make money without taxing our citizens," which was kind of a big deal in early America.

Sorry for not bringing up that I wasn't arguing about contemporary america, your right, that was my bad.

I happen to agree with you about the OP, but frankly, I couldn't tell you were trying to say any of that from your original statement. It seemed like a lot of the same socialist rhetoric I frequently hear on this site when discussions on macro-economics pop-up.

I'll be honest, it was because I was baiting him into an argument(mildly why I provided the pissy, "I was trying to talk to him" thing. Once again, my bad). I'm not some extremist socialist, but I at least recognize that a pure capitalist society isn't what we want. Which if you want to argue it, we've shown we don't want it with medicare and medicaid.

 

[jboking]

You are a primary example of precisely why people are in the position they are in and thus why they abhor capitalism. You have defeated yourself before even trying and now claim capitalism is the reason you cannot compete. Nonsense. Microsoft is one of the highest grossing companies in the entire world and yet it was created by a college student with a good idea in the city that housed the already gargantuan IBM. Is IBM more successful than Microsoft? Significant however when you are clearing billions a year do you honestly hold concerns of being in second place?

It was created by a college student when the industry in the commercial market was still in it's infancy. I'd like to see you try and bud in on that market today and expect to run a respectable business.

People cannot succeed simply because they do not attempt to. The 'evils' of McDonalds, Wal*Mart or Starbucks is just too intimidating. How you compete with them is you either accomplish what they have yet to or find something that has yet to be properly marketed and do so yourself. Netflix chose to run with an online rental service and look at their financial figures today.

Could you explain why around 90% of companies today fail within five to ten years? Could you also tell me how this bit of information is inviting to the average citizen? If it is not then how is it that capitalism works for all people? If it doesn't, then why not try and help some of the people who fall through the cracks?

Also, Netflix was competing with blockbuster(at the time they weren't really competition, [ala. back to back lawsuits]) and less than a decade away from the beginning of the advent of buying online. They pulled it off at the right time and had the right kind of support before going in. Final question on this subject: One company succeeded, how many failed trying to do the same thing?

Are you required to gamble money? Of course however if you are afraid to risk something for a potential success, you have no reason to complain about your current standing. You never tried to improve, thus you never did. Why should you expect any less and why should it be easy to be successful?

I will state for the record that I didn't complain about my economic status(not saying you insinuated that I did). Here is the problem, when success is only a 10% possibility and bankruptcy is the probable outcome, why try. Must I come up with some new idea in order to have a business, or can I compete with walmart. If you state that I need to come up with a new idea in order to succeed then I think you are showing that I can't compete with walmart while selling the same variety of goods they do. Aka, the market is cornered, I can't have it.

Nonetheless capitalist is superior in my opinion however and there is always a "however", not in its purest form. There are some aspects of socialism I can agree upon, such as free healthcare and a wage increase (The US should at least match Canada.)

Then you agreed with the entire point of my post. Thank you. You might add medicaid and medicare on to that list of things we provide that are socialist in nature.

Also there is one final thing I wanted to address in order to gauge a reaction. Would you say the mindset I set fourth was bad and harmful to myself and others who hear it? Where do you think this mindset came from, what do you think started it? If you ask me, it's the way that capitalism works today that started it. In the end, capitalism would have caused more harm in the way of mindsets than good.

 

[paragon1]

Well, excuse me for mistaking this for an open thread. If you wanted to have a private conversation with him, then you should have used the PM function.

Sorry. It's how I felt and this was more convenient.

First, I define successful as turning a profit consistently for the past 20 years, and having run their business for 30. Pretty good considering that 90% fail within the first 5 or 10 years.

That is a fine definition, but I think you've already proved one of the points I was trying to make. 90% of them fail within the first five to ten years. It think it ignorant to say they that all of these people just managed things wrong. The fact is, if you start a business in the United States the most likely outcome is that you will fail.

Second, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was trying to address one of two possible attitudes on capitalism. If you'll reread the first half of that sentence, you'll see I was taking into account the possibility of you being slightly more rational as well. I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume things about me, either.

I'm sorry that you brought up something tangential to what I was saying and I misinterpreted it as something directly regarding me. I was in a defensive mood in the first place, and you know how the filtering system works with text.

