Capitalism vs Socialism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 жов 2024
- • Ron Paul debate questi...
LIKE SHARE SUBSCRIBE
Clip From "I Want Your Money" By Ray Griggs (2010)
this is so true about socialism, Ron was able to get 17m jobs in 8 years. How about Obama?
/ totalcomputerservice
mycomputerneeds...
"A government big enough to give you all you need, is a government big enough to take away all you have"
Well said.
Its true. We in the Czech republic had socialism and it was like Middle age.
go buy a coca cola then, that'll make you happy
Ladislav Výsmek can we have your "middle ages" universal healthcare that doesn't cost 100,000$ for a simple procedure here in the US?
And you can have our "freedom" to rot in the streets because US politicians gave our money to banks and their corporate buddies while cutting taxes on them and raising them on us.
Yay capitalism!
*****
Except mroe and more employers are NOT offering that "insurance".
you have to pay it for yourself.
That is what "cutting of benefits" means.
*****
That's because big pharma wrote obamacare, not anyone interested in the people's HEALTH.
And comically it is STILL better than private insurance.
You are wrong
Capitalism is so bad I bought my computer and was able to comment on a video like this using capitalism.
(((((((((((((({{{{{{{{TROLL ALERT}}}}}}}}}))))))))
+Bernie Sanders I am sick and tired of buying everyone else's computers.
Yes socialists have no computers.
Bernie Sanders hey Bernie, how's that investigation going?
Computers are technology that we use and that some businesses are ran off of, socialism wouldn't get rid of computers but instead Lamborghinis for clean water and shirts for the poor. Or did I take this seriously?
Ronald Reagan Was one of the best presidents.
the wise words of ronald w reagan
This was funny and true!
It was funny, but funny because it was hilariously wrong.
redandblackrevolutionary it is actually on point. U must be a communist.
joseph cristal lol
Before we get to :50, lets ask a question, "why are people poor in the first place?" Why are there a lot of poor people in our society to worry about? The banks own people. If you want a college degree, you need to take out a loan to pay the school. If you want a house, you have to take out a loan to pay for it (Unless you are lucky). If you want a car, you have to take out a loan to pay for it. Because no one has any wealth to pay for these things! The banks expand the money supply, by issuing credit to those who need a car, house, personal loan etc. And as the money supply expands, wealth is taken away from your dollars, and transferred to those who receive the money. There comes a day when we don't have any more wealth to transfer, because the money supply has been expanded so much! That is why there are a lot of poor people today. There is enough real wealth to go around (gold and silver). There is literally tons of it, in the ground. End the fed!
Totally Agree. It's sad that about 2% of the people even have a clue what you're talking about.
be grateful this prescient has kept our country rich unlike others
I hope your not talking about Obama
I like how Arnie is sitting alone in the corner.
this video is absolutely brilliant, the way it manages to teach so much in such a short time and in such an entertaining way
The logic of kindergartners. I swear I am living in Idiocracy.
Wood y ikr
"The government is supposed to protect the people."
Socialism is fundamentally drawn around that exact idea; it seeks to eliminate poverty. Also, like DNE305 said, the test analogy is a flawed one and was probably conceived around countless misconceptions about socialism.
If you want to eliminate poverty then you should advocate capitalism, the poorest people in the US are still far better off then most others. Now if you are trying to advocate a mixed economy, I will gladly listen, and we can have fruitful debate, but if you are saying socialism, abolishing private property, please allow me to explain why you have no idea what you are advocating.
I'm not advocating socialism. I live in the U.S. and advocate capitalism. I DO, however, think there should be certain programs to help "boost" those born into poverty to prosperity. 45% of people born into poverty here will never be able to get out of it, compared to countries in Europe or Canada, in which that percentage is between 20-30%. In that sense, it's necessary to establish some sort of leverage to curb the ridiculous income inequality here (the average middle-class worker here makes $39k a year whereas the CEO's, etc. make $1.1m). Private property is great, but not if 1% of our population holds 40% of the wealth.
I know you are not being intentionally misleading (or I would like to believe your integrity) but you must realize that the poverty measure in the US is different that that of the EU, so right off the bat your comment is fairly wrong. But secondly...www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/
And using an average of income is also a poor statistic that is misleading to fit your social democratic agenda, a better statistic would be median household income, which as of 2012 was $51,371. Ironically this is actually how most progressives show that income has stagnated by using household income statstics. But just an fyi for future reference if you see someone saying that, that doesnt mean that peoples incomes have stagnated, it means more people own more homes thus there are less people living there who earn income. This does not mean that our incomes are stagnating, quite the opposite, it means we are getting richer. www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-02.pdf
townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/03/06/economic-mobility-n1525556/page/full
Any economics professor will tell you that it is not an either or situation, but rather a positive balance between both capitalism and socialism. If you only identify with one or the other, then you fail to realize there are two sides to a coin, and are ultimately part of the problem.
