The Case Against Capitalism

and communism was slowly starving 120 million to death. Which is infinitely better? See how simple that was?

 

They aren't forced to do anything. Those countries do so simply because politicians are elected to implement capitalism to maximize economic growth. Why do you believe otherwise ??

The implementation of competition in the Soviet space program is an perfect example of the success of that economic system withing a totalitarian/communistic government. This also applies in much more general terms to the countries of China and Vietnam who have implemented capitalism universally even though remaining communist governments. You are exactly correct - the benefits of capitalism have been recognized by the totalitarian governments of China and Vietnam. That is the true situation and clearly shows that even the communists have recognized that the competition and creative destruction processes inherent in capitalism result in superior economic growth.

There is no trick question. We have the highest standard of living in the world and to be in poverty with air conditioning, cell phones, and automobiles is hardly the same as living on the streets of Calcutta.

 

I remember the discussion we had on China. Yes they experienced increased wealth, but that wealth is costing them breathing air and drinkable water. The have less than 15 years to solve the problem before the modern world witnesses a true catastrophic costs of capitalism.

To your last point I believe government should be limited...just not in areas where it really counts like national and economic security.

 

As unfortunate as those deaths are, I'll still say communism deaths really don't hold a candle to the number of deaths caused directly and indirectly by capitalism.

 

I believe the countries were forced because they were. The campaigns launched against socialist/communist countries are heavily documented.

Capitalism does have a knack for great wealth generation. That said competition under capitalism is not the same type of competition that occurs under socialism. The socialist beat the capitalist to space. Why not give credit where due?

America has one of the highest living standards in the world in spite of capitalism. It took massive government programs to create the middle classes in this country, not capitalism.

 

Schools are great, but they cannot account for such beliefs that counter the law, the constitution or people of intelligence (which is not attained in school.

 

He also over looks the 100 million people killed by Soviet Socialism while they made their citizens economic slaves to pay for their grandiose space program and make the leaders grow wealth. There was equity though, every one was equal in poverty. And he over looks FASCIST SOCIALISM as was practiced in Germany. And anyone who claims FASCISM was not true socialism does not know what the word means. So another 40 or 50 million in that socialist experiment.

 

That's ridiculous. No one forced China to abandon Mao's command/control system. Deng Xiaoping realized the benefits of the capitalism economic system and implemented with amazing success with regard to poverty reduction. The Soviet Union basically blew up - they could not pay the bills and disbanded. Vietnam independently chose capitalism as the best system for economic growth. This progression has been demonstrated throughout the world.

Socialism as an economic system fails. To claim that socialism beat capitalism to the (I assume free market) space is ridiculous. Capitalism has replaced socialism, again because socialism does not work.

America has the highest standard of living because of capitalism. To claim that the gov created the middle classes is ludicrous. What massive gov programs are you talking about ?? And what funded these gov programs ??

 

Today many people who have very little or no formal education at all are earning money in the U.S. and some have become quite successful, acquiring property, starting businesses, etc. Most of those I have direct knowledge of are immigrants from SEA, Laotian, Cambodian, Vietnamese, etc.

One Vietnamese couple came to the U.S. with a son who was 8 years old and had to help support the family instead of going to school in Vietnam and had to learn English while going to school in the U.S., then worked at McDonalds to pay his way through college, Georgia Tech, graduated found work in Texas, and bought his parents a new Honda auto to show his appreciation for the opportunity they provided him by coming to the U.S. They had a second son who was born and schooled in the U.S. who they tried to help by paying for his education but he got in with the wrong crowd and became a thief instead. Both sons were provided the same opportunities, and the younger son had never experienced living in real poverty, yet the one that did and had to put forth the most effort (forced to learn English, pay his own way through college) achieved the most success.

Are there any statistics you're aware of that make an effort to show the difference efforts of individuals make? Instead it seems that statistics try to make us assume that no matter how hard you try you most likely will fail. Maybe it's time to put a fire under the ladder, and maybe then people might start complaining to the government to replace some of the lower rungs it has removed which forces them to have to jump higher to begin their climb?

 

That which socialism destroys takes time to rebuild, and while socialism makes living easier for those who contribute less there is no incentive for capitalism to become involved.

 

It is also about social morals for "free" instead of Only capital morals for a "price".

ER services in the US are due to the socialism of the law, not the capitalism of a profit motive.

We know where, alleged, subscribers to morals from the Age of Iron, stand on this moral issue.

 

How does that work, with any natural rate of unemployment.

Even if everyone got a doctorate, there would still be a natural rate of unemployment for those who do not specialize in something else that is in demand.

And, crony forms of capitalism don't require a work ethic, and may be confused with truer forms of socialism.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really; but anecdotal evidence of a few success stories in a global economy doesn't really say or mean much. Socialism strives for the equality of more consistent results.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't share that paradigm.

Socialism has to help with social costs, capitalism lies about the existence of "externalities" to their markets and profit motives.

 

Question - Define socialism. It appears that you do not understand what socialism is and continually confuse social safety net programs with socialism. The truth is that capitalism provides more funding of social safety net programs than an other economic system.

 

i don't special plead, you mean.

Socialism starts with a social Contract such as our federal Constitution.

Dictionaries are simply defining political jargon and are no more definitive than the Urban Dictionary.

 

And I was correct. You have no idea of what socialism is and therefore this entire discussion is a waste of time.

 

you don't know what you are talking about and are just a shill, if you have to use a dictionary instead of a more thorough, encyclopedia.

 

I know the definition of socialism - it's basically a command/control economic system where decisions are made by elite experts. It's inferior to capitalism and inferior in its ability to provide funding for social safety net programs.

 

Lol 100 pages into this thread, and people are asking for definitions of socialism.

Sounds about right.

 

Even funnier is the fact that those who profess that socialism is superior to capitalism do not understand what socialism is. Perhaps that explains the appeal of the Bern ??

 

Please cite your reference. It sounds like political jargon.

- - - Updated - - -

only the clueless and Causeless don't understand socialism starts with a social Contract like our federal Constitution.

 

Some people, yea. But there are real socialists out there.

 

The socialism of State capitalism took us to the Moon and back; capitalism is still looking for a profit motive to go to the Moon.

 

What socialist author are you referring to?

- - - Updated - - -

What is the socialist cost-benefit analysis of going to the moon?

 

It is a self-evident Truth, except to the clueless and the Causeless.

The cost benefit of socialism beating capitalism to the Moon, just for this occasion.

 

Lol okay man. Blowing my mind here with that stuff.

In other words, you're analysis is essentially, "Rocket ships boom!"