Forum Post: Socialism v Capitalism
Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 1, 2012, 7:48 p.m. EST by richardkentgates
(3269)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Obviously, there are a few pro-socialism folks on here who believe in their argument enough to troll but not enough to openly make their case.
As a caveat, The Venus Project, nor the Zeitgeist form of socialism are really socialism. They are nonsense provided by people who like the pussy cats on here, are afraid to openly make the case so they offer reorganized socialism in hopes of shedding preconceived notions about socialism. Ie, Venus is garbage and so is the Zeitgeist cap.
I like socialism. I also like capitalism. Much the same way I like a screwdriver and a wrench. Right tool for the job.
Beyond clearing out the garbage, I'm not going to offer much of an opinion on S or C at this point, I'll save it for debate. But I will say that a society needs both in order to be sustainable.
Make your case. Don't try to hide it under reorganized theory. You are talking about economics, not governmental structures.
I agree that we need some ideal mixture of both, though I have no idea of the correct proportions. Whatever the mix though, it needs to be free of the corruption that plagues our current mess of a system.
Humans are animals and essentially all animals show some level of greed and competitiveness. Animals that didn't exhibit greed or competitiveness typically didn't survive long enough to produce a lot of offspring and so the selective pressures for individuals with greed and competitiveness were quite strong for hundreds of thousands of years. Traits like that, which were critical for survival for countless generations, don't just go away, even if we are now capable of higher thought.
For that reason, I think any system will have to have some capitalistic elements to be successful simply because humans will always be at least a little greedy and competitive. Anything that fights those natural instincts will fail.
meh
I think its the fail prediction that kills the strength of the statement
Good call on the importance of human nature.
I make the case for replacing capitalism with socialism in this post:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/1-replace-capitalism-with-democracy/#comment-661383
If we made the economy socialist, it would enable us to:
Capitalism Does Not Work
With 50% of Americans living in or near poverty and 97% of all workers earning a below average income and the govt releasing data on wage earners for the first time ever which shockingly shows 50% are making less than $26k and 18% of all available workers unable to find a full-time job and 55% of the people who do work being wasted by having them do pointless jobs that machines can already do, it is clear that the economy does not work at all for the overwhelming majority of workers.
But people don't lack income because there is not enough income or resources to go around. People lack income because capitalism is a system that allows a very small minority to unfairly take so much of the available income - income that they haven't earned and don't deserve because they got it from gambling and exploitation, not working - that there's simply not enough income left over to pay everyone else.
Everyone in the US in 2012 should be wealthy. We produce $15.4 trillion in goods and services every year.
That is just under $50,000 per year for every man, woman and child. That is $200,000 per year for a family of 4. That is $65 per hour for each hour every worker works. That is $135,000 per year for every full-time worker.
No matter how you slice it, that is clearly enough income to make everyone in this country wealthy.
The reason why nearly everyone gets paid far, far less than those incomes is because we have an economic system that allows a very small group of people at the top to use gambling and exploitation to unfairly take most of everyone else's income.
.
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Capitalism is a system that concentrates most of the wealth in the hands of the few. These few then naturally use their wealth to rule over society. So capitalism always ends in plutocracy, not democracy.
Democracy is a Greek word. But it is not a Greek word for "voting" or "mob rule" or "majority wins." It is Greek for "people power." A modern liberal democracy means political power and freedom rests with everyone equally.
Since everything you do in society requires money, your income determines how much political power you have and determines how much freedom you have.
A person with $1 billion has 50,000 times more power than a person with $20,000 to get someone elected to government or to lobby government to their cause or to use the media to lobby the public to their cause. And they have 50,000 times more freedom to live how they want - to live in whatever house or neighborhood they want, to drive any car they want, to attend any school they want, to get any medical treatment they want, to pursue any hobby they want, to travel to any place they want or to work any job they want.
A society where some have 50,000 times more political power and freedom than others is not democratic.
Of course, the tiny minority at the top still only have a tiny minority of the vote. But that is not a problem. Since the tiny minority use their income to own all the businesses, politicians, governments, and media, they have full control over the public discourse which they naturally use to not only convince the vast majority that the raw deal they are getting is fair, but to also make it taboo to actually question it!
The few at the top have deliberately made capitalism a sacred cow in this country. They have turned it into a religion that people are not allowed to question. That is because if we ever had a real debate about the merits of a system that allows a few people to unfairly take nearly all the income, leaving everyone else broke, the vast majority would use their vast majority of the votes to put an end to it.
.
How To Make Society Democratic
In order to have democracy, a society where political power and freedom rests with everyone equally, income must rest with everyone equally. But income is also used as an incentive to get people to work and work hard.