+Keenan P I agree wholeheartedly.
sorry, but that's bollocks.
capitalism is a profit-driven competitive economy where a working class sell their labour for cheap wages to the profiteering ''wealth-creating class'' for whom profit is paramount and people are tools to get it. socialism is an economy built around production to fit people's needs rather than for the profit of a few, with the workers are in control their environments and aren't exploited for every penny in the bosses' purses.
they are literally opposites, so it's impractical to combine the two, it's like saying you want to wear socks and no socks at the same time.
thecrimsonbubbles We can tell where your 'bias' lies. Far-left crackpot.
exactly what from what I've said is remotely 'crackpot'? if I read other dictionary definitions I wonder if that'd come down as quite a radical thing to say. would you not agree that socialism and capitalism are NOT the same thing?
thecrimsonbubbles socialism doesn't not create wealth and EVERYONE is a loser in socialism, GPD goes down because the incentive to make money and create business is destroyed, the free market systems actually allows people to trade and create business along with jobs, while socialism punish those who aspire to achieve more, though I do believe SOME government regulation should occur for things such as child labor, consequently the more government restrictions, more black markets are created, not to mention mismanagement of wealth because of the lack of accountability, simple economics, supply and demand.
I have no idea wtf did I just watch
"You know you have lost an argument when you begin to correct grammar"
Great video!
Love the idiots who think socialism is great. The more power you give the government, the worse your country is. Also, one socialist country you may come up with does not mean socialism is the best economy. Here, Sweden and Mexico have some of the strictest gun laws in the world, yet Mexico's gun fatality rate, is higher than even the US, nevermind Sweden. I hope you can see my point. The problem with socialism is it requires your wishes and dreams to be a reality, when they're not. Youre living in a dream world if you think that someone building missiles should be making the same as a paper pusher. Youre living in a bigger dream world if you think everyone will work hard doing harder jobs for the same as this said paper pusher. What happens when people stop wanting to work in a socialist/marxist economy? They become communist and the government holds a gun to your head and makes you work. This is what happens when you give the government control. Notice the more socialist ideas the US adopts, the worse our economy gets. If you could somehow get everyone to work hard doing varying amounts of work, good on you. Just keep in mind, these are humans, not robots who are programmable.
if hard work made people rioch all the people working 3 minimum wage jobs would be loaded instead of in poverty?
+godkingofspace Second that.
exactly
There is a difference between hard work and smart work - a Laborer is simply labor. The harder task is risk taking, capital formation, capital investment and resource organization - if all of that seems easy to you, ask yourself why doesn't the laborer go and work for himself? He can't because he is a good laborer but lacks business skills.
Yes education is one thing poor people are denied in our culture, because you have to have money to get a good education. Pretending that if only they were smarter they wouldn't be poor is such an intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible thing to say.
"Simple laborers" don't just lack business skills they lack everything you need to start a business including a fair market in which to compete. Current tax law siphons money from the working class and small business owners and gives it directly to the owners of large corporations who they are supposed to be competing with.
Also, this glorification of the Investor Gods, the Great Job Creators, has lead directly to the separation of investment and actual ownership and management of the company. Companies are now seen as something to be traded and shorted instead of something to be tended and maintained for a future generation.
Convincing you and me and everyone we know that this is a healthy thing for our economy and that these people are somehow better or smarter than us is how these snake oil salesmen stay in power and how they continue to manipulate the political system to protect and enhance the power of the wealthy.
But it will come crashing down very soon, because even a CHILD knows that Greed has one set of consequences and Generosity has another. Evil empires always fall. Don't let that distract you though.
godkingofspace this is a poor argument by you. its based on talking points because in your world its only Hegelian dialect, DEMS vs GOP or GOP vs DEMS dogma. Im talking about business and economics, you are trying to make a case based on fake alturisim where you just make excuses and assume all poor people are nobel because they are in poverty. your rehtoric is short sighted because you aren't able to see the difference between a crony (who fears competition and uses governemnt to game the system for him through laws) and a regular investor or owner who uses his knowledge, skills and saved/borrowed capital to invest money and allocate resources and labor efficently to meet consumer needs so he can make profits.
you discredit what it takes to run an enterprise and to be responsible to make a payroll and organize capital in an efficient manner to grow your business. Someone will only use his capital to make profits, not run charity - if you are a skilled laborer you can do two things - keep working for someone and collecting a paycheck or SAVE money or find other capital to go out on your own, hire other laborers and
in a free market you are not a slave, only government making laws on behalf of corporations can limit the choices of a free person with skills.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have." WOW!!! BRILLIANT STATEMENT!!!
