[Donegalkid]

Originally Posted by La lamy

I like capitalism that lets people believe hard work will lead to well deserved pay, but I have an issue with capitalism that leads to grotesque greed. It's ironic that some supposed "God fearing/loving" people don't think "what would Jesus think?" before amassing more than needed and leaving their employees in the dust of misery. That's where I believe unions and regulating governments are absolutely necessary.

Well said. Thank you.

[loweglor]

I've collected unemployment twice in my life, for a very short time, and my payments weren't even close to what I was making as an employee. Where conservatives get the idea that people can live well on unemployment ought to try it for a while.

[loweglor]

I wonder how well the people of those countries live. It's swell to acknowledge those with millions........ how about focusing on the majority without millions, they need the attention.

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by loweglor

I wonder how well the people of those countries live. It's swell to acknowledge those with millions........ how about focusing on the majority without millions, they need the attention.

What countries are you referring too?
Sounds like capitalist ones to me!

[Blueblaze]

Capitalism is the economic system that pays people to serve their fellow man. The better they serve, the wealthier they become.

Socialism is the economic system that pays people to steal from their fellow men. The more they steal, the poorer they become.

There has never been an example of successful socialism. Nations fail in exact proportion to the degree to which they tolerate socialism. They succeed to the exact degree to which they allow capitalism to flourish. Note the falling standard of living in America, as we have become more socialist, while even a tiny amount of capitalism injected into the Chinese economy allowed them raise their enormous population from dire poverty for the first time in modern history.

The poorest citizen of a capitalist country lives better than an average person in a socialist country. But neither system has the slightest impact on the standard of living of the extremely wealthy. Extreme wealth is merely extremely rare in a socialist country, because it requires extreme political power, rather than extreme service.

Some people attribute our social safety net to socialism, and would say that this proves that pure capitalism is an impossible goal. This is a false choice. Take Social Security, for example. A capitalist would have merely required workers to save for their own retirement, rather than confiscating 15% of every paycheck to provide a stipend for the previous generation's victims. (Imagine your own wealth today if you had been free to invest that 15% that was confiscated from you to pay your parent's pathetic return on their 15%!) Unemployment insurance could have been provided in the same way, by requiring workers to purchase private insurance if they could not prove that they have a year's worth of salary in savings -- which most would have, if they'd been able to own the 15% they were required to save for retirement. Bottom line, a capitalist "safety net" would have resulted in wealthier workers and more stable employment.

Welfare, on the other hand, is merely a socialist trap that creates generations of dependent citizens with no hope of escaping poverty. The capitalist alternative is private charity, because it is targeted and limited. It does not condemn generations of fatherless children to poverty, as our welfare system does. But since a socialist requires dependent victims to keep them in power, government welfare is always their solution to poverty, not employment,

A committed socialist will tell you that their pure socialist paradise can never be achieved so long as capitalism is allowed to "exploit workers". That's why they murdered 100 million innocent capitalists in the 20th century alone. I guess killing a man is not exactly exploiting him, but I doubt that the victim would appreciate the difference.

One final point. The inventor of socialism, Karl Marx, once pointed out that socialism is merely a phase on the way to communism. He saw no difference, in the long run. It was the only thing he ever got right.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

As long as there is a country and a government, some degree of socialism will be necessary. The government itself is a socialist entity as is the military, police, fire, post office, social security and all other government entities.

The difference between the two is that a socialist service is always there but you have no choice. If you have a fire in your house, you call the fire department and they come and put out the fire and there is no cost to you. If you don't like the job that they're doing, you don't have the option of calling a competing fire department.

Whereas in a capitalist society, you may have the choice of several different companies to choose from. But if you don't pay, you don't get service.

Some socialism will always be necessary. It's a matter of choosing how much do we want. We need to decide what the balance should be.

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

As long as there is a country and a government, some degree of socialism will be necessary. The government itself is a socialist entity as is the military, police, fire, post office, social security and all other government entities.

The difference between the two is that a socialist service is always there but you have no choice. If you have a fire in your house, you call the fire department and they come and put out the fire and there is no cost to you. If you don't like the job that they're doing, you don't have the option of calling a competing fire department.

Whereas in a capitalist society, you may have the choice of several different companies to choose from. But if you don't pay, you don't get service.

Some socialism will always be necessary. It's a matter of choosing how much do we want. We need to decide what the balance should be.

Just because we have never lived without socialist infringements on our liberties does not mean it's the only way to live, or even normal. It's only been for the last 150 years since Marx published Das Kapital that stupid socialist leaders have been inflicting them on us, while never learning from the failures.

The great wealth of the modern world is entirely due to the capitalist policies that followed in the United States and Great Britain after the publication of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". Socialism in America only gained a foothold during the Great Depression, when America's second Socialist President, FDR, attempted to apply more socialism to rectify the failures of the first, Woodrow Wilson. FDR failed to solve the Depression for over 10 years, until WW2 came along and finally forced Wilson's ignorant FED to print the money necessary to end the DE-flation. But FDR got the credit, anyway, and we've been stuck with a socialist government ever since. That doesn't make it either normal or necessary. It just means we're used to it because we've never known better. Read Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" sometime, and learn the truth.

True public services, such as roads, police and fire protection have nothing to do with Socialism. Public services have been provided by all governments since the Roman Empire. The difference is that they benefit ALL citizens regardless of wealth or social standing -- unlike socialist giveaway programs like Social Security and Welfare, that target specific factions in order to buy their votes. But those programs invariably vanish as soon as the Socialists achieve Communism, when the citizens effectively become serfs of the government and there is no longer a need to buy their votes. Serfs work until the day they die. Serfs take what their master gives them, not what they can earn and buy for themselves, through service to the fellow citizens.