So the only way to have a society that is democratic and the only way to also have an economy that works well, is to have a system where all income is paid to workers and differences in income between workers are limited by law to just what is necessary to get workers to do hard jobs and to get them to give their maximum performance in performance based jobs.
That system is called socialism.
American anarchist Benjamin Tucker defines socialism best: It's simply a system where workers get paid the full value of what they produce. It's summed up in the original, pre-Marxist, socialist slogan, "To each according to their contribution."
Paying full value means workers will no longer lose half their income to a small group of investors and then most of what's left over to a small group of exploiters. Not only does this pay workers fairly, it also ends the mechanism the people at the top use to concentrate most of the income in their hands.
In order to have a democratic society, capitalism must be replaced with Democratic Market Socialism (DMS).
DMS has been rigorously peer reviewed in mainstream economics journals the past 100 years, beginning with Oskar Lange demonstrating that a socialist market would be more efficient than a capitalist market, and every component of it is already proven to work in the real world. It works largely the same way as the current economy works now where we have individually run firms that compete for customers in the market. The difference is in how income is allocated in the economy.
In DMS, 100% of the economy's income is paid to workers and workers are paid based on how hard they work as explained next.
.
Pay Workers 100% of the Income
Paying 100% of the economy's total income to workers means no income is paid to investors. Half the income workers produce is actually paid to investors.
Investment income is just welfare for the lucky. It allows people like Mitt Romney to get paid $20 million per year without working a single day merely because he got lucky in the market. Workers produce that $20 million every year, not Mitt Romney.
Investing is gambling. The economy should not be used as a casino. Workers shouldn't have to work 6 months every year just to pay off the gambling winnings of investors.
Of course, you need investment money to run an economy. But just like we don't need to pay people to print their own money in order to make sure there's a supply of money in the economy, we don't need to pay people to invest in order to make sure there's a supply of investment money in the economy.
Just like the central bank can provide the economy with the necessary supply of money, it can provide the economy with the necessary supply of investment money. We don't need private investors.
In DMS, all businesses and loans will be funded with public investment funds as explained here.
.
Allocate Income Based on Hard Work
And the second thing we need to do to make the economy DMS is to allocate that income based on how hard you work.
In capitalism, income is allocated based on bargaining power. It allows the top 3% who have bargaining power to exploit the 97% who do not.
97% of all workers are currently getting exploited because they are getting paid less than what they deserve. What they deserve is the amount of income they would receive if we allocated income based on how hard you work, which you do by limiting differences in income by law to only what is necessary to get people to do hard jobs and to give their maximum performance in performance based jobs.
Allocating income this way will enable us to pay every worker from $115k to $460k per year for working just 20 hours per week. That is more than what 97% of workers are currently getting paid.
.
How To Change The System
DMS is a significantly better deal than what the vast majority of workers are currently getting, so it will have a lot of appeal. But you will obviously never convince everyone to want to adopt socialism.
However, virtually nobody lives in the economic system they want. So the plan is to work with capitalists, and everyone else who is dissatisfied, to enact a system where people have a choice of what system they want to participate in.
Just like you can choose retirement or cell phone plans, everyone will have the freedom to choose whether they participate in the capitalist, socialist, or mixed system as explained here and here.
You're still selling houses if you're financing them. This is Social Capitalism or Democratic Capitalism. It's not pure socialism by definition. Pure Socialism is not a loose or debatable philosophical platform. Pure Socialism is a well establish, well defined platform. So to say you are replacing one with the other in your concept is false. You are blending them.
You are on the right path as far as I'm concerned because as I said in the post, I like both of them. We have many socialistic policies in the US and capitalism as well. Much like Canada and Germany. The US just doesn't have the proper blend yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
"You're still selling houses if you're financing them"
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
.
" This is Social Capitalism or Democratic Capitalism. It's not pure socialism by definition."
This is not capitalism at all!
The means of production would be publicly owned, not privately owned.
And I would define socialism like Benjamin Tucker, as a workers movement where workers are paid the full product of their labor by eliminating the payment of investment income and exploitation.
Socialism is summed up by the socialist slogan, "To each according to their contribution."
.
"You are blending them"
There is no blending.
There is no payment of any investment income like rent, profit, interest, dividends or capital gains. You can't have any capitalism if you don't have any investment income.
.
"The US just doesn't have the proper blend yet."
There is no mixed economy that works or has ever worked. Capitalism has failed everywhere it has been tried.
The word finance does not exists in pure socialism. Show me where that exists in pure socialism.
Capitalism built the entire modern world, even the Nazis contributed with their science, like it or not. Saying that it has failed takes your argument further from a winnable debate. Take your emotion out of the debate and you strengthen it. I'm not fighting your idea, I'm saying it's highly unrefined. Also, if you are presenting socialism as your idea, you're really really really late for the meeting, by a couple thousand years at least.