That being said. The animation was pretty funny.
The argument made by this video makes no sense whatsoever and the 'class room test average' doesn't at all make sense as an analogy.
I'm scared
Great video, funn y as heck. Too bad it's dead wrong - the entire premise is based on describing communism as socialism.
+whiteknightcat What's the difference between socialism and communism? In the great words of Lenin, "The goal of socialism is communism"
Socialism is a family of political and economic models whose common theme is the social ownership of the means of production in a society. The degree of this social ownership varies greatly and can involve a single commodity (such as healthcare) or an entire spectrum such as public utilities, communications, food production, etc. It is also construed to include public services such as public safety, fire protection, assistance for the needy, etc.
Communism is based on socialism but with the added characteristic that all people should be relatively equal in most things, thus eliminating social classes. There would be no rich and no poor, but the end result would be a mandated form of mediocrity, with no incentives for anyone to ever better themselves or their society. There would be no reward for such activities. Idealized versions of pure communism posit the end of the need for money or the state. Universal equality is not a characteristic of socialism.
Lenin's OPINION of the inevitability of communism was only an opinion. Each society must determine which mix of social, political, and economic models works best for it, and one form of government does not necessarily have to lead to another.
*****
In that case, it's "not accurate" to the bulk of people who actually take the time to understand the facts involved, rather than drinking the Konservative Kool-aid formula of "everything we say is right, regardless of facts, and anyone who disagrees with us is the enemy".
*****
Deny and accuse all you want because it gets you nowhere
This is actually brilliant.
How can this vid be unmuted?
This scenario is completely false.
Under leftist ideologies, those who don't work won't reap the benefits of the state, such as food. Because the people who won't work (and have no reason for not doing so) won't take away from the others who do work, meaning that those who DO work, will not have anyone tearing them down, but will simply work for their fellow comrades who work for them as well, moving society forward as a result. If you've ever read Marx and Engels, you'd know this.
Quite unlike the Welfare system of the United States, although a large amount of people under public aid, such as food stamps work hard and deserve that extra helping hand by the state, some don't. Many people don't work, and are actually paid, by the state, through YOUR TAXES to be able to eat lobster and dine at nice restaurants, while not making contribution to the rest of the people.
I anticipate a response, let's make this an intelligent, well-thought out debate/discussion.
Marx and Engels paved the way for Stalin, who used their resultant, handy, tyrant-ready utopian state to commit mass starvation. Nice idols you have. Stalin said, "Idealists are great, they are easy to control" and "Communism? I am all about power" and "kill one person, people call you a murderer, kill a million, and no one cares."
As for the successful here in the US, if you do what the government wants you to do - take the extreme responsibility of starting and owning corporations (the type of 'adults' we need more of - and when you grow up you will be one), then you get tax benefits.
wbiro
And Adam Smith paved the way for Thatcher, Reagan and their lackeys like Pinochet and Hitler.
What's your point?
Do you HAVE a point or you are throwing names that sound scary to give the illusion of an argument?
WiggaMachiavelli
That's because it spans long periods of time that it becomes imperceptible.
Let me explain:
1930s - capitalist crisis
1917 communism in Russia
these two and the rise of the Left in Germany and elsewhere gave rise to fears that "capitalism is over".
The capitalist countries ( yes, the US also ) and bankers/ rich financed a certain right wing party ( like they do now with Front National in France, UKIP in UK, Republican and Tea Party in America, etc ) to divert the rage towards the rich who hoarded all the wealth to....someone else.
In 1930s it was the jews.
And a certain Hitler had this vision, which suited the capitalists very well.
If you read HISTORICAL accounts, the "national socialist" doctrine had NOTHING "socialist" in it.
It was "socialist" in the same way the North Korean DPRK is "democratic".
What it was, was a mix of fascism ( the capitalists were well off and the workers were practically FUCKED ) and nationalism, coupled with warped understanding of evolution and social darwinism.
And why do i say we are seeing this today?
Look around you are seeing the rhetoric everywhere.
"Poor people ( them ) are MOOCHING off the hard working people ( us ) and we need to take measures ( code word for "kill them" )"
Then "THEM" here used to be your neighbor who by no fault of his own lost his job.
Whose fault is it?
The capitalist but no one DARES to say that.
And why Thatcher and Reagan?
Well it's simple.
Ever since 1951 when taxes on the rich were 91% ( and yes they WERE no matter what republicans will say ) the capitalist upper class has fought hard to weaken regulation, overcome it and when they could - DESTROY IT.