I'm sorry your friends didn't succeed. Although, if they live in my country, they should be aware of something called bankruptcy for small business owners (if I recall, its not the same as personal bankruptcy) which would get them out of those debts.

Yes, File bankruptcy so you can go right back into it in a short few years.

Now, I see your not referring to America today (something you failed to mention in your OP, btw (didn't feel I needed to, my bad)) but many of the examples I've listed have been around since Andrew Jackson (tariffs in particular). It also seems (to me anyway) that in your original statement you called America's depression "one of the greatest of all time" and then go on to imply that it took a lot of dead soldiers to get out of it, and then further imply that this lay at the feet of "capitalist America". I simply wished point out that none of those were necessarily true. Now your saying that we couldn't have come out of the Depression without the war? And how did we win that war?

Fine leadership aside, we won it by outproducing the enemy in guns, vehicles, trained soldiers, etc. Now, did we ever expect to see any of those back for full value? No, we could have just as easily dumped all that raw material into the ocean with the same result in material wealth. What the war DID do was provide the government a reason to spend a LOT of money. Which resulted in people getting jobs, which resulted in people having the confidence to spend money, etc. We could have just as easily spent all that money on something else. Oh, and that recession you referred to? That happened right AFTER Roosevelt pulled support from a lot of public works, because he thought it had recovered enough. That's why it was called the "Roosevelt Recession".

The war occurring and us not participating for a number of years and instead selling munitions was an excellent way to pull us out of the depression. It made jobs(as you said) and it gave us the chance of income, or at least an IOU with another nation(given IOU are barely ever payed off in the international community). However, we were selling guns that we knew would be used to kill(naturally). From all economic standpoints, this was an okay idea; From a moral one, not so much. After we got into it we were pulling out of the depression thanks to the increased industrial economy. That was my only point to be made there. As for the Roosevelt Recession, it reinforces the point that the war helped pull us out of debt that we were seemingly going to slip directly back into as it occurred right before the war began. It further proves that the war and our selling and job making during it(most of which was directly related to it) got us out of the depression.

As for tariffs, I don't have an argument against that other than to say we were following a precedent set by other nations. A precedent of "This is how we can make money without taxing our citizens," which was kind of a big deal in early America.

Sorry for not bringing up that I wasn't arguing about contemporary america, your right, that was my bad.

I happen to agree with you about the OP, but frankly, I couldn't tell you were trying to say any of that from your original statement. It seemed like a lot of the same socialist rhetoric I frequently hear on this site when discussions on macro-economics pop-up.

I'll be honest, it was because I was baiting him into an argument(mildly why I provided the pissy, "I was trying to talk to him" thing. Once again, my bad). I'm not some extremist socialist, but I at least recognize that a pure capitalist society isn't what we want. Which if you want to argue it, we've shown we don't want it with medicare and medicaid.

Well, you'll never catch me arguing for one either. I just can't stand it stand it when people (not you) try to argue that Socialism or anarchism is the greatest thing since sex, and it would all turn out great if we weren't all brainwashed into being stupid/greedy.

 

[jboking]

Well, you'll never catch me arguing for one either. I just can't stand it stand it when people (not you) try to argue that Socialism or anarchism is the greatest thing since sex, and it would all turn out great if we weren't all brainwashed into being stupid/greedy.

I understand that. I get pretty agitated when someone claims that we shouldn't try anything new because nothing could possibly yield any bigger benefits than our current system.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

It was created by a college student when the industry in the commercial market was still in it's infancy. I'd like to see you try and bud in on that market today and expect to run a respectable business.

It has yet to be attempted, capitalize on the mistakes Microsoft has made throughout their existence; they are numerous, and you may well succeed at launching a company. If you desire is to compete with Microsoft and IBM however you must anticipated a long venture that may stretch well in excessive of a decade. Is it feasible? Certainly if it is attempted; as of this current date none have risen to the task.

Could you explain why around 90% of companies today fail within five to ten years? Could you also tell me how this bit of information is inviting to the average citizen? If it is not then how is it that capitalism works for all people? If it doesn't, then why not try and help some of the people who fall through the cracks?
Also, Netflix was competing with blockbuster(at the time they weren't really competition, [ala. back to back lawsuits]) and less than a decade away from the beginning of the advent of buying online. They pulled it off at the right time and had the right kind of support before going in. Final question on this subject: One company succeeded, how many failed trying to do the same thing?

