- Last post
- 515 Responses
Arguing over which ism is better is a waste of time. The only question is what will provide the best quality of life for people.
Extreme socialism was tried and failed in the 20th century. But there's also zero evidence that complete lack of government is going to lead to some kind of utopia.
Take a look at countries that are consistently ranked highest standard of living/ best place to live, they are mostly "socialist" leaning European countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc. Maybe that degree of socialism will never work in the U.S., but there's certainly no evidence to suggest government involvement in the economy is gonna lead to the downfall of civilization.
- extreme socilism is not complete lack of government.Dodecahedron
- Reread what I saidukit
- Its lOTS Of governemnt, too much. Its facist totalitarianism...ca... can be like thatDodecahedron
- that ca = capatalismDodecahedron
- So you arguing that everyone else is wrong about aruging. I think thats waste of time.JSK
- you put extreme socialsm and complete lack of government in the same sentenceDodecahedron
interesting ukit, however more accurately is that Keynesian economic theory actually encourages government deficits (but was only intended during economic depressions). government deficits lead to high inflation. and a history lesson (ask any economist) will show you that inflation will destroy societies. so the downfall of current civilization is relevant to government spending and intervention of free markets
Pay more taxes = socialistic tendencies = leads to self security
Less taxes = capitalistic tendencies = less self security
"ranked highest standard of living/ best place to live"
Its more to do with culture dont you think?
- no its systematicDodecahedron
- It would be a very simplistic to indicate that ideological system bring about higher quality of life.JSK
- Culture has more to do with self being and understanding the social collective of one in the larger society.JSK
- Through that culture, ideological process evolves around and adapted.JSK
- yes i think it's about culture and good ideasspraycan
greedy fucking Americans. Your time will come.
- ironic you need american servers and american business owners to have your voice heard hereidiots
- you just made my point. And your name suits you well.762mm
- just like greedy Europeans in their conquest and colonialismJSK
- that worked out well.762mm
- it sure did.JSK
- Ahhh get some new material, dude.stoplying
It should be common sense, it's like running a business, if you blow millions on expensive office equipment while not making any sales, of course you're going to be in debt. It doesn't take knowledge of "Keynesian economics" to figure that out (I know that's a favorite buzzword among the Ron Paul crowd).
If you look at the countries that are the most financially stable right now, you will see at the top of the list countries like Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands...all of which have economies much more "socialist" than ours. So it's pretty hard to draw a link between economic problems and capitalism/ socialism in general, I see it more as a case of bad management.
I hate Michael Moore. Not his message, but him. His message would be more effective if delivered from a less fat individual.
Greece = socialistic country.
So we have
(1) Badly managed socialist economies that failed
(2) Well run socialist economies that succeeded
This says nothing about whether socialism is good or bad. Where's the example of a libertarian/ no government economy with a middle class and modern industry? There really isn't any, all you got are tax haven islands and third world dictatorships that don't have socialism because they can't afford it.
the only ones crying about capitalism are the ones that suck at it.
you guys think it all or nothing right? its not, you are confused and polarized
Its about trade offs. You take a little from column A and take a little from column B but you give up column C.
Which socialist economies are doing well that you're talking about? Germany, France, Spain and lots of other Euros are all having financial problems: large deficit, zero or negative growth, ticking bombs of the Ponzi schemes that state pensions and social welfare systems are.
Before Greece, there were at least two EU countries in the last few years that should've been financially punished for crossing the allowed deficit barrier: France and Germany. Did they pay? Of course not, they got excused as they are the ones running this circus.
Capitalism as: You buy a tangible item or service and sell it at a profit is fine. No one here is disputing that at all. Capitalism as: repackaging and reselling debt, which is an intangible item and wacking out your business to leverage it at unreasonable risk is what people DO have a problem with. To say we are anti-capitalist or socialist because we disagree with one avenue of the millions as a way to make money is dishonest.
i would sell you debt too, if you were dumb enough to buy it.
Selling debt allows you to borrow. Your credit card debt and credit is sold and bought. Business loans and debts also work the same.
Most banks do not hold their debt. It is sold to their investors who buy debt it make money on interest charged on them. Banks service the debt and make even more on service charges.
It is tangible because it translate to your house, car, stuff you bought. The issue is ability to pay back the debt.
- You missed the other hal;f of my post about then leveraging that into too risky of situations, but whatever.DrBombay
- Oh I am sorry but whateverJSK
- It is responses like that that make my visits here less frequent.DrBombay
- remember when you actually had to prove you were worthy of paying back the credit?bliznutty
If no one bought the debt, the liquidity of a bank would come in to an issue as they would need to balance out their holding (deposits etc). The cost of borrowing would increase, ability to borrow will decrease, and small business will die off quickly as they heavily rely on short term borrowing to maintain their cash flow.
the issue is flat wages. the money you used to earn for making your company money. in the 70's those flattened out and profits soared into the 80's. people no longer being paid the wages they once earned could not keep up with consumerism. so instead of raising wages, they loaned the excess profits sitting in the bank back to the employees of course with interest.
i mean, why pay them what they earn, when you can loan them the money for what they want and make a profit on the interest when they pay it back?
pretty simple really. if not completely disgusting and appalling.
U.S Capitalism is owned by Chinese Communism
the advent of the computer led to more productivity without more work. more profits by less employees. after the war, we didn't make tvs, cars, and other consumer goods, not only that, the world no loner bought from us. so with no customers, american businesses started to dry up. realizing there was a workforce overseas, they began to hire foreign labor. that increased the competition for jobs here. now, behind the 8 ball, companies could no longer entice buyers into their products as they were broke. enter the banking biz as most illustrated by GM and GMAC bank. realizing they weren't selling cars, GM began loaning their excess profits to their car buyers just so they could move units out the door. quickly they realized they could make more money off the loan, than the car.