It began slowly until 1970s when the COMPUTER and JET TRAVEL meant that companies could be ran easier abroad and that a lot of workers could be replaced by machines.
I saw an old timer telling me that in super markets there were these people, called "inventory checkers" ( those over 60 will remember them ), that had to be paid for their work.
With a computer, a bar code counted the items, you did not NEED those people anymore. So they got laid off - again not their fault.
Anyway, as i said they chipped and chipped at the regulation until 1980s-1990s.
Then Reagan and Thatcher ran on the "dismantle the new deal" idea.
And at the time the rich thought it was INSANITY that they would be CRUSHED by popular hatred. But to their surprise they met no resistance. The population had grown complacent, "used" to the good life, unwilling to admit it has to be defended against the sick fucks who want to destroy it and take it all.
So they won and thus began the DESTRUCTION of UK 's economy ( which now is in the shitter literally ) and the DESTRUCTION of the US economy.
You always hear right wing idiots quoting that stupid bitch Thatcher who ruined britain:
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money".
This sort of crap passes as "intellectual" discourse to the uneducated.
Well...let's think about how in 2008 and ever since, CAPITALISM works well with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY !
Miss Thatcher somehow forgot to mention that it seems.
Here is my final remark on this.
It's not "strange" or "weird" that the rich wanted to take over and fuck us all.
What is strange and weird is that we VOTED for them to do it !
And why?
WHY did it happen? This is always the question isn't it? WHY?
Thatcher ( and Reagan, but she was the most vicious ones ) came to the people and said something like this:
"We know you brits want a good job with a good income, so we went to the employers and asked them what needs to be done to give you that good job with that good income.
And they said "well we need to see more profits in it and then we will make more jobs, but taxes are a bit high, if you would reduce them, things would change."
So you see?
I am really helping you, poor people by LOWERING rich people's taxes and RAISING your taxes"
In other words.
I AM GOING TO TAKE YOUR MONEY ( you poor people ) and i am going to GIVE IT to these rich people.
AND YOU ARE GOING TO SAY THANK YOU!
Amazing isn't it?
***** In short:
I reckon Hitler was long dead by the time either of Reagan or Thatcher were in office.
You're talking primarily about political actions by the wealthy. What you're not doing is establishing ideological relation between Smith's work and the doctrine of the Nazi party. You're right to say that it was inspired by the fascists, but you omit that fascism took its cues from the Marxist socialists regarding economy.
Finally, redistribution of wealth by government is socialism. Rich to poor, poor to rich - both socialism, both misguided and detrimental. So your issue seems to be with a particular form of socialism, rather than with free economy.
WiggaMachiavelli
"but you omit that fascism took its cues from the Marxist socialists regarding economy."
What?
I love this..HOW exactly did Marx inspire the fascists?
Hell it is the OPPOSITE of fascists believe.
Marx = the people who work in the companies should own them
fascists = the capitalist who owns the company should be above the law regarding his workers.
One is democratic, one is anti democratic, i dun see the "inspiration" frankly.
"Finally, redistribution of wealth by government is socialism. Rich to poor, poor to rich - both socialism, both misguided and detrimental. So your issue seems to be with a particular form of socialism, rather than with free economy."
Yeah ok, i can see why that would see to the uninitiated in economics, so let me enlighten you.
Socialism doesn't mean "rich to poor" it means "everyone pays what they should".
Right now the rich DO NOT pay what they should. In fact they pay LESS than you or me.
Is it fair?
No. and this is the problem.
Second, fascism is the belief that workers should have no rights and that the employer is god in his business.
This is your Ron paul and ron paul idiots's rhetoric.
"TOTAL FREEDOM!"
What they really mean is : total freedom from regulations so we can fuck you, the worker.
Money is power.
Without regulation, money = ultimate power.
The rich would become the feudal lords of old Europe.
With private armies, gated fences, etc
And no, fascist "from poor to the rich" is not "socialism".
The word itself implies SOCIAL-ism.
There is nothing SOCIAL about fucking over the majority for a few rich clowns.
This is fascism.
When the govt becomes SUBSERVIENT to the corporations and the rich - this is FASCISM.
Mussolini himself said Fascism should be more apptly called corporatism - the merger of corporate power and govt against the people.
YOU are advocating for our enslavement.
The irony, right?
Oh for fucks sake! The biggest receivers of government giveaways are corporations. What a piece of propaganda!
thats socialism
RuleofFive thats not capitalism dumbass
The Forehead Tell that to members of the GOP.....you live in fantasy land.......Ron Paul was the largest requester of earmarks in congress.