Poor management
Poor accounting
Inability to appeal to consumers
Over indulging
Tax evasion
Poor employee supervision
Conflict amongst partners
Inconvenient location
Lack of proper marketing
Lack of originality

Those are just a portion of reasons that ultimately amass a considerable amount of failed company percentile. It is exceptionally easy to decimate a business to the point of no return with reckless tactics as the aforementioned portrays. Of course direct competition is an equally large factor in the world of entrepreneurship. Why not attempt a system to appease all? Because appeasing all is a fantasy. The only possibility would be socialism in its purest of form, which would be catastrophic for the country. You have requested an idealistic fantasy where no one can lose, which is just as stated, a fantasy. This is not a children's sports game in which we do not keep score so seemingly everyone has fun.

Indeed they did, they competed with Blockbusters only because they obtained a patent that prevent Blockbusters from competing with them. An ingenious and strategetic move to monopolize the market although it was eventually weakened in the sense Blockbuster could rent online as well just not to the same degree that Netflix could. Interesting how this man was originally a disgruntled renter who did not wish to pay overpriced late fees and yet managed to block what was once one of the largest rental businesses in the world. Primary example of a success story and one people should learn from.

I will state for the record that I didn't complain about my economic status(not saying you insinuated that I did). Here is the problem, when success is only a 10% possibility and bankruptcy is the probable outcome, why try. Must I come up with some new idea in order to have a business, or can I compete with walmart. If you state that I need to come up with a new idea in order to succeed then I think you are showing that I can't compete with walmart while selling the same variety of goods they do. Aka, the market is cornered, I can't have it.

A defeatist attitude is the essential reason few will ever prosper. "I was born into mediocrity, I cannot achieve much beyond mediocrity" is a common belief and undeniably a truthful statement to whomever utters it. If you believe that nonsense, it will amount to your reality; you cannot succeed if you cannot be bothered to believe you actually are capable. If you spend your finances wisely a gamble for your success will not result in bankruptcy. College itself is the initial stage to attempting to become something better, is that a waste if you have no other resources to acquire such knowledge?

You can compete with Wal*Mart, you however must come up with something unique. Why would anyone pay any attention to your store if it was basically a copy of Wal*Mart? Sell what Wal*Mart doesn't, offer consumers better service, something, anything that drives in business. Wal*Mart is popular however if you do research they are not a well liked establishment. Find a hook and you are on your way. I already have my own although Wal*Mart is not my competition.

Then you agreed with the entire point of my post. Thank you. You might add medicaid and medicare on to that list of things we provide that are socialist in nature.
Also there is one final thing I wanted to address in order to gauge a reaction. Would you say the mindset I set fourth was bad and harmful to myself and others who hear it? Where do you think this mindset came from, what do you think started it? If you ask me, it's the way that capitalism works today that started it. In the end, capitalism would have caused more harm in the way of mindsets than good.

I agree Medicare and wages could be equivalent to the system run in Canada, however that is the extent really. It is not something I would go out of my way to support admittedly, just as I would not oppose it either. I have no reason to, when you begin to ride along the socialist trail where everyone should be an equal, then is when I start to have qualms. It is harmful because people who blindly support socialism to the degree I have described, they ignore the ramifications brought on because it.

The recession was caused because of idiotic president and continues now because large conglomerates are warring with the government as to who should suffer a financial loss. Wage increasing hurts their profit, which for a sizable number is already hemorrhaging, thus they raise prices attempting to force taxes to decrease. Granted that is my own assessment of the economics; just a hypothesis, so do not hold me to it.

Capitalism works to encourage a "work for success" mentality. You have and are entitled to nothing unless you earn it. I support it because it allows me to establish what I have aspired to do for six years and am only now within reach of beginning that. I will forever oppose any concept which prevents my goals from becoming a reality. Business is akin to a battlefield; a dog eat dog world. Where some succeed, others will falter, just like in any competition. It isn't easy to be a success, nor should it and not everyone will, although a vast majority only because they never try.