RuleofFive i am not a advocator of complete unregulated capitalism but it is much better than socialism and I doubt you can prove to me that socialism runs more effectively than a below average regulated capitalist economy
+The Forehead
There isn't a country on planet earth that has completely unregulated capitalism so how would you know? No one (including me) is advocating for a centrally planned economy. I don't want the government to make iphones. The government can do some things well and I believe they should act as a counter weight to oligarchs and powerful corporate interests that run counter to the public good.
Using grades to represent economics is just wrong.
not really it's a good analogy because it's true.
Bobby Johnson lol sure, just like Reagan was a fantastic president.
***** yes, because a president who let thousands die of aids before even mentioning it in a speech and totally tanked the economy is an example of a great president
+Dylon Swartwood are you living under a rock?
Micah J. Donaldson nah man, just reality, the economy saw small growth when Reagan cut taxes, then it stagnated, and then declined, which forced Reagan to increase taxation again. Not only that, he did nothing to help the AIDS epidemic and letting thousands of people die because you're too concerned about the rich is not the sign of a good president.
Having no desire to start a virtual yelling match, I'll just say I think this is an offensive misrepresentation of socialism.
I'd also like to mentioned that I spent 9 years at a school with no grades. Everyone was more motivated to work and learn than they ever were when competing for marks and the school consistently outperforms the provincial average on standardized tests.
That's why you take the best parts of both to make the best mix, democratic socialism.
It's so sad, that there are people, that think Obama is socialist/communist... facepalm*
This video gets so much wrong it's no wonder Americans are so scared of socialism.
I'm not scared of socialism, it just does not work as well as capitalism.
Nigel Edgeberry search "Franklin D Roosevelt"
Neither does capitalism in shit poor countries
+Whion, pray tell, what so wrong in this logic? Americans are not "so scared" of socialism. Americans are proud of capitalism. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it's better than a society of deadbeat ne'er-do-wells who can't make life on their own terms, aka, socialist.
Here’s another analogy:
Say capitalists and socialists split into two separate communities. The capitalists will work and earn their way through life. There will certainly be those on board who need help. The capitalists would ensure those in need get help until the needy are able to work and earn on their own and no longer require outside assistance, thus they can contribute to the community. There will also be those whom are never able to contribute. That segment shall always be cared for.
The socialists are unwilling to work and earn their way through life because they want it done for them. Since no one is doing anything they can’t possibly survive.
Meanwhile, the capitalistic community is thriving and growing while producing better results along the way. The socialists aren’t around to drag the coattails of the capitalists and the results are always moving forward.
The End
I look forward to your counter point. If you have one, that is.
Jordan Hardee the reason are because of natural resources.
Idiocy.
By the way, I picked those dates based on when one philosophy or the other was most thoroughly in control. The rest of the time was a mixture of philosophies and therefore fell in the middle.
But pick out any dates you want and you can still see the patterns. The only two republican presidents to decrease unemployment were "Roaring 20's asset bubbles" Calvin Coolidge and "Roaring 80s debt/trade deficit/prison bubbles" Ronald Reagan, and they both set up disastrous followups.
Would you provide some examples of the 'means' of production and how explain how they come into existance?
There will be no politics very soon when everything continues to collapse.
Public funding for education, research, healthcare, and development can work to reduce unemployment, reduce poverty, cut costs while increasing effectiveness of certain other services, increase productivity, help the environment, and countless other things. Government spending does not cost more than its productive capacity because these services aren't done for the profit of upper management.
This video is awesome!!!
Again as I stated before, the amount of capital an individual has will not be equal. The amount they earn will not be equal. What IS equal is the right to trade your productivity for capital and the right do what you want with your capital. What you earn isnt taken from you for the benefit of others. Thats the point.
You'll still be saying that 20 years from now.
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everyone who is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it is good for everyone.” - Obama
New Party (Communists) 1996 Running To Win: The Key Races
“Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (US House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)
(cont)The reason students rack up so much debt in the U.S. is largely because of government subsidies. It gets rid of competition for lower tuition because money is offered at a cheap rate so its easy to borrow, or it is simply given in the form of a grant. If colleges were forced to compete without the subsidies then prices of education would be drivin downwards through competition. Competition drives prices down and makes goods and services more affordable. This is true for any industry.
The value of the raw material, which would be converted into a commodity through the means of labour, is equal to any other material that requires labour to be put into it in order to serve as a commodity. A commodity is a raw material that has human labour in it in order to make it a commodity. Since all commodities require human labour to be put into them, they are all products necessary for society. Gold is valued more than bread, but you need bread to live. If a product is necessary for
Finally someone with common sense. It has been demonstrated over and over again that societies actually progress when they cooperate together, learn together and act together. It's like the biblical sharing of bread - better that 50 people get a little bit of bread, then one man gets all the bread and the 49 starve. His life may be saved, but it is poorer for being a lonely one.
In socialism, you can choose your job, your major, etc. If you have a gift in something, the government supports you financially, which is why the USSR always won the Olympics, they hand picked the best of the best and gave them the best training.
1 man companies are generally freelancers or small offices. Even then, their profit will never beat larger firms, especially not alone.
I could make a similar argument for feudalism by stating that all people have equal rights to gain nobility through acts of valor.
-
In a capitalistic society one's rights are directly connected to their wealth.
EXAMPLE
Small farmers have equal rights under the law as Monsanto, but if Monsanto brings it's legal team and claims that a small farmer stole their seeds the small farmer, despite being in the legal right, stands little chance in court and usually looses his farm...Happening right now
I didn't say it would grow that business. I said grow the economy. When everything flows quickly to a few hands the economy shrinks. When we are all consumers the economy grows.
Think of a poker game. When it's a bunch of friends, you can play all night. Then when a professional sits in the game ends in about half an hour when you hit a liquidity crisis.
Another example would be the pharmaceutical industry. A recent study showed that many drugs are not properly tested because of the amount invested, and then the results are selectively reported, hiding the unflattering data. Millions are then spent on advertising the product. As drugs take awhile to be properly assessed, huge profits can be made long before a drug then needs to be pulled off the shelf. Meanwhile the damage is done, but the company is still richer and can afford the legal costs.
Absolutely. My family had little to do with my current situation. As long as I have the freedom to let my talents take me wherever they can, I can't ask for more.
Freedom does make a country a better place for everyone, politicians can't.
I don't think there has ever been so much effort put into a transfer propaganda as good as this
Taxes collected on the wealthiest 2% are in fact considerably lower than 50% but the end result is that when tax code "simplification" began with Reagan's reduction of marginal tax rate for people with income over 1 Mil. along with massive deficit inducing expenditures for armaments, US intervention in Latin America and a quadrupling of prison construction and mass incarceration in concert effectively bankrupted the government. The goal of all this is to disable the functions of a Democracy.
That's just my point. In India, the majority of ordinary people DIDN'T want Walmart and certainly the small street sellers didn't. Walmart wanted to fill what they considered was a niche and bribed the Indian government to let them in. It happens all the time.
It is in socialist countries that people truly starve, my grandfather worked as a sailor for the USSR and traveled under the Iron Curtain and the people in North Korea have been starving from 50 years ago. The progress which comes about through capitalism is what allows people to prosper in this hard world, you don't know what real starving is at all but give it a few decades under socialism and you will know. Fair isn't taking someone's money because they work more or better
that last line was priceless
In any case, this is a small part of the picture. If we build infrastructure when we have high unemployment than we will be putting in place key ingredients of the physical economy while we make sure that the economy doesn't spiral downward. If we ensure that workers have an equal bargaining position with employers then we ensure that someone has spare money to buy the next great round of innovation. All of these issues are intertwined and require some analysis.
It's not a matter of saying that anyone is lazy. Benjamin Franklin had advice on the subject when asked what, in his opinion, was the best way to deal with the poor and impoverished, he answered "The best way to help the poor and impoverished, is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty." Clearly there is nothing comfortable about poverty, but for the Government to enable you to stay there is good for no one. There is no "insure," the general welfare in the Constitution
Most of the people in this country live well, many live very well. Unbalanced is a phrase used by our 'socialist' president, we capitalists don't believe 'fair and balanced' is a goal, it's just a justification for wealth distribution.
Fair is when the same rules apply to everyone, not the same circumstances.
Public education is necessary to keep the citizens educated from a relatively non-biased source. The alternative would be private schools, which would selectively teach students what they want students to know in order to keep making more profit. Also, private schools are more expensive and generally no more effective at teaching. Unions aren't necessarily a bad thing. They become bad when they are allowed too much power. That's why it's necessary to balance out their power.
(continued) The current one is best described in an analogy: many animals, elephants, monkeys, horse, bird, etc., are told to climb to the top of a tree. Each animal would have its advantages but there are obviously those who are extremely skilled at getting to the top, such as a bird or monkey, but there are also those who would be unable to even get 1/4 of the way! Surely those unable to climb the tree should be trying to achieve their own skills and talents instead of someone (continued)
Kindness is like the plumage of a peafowl. It has no direct utility, but only the strongest individuals can afford to have such a trait.
For that reason, mate choice based on kindness is also based on strenght. Overthrowing the value of kindness is not natural or darwinist at all.
In a hypothetical gift economy, the more you give the more influence you will naturally be given. Secondly, even if useless, would a sentient peafowl cut off it's plumage?
As I've said before, socialism is the will of the people in many west European countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France etc. It has never had to be imposed. America was indoctrinated against communism/socialism during the Cold War and therefore every American was taught that socialism is evil in the same way that every Russian was taught that capitalism is evil. But most other western countries were somewhere in the middle.
I don't want everything to be equally distributed. In fact the opposite is true. I think income distribution should be more unequal than the maximum growth rate would dictate. But if you allow income distribution to become too unequal, you find yourself living in a third world country as we almost found out in 1929-1932. If you want to understand why, read the rest of the posts in this discussion.
Then the professor reverted back to the old system. Except, in secret he gave some people the answers to the next test. Then he said that those that got an A would get the answers to the next test, to do with whatever they liked. The students that got the answers got an A and got the answers to the next test and got another A. They kept the answers for themselves and gave them to their friends who all got A's while the others struggled.
And one more thing. Earlier you said that it's human nature to be competitive. That is true to a certain extent and it can be argued that some societies are actively encouraged to exploit that competitive tendency. It is also human nature to cooperate with, rather than compete against each other. Other societies exploit that tendency. Personally, I prepare the cooperative society, because there are no losers in that society.
(cont) If and individual lacks the capital to purchase property, then they must trade productivity for it. Everyone has the right to trade their productivity for capital, and in turn, they have the right to trade that captial for whatever they want. The ability to earn will differ, but the right to make use of thier capital is equal. Thats the equality I am referring to.
Can we just agree that both systems have pros and cons?
Yea, but socialism is better then capitalism. Socialism or bust!
redandblackrevolutionary Whatever floats your boat buddy.
*****
What?
+redandblackrevolutionary No.
That's the point. Deficit spending creates incentive were there was previously no profit to be made. It's a quite simple concept.
You can complain that some kids had wealthy parents and sent their kids to better schools giving those kids an advantage over kids who went to public schools. But U would also have to complain about the parent who can play an instrument & teaches his kid to play, giving that kid an musical success advantage over kids with parents who play no instrument. Or a kid with natural talent in writing, sports, mathematics, etc. The starting line can't be the same but there is no limit to the finish line.
Sorry, I specifically meant free market/laissez-faire capitalists were blindly Utopian. Government involvement in the economy won't weaken it, it will strengthen it, as long as the government is involved in the right ways. If all it took to solve all of the current problems that modern economies face was to do absolutely nothing, then we wouldn't have these problems in the first place. Also, I made a typo. I meant direct redistribution of wealth, not welfare.
Further, Second term Republican presidencies have consistently underperformed first terms while second term Democrat presidencies have consistently outperformed first term Democrat presidencies. In fact, there have been two Republican third term presidencies (HH and GHWB) and the only thing that has performed as poorly as those have been demobilization from World War I and World War II.
Okay, I was focusing on the content of the video. If all you are concerned with is separating the technical definition of socialism from what is discussed in the video then you are correct that there is no point in debate. So lets retitle the video "welfare state vs. capitalism". Would that suit? On the subject of definitions, when I say 'rights', I am referring to those granted by law. Like free speech, or the right to arms, etc.
What's hilarious is Regan's trickle-down economics did nothing but hurt the middle class.
There are the exact same incentives. In fact one has more incentive to be productive if they control their own production. For instance if I work as another guy in a factory I have only the incentive to impress my boss. I have no personal connection to my work. If I work in a worker-owned factory and earn based on the productivity of the factory I have an incentive to make the factory as good as it can be.
Most inventions
Absolutely BRILLIANT! Thank you SO SO MUCH! Never saw this before... sharing with all my friends on Facebook...
again no i have explained this socialism does not require someone to determine what contributions and requirements you need the state is there to keep check on what is produced and put it to best use so that WE THE PEOPLE (as the teaparty guys like to say) can benefit from it when the time we can successfully change to communism, yes both can be abused but this happens more so in capitalism
A curve is totally different. It REWARDS the most aggressive learners in the class. Giving an average grade to everyone does NOT reward those who work hard and study.
Like it or not, the top tax rate was over 60% while we grew 190% in 12 years under a pro-union environment. Contrast that with the "free trade/free markets" period 1920-1932 during which Republicans controlled house, senate, and presidency and grew the economy a total of under 10% in 12 years.
Ah Reagan the only President who was too old BEFORE he ran for the leadership.
Making a company is debatable. In the USSR, if you were good at something (let's say physics), they'd probably help you by giving you a lab or something. If you live in a small town with no bakery and you're a baker, you could request one from the gov, etc.
The USSR was really good. I remember a guy that left my country because there was a dictatorship here, and he never saw a single not dressed properly or living on the streets.
And equality would be a same portion for everyone.
You're half right. I was born and lived in the USSR and then many years in Poland. There was no difference between socialism. It was all the same. The reason we say the same old things about socialism and Marxism is because we KNOW what it is in reality not in your imagination.
And remember, there is no Socialism without dictatorship. Sweden and Norway are still on their way to real Socialism. Now the US joined the line. The line to GULAG.
I agree with you. Keep your cool. I have NEVER proposed that governments and unions work together.
Yes exactly. People ARE better off when the pie is more equally shared. That is true. Better to feed 10 people with a loaf of bread so that no-one goes hungry than feed 1 person and let 9 starve. The fact is that 1 person may feel more deserving at the time of eating, but other sentiments like ethics, morals, and the desire to live among people who are like you become true. Billionaires who live in gated houses with beggars on the street outside often feel guilty and paranoid.
lol, I demand a recount. How prophetic.
Last year's annual report by the UN Trade & Development Org shows unequivocally that the Friedman model that had been in existence since Reagan/Thatcher created the opposite outcome to those predicted. They promised that as you cut taxes from corporations and the super rich, investment would rise and everyone would be better off, but in fact, money is moving ever upwards, from the poor (the consumer) to the rich who keep their billions out of the country.
Well, in this country, aproximately 34 years ago, a person could buy health insurance on their own; for my father it was $30 a month. This was about the same time that they made medicare/medicaid mandatory to participate in; through the government. It increased health costs jumping to $90 a month premium; my dad had to drop it. This is one example of how messed up things get with "government" intervention. It has gone further downhill from there. Well, "government" does hate competition.
Right on, and they have divided the nation. We're at each other's throats, fighting with each other over what is, for the government a win/win situation. The American people need to question authority regardless of who the authority is.
High taxes back then was not the only thing going on and therefore can't be credited for economic prosperity. Especially since no one was paying those high rates. There were so many legal loopholes and legal tax shelters that those high rates were never paid by anyone. If we had high tax rates and no way around paying them, the economy would contract.
Well I don't believe that public eduation is bad because of lack of funding but rather too much power has been given to the teacher unions which is making it hard to remove any teachers that are considered inadequate to teach.
without being labeled as uncool or weird, or you can buy generic clothing that does the job and ultimately is cheaper to buy than name brands and cheaper to produce as your not overproducing items of clothing hoping they will sell your producing enough so that those who need them get them
It's rich people that are corrupt, whether they are in government or not. The richer people get, the more corrupt they become, irrespective of how they made their money. Generally, people who are ONLY motivated by the desire to get rich, tend to be corrupt. People who become rich incidentally, (by creating the internet for example) are less prone to corruption.
I would just like you to consider where you get your information from. If it is from corporate dominated media sources, then is it surprising that they are going to promote a system that only benefits the rich corporations?
From dictionary(dot)com, one of the definitions of freedom is:
Exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
Socialism is nothing if not control, interference and regulation, it is by definition, a diminution of freedom.
In capitalism you have a choice, if you don't like a companies product or service, you can take your business elsewhere.
Gay marriage and abortion have nothing to do with capitalism or socialism.
"Corporatism: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction."
There's no mention of government. It is true that nowadays,governments (esp. rightwing gov) in the west have merely become ambassadors for big corporations (oil, arms industry, big pharma) rather than for all people regardless of their status, which is what they are supposed to do.
can anyone send me the torrentlink to the full documentry?
(cont) Lastly, gov. regulations are choking businesses out. It makes existing business less productive and uncompetitive and next to impossible to get new businesses off the ground. Free-enterprise with a freely run monetary system would allow for maximum competition and would cause prices to fall and the standard of living of everyone to increase. Yes people would make more than others, but the overall stardard would increase constantly. There'd be no need for the gov to redistribute anything.
just because you see no reason does not mean their isn't one. nobody grasps every concept completely nor knows everything. what you do not know is that it is economic fact that we need a steady inflation and deflation if we are to have market economies. economists will attest to this.
True capitalism doesn't work terrific for everyone. The main idea behind capitalism is that the people who work the hardest are the most rewarded, but you have to see that in a competitive system like that, you'll always have people in power make rules so that they stay and grow in power. And you'll always have the people below them that don't have a fighting chance. Don't forget, in the world of capitalism you can't have rich people if you don't have the poor.
Nice faces LoL
I think there is a major flaw with this argument; the teacher did not tell them that making no effort would lead to overall bad grades. In most Communist societies, the citizens are always told that being lazy only makes the country suffer and, because they are part of the country, they themselves suffer. Often, the method of telling the citizens this is through propaganda which isn't always the best way but it is still better than saying nothing at all. Anyway, if the classroom was (continued)
yea i know that,but why would free markets increase that?