"The word finance does not exists in pure socialism"
Socialism still has money and income. And since it is impossible to make large purchases with income, you need borrowing.
What is different about socialism is that you do not pay interest because there are no investors or the payment of investor income. All investment money comes from public funds.
.
"Capitalism built the entire modern world"
All our wealth came from workers, not capitalism.
And all our increase in wealth came from science, not capitalism.
Capitalism is just a system that allocates that wealth unfairly.
.
"Saying that it has failed takes your argument further from a winnable debate. Take your emotion out of the debate and you strengthen it. "
It has nothing to do with emotion. The facts are pretty clear.
Nearly the entire world is capitalist and nearly the entire world lives in abject poverty.
Half the world lives on less than $2.50 per day and 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.
In the US, after 200+ years of industrializing, thanks to capitalism, it still has 50% of the population living in or near poverty, and 97% of all workers earning a below average income, and 50% of wage earners making less than $26k, and 18% of all available workers unable to find a full-time job, and 55% of the people who do work being wasted by having them do pointless jobs that machines can already do.
It can't even do the simple task of housing all our kids. 1800 kids, from just one Florida county alone, are living in cars.
.
"I'm not fighting your idea, I'm saying it's highly unrefined"
I advocate democratic market socialism. It is as refined a system as you are going to get.
Democratic market socialism has been rigorously peer reviewed in mainstream economics journals the past 100 years, beginning with Oskar Lange demonstrating that a socialist market would be more efficient than a capitalist market, and every component of it is already proven to work in the real world.
.
"if you are presenting socialism as your idea"
I never claimed socialism or democratic market socialism was my idea!
Ah I see. I understand now why you didn't call it by name. This is a perverted version of socialism much like the perverted form of capitalism we now have. The places where this has been implemented have almost entirely dried up due to rebellion brought on by extreme poverty. Now you can say what you like about them being dictatorships for the most part but happy people don't rebel, hungry people do. I would have more forwardly accepted str8 pure socialism before this.
"I understand now why you didn't call it by name"
I do call democratic market socialism by name. It is right there in my comment and in all the posts I write here explaining it!
.
"This is a perverted version of socialism much like the perverted form of capitalism we now have."
Although many socialists want to replace the market with central planning, I would not say market socialism is a perverted form of socialism. Workers are still getting paid the full product of their labor, which is what makes a system socialist.
Also, the scholarship is pretty clear that markets will perform better than central planning in a socialist society.
.
"The places where this has been implemented have almost entirely dried up due to rebellion brought on by extreme poverty"
No socialist countries were ever market socialist or democratic. All the socialist countries were largely centrally planned and corrupt dictatorships. Although central planning will work better in a developed country like the US with a mature justice system and democracy, it still will not perform better than a market socialist system.
Consumer choice and competition works. Monopolies do not.
Change will only happen when American voters wake up and stop voting along party lines. Until then, NEITHER system nor combinations of systems will work. Both are fallible. It is only when a government is ABLE to be held ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE that it is sustainable.
Another way of saying it is PEOPLE/POLITICIANS are fallible, and you will never have change without compromise. If your priority is economic change, vote accordingly, if it is along the lines of other social agendas and you vote accordingly, DON'T BLAME ANYONE BUT YOURSELF FOR THE MESS WE ARE IN ECONOMICALLY.
but government has negatively affected my prosperity more than anything else, so why do you say "not governmental structures"?
A lot of people throw around the word government with no expansion on their complaint. Without details, it's incomplete and therefore an invalid statement.
If I had every dollar I spent in mandatory insurance forced upon me by the government Just in car insurance, I would have an extra $30000 more than enough to pay for any dents in someones car, yet that money was wasted because government was too dumb to let us put that into a savings account. Fraud waste and abuse by our government and insurance. Point 1.
When people work over 40 hours (time away from their family) and the government steps up the tax rate as if though that extra money is meant for them when in fact, they should be awarded for time spent away from their families, as in extra vacation money earned. ALL OVERTIME PAY SHOULD BE AT 0 PERCENT TAX RATE. PERIOD.
Ever go to a small business development seminar? the governor of my state sponsors one called "Economic Development" every 6 months. Governor Jon Huntsman. Anyways, I go to them ruflly every six months and pay $80 (wasted money) for the luncheon, only to receive 40-50 pamphlets of useless information from government bums who are supposedly there to help small business, when INSTEAD, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD JUST AWARD THE GRANT MONEY DIRECTLY TO SMALL BUSINESS. Never happens... In fact, I told them one year, there is like a hundred of you "small business counselors" here and not a one of you that knows anything.
Now we enter the part that is beyond human comprehension: They replied what do I mean? I said, I am here, looking for help for my small business. And all you can do is give me pamplets and phone numbers to go elsewhere? Yet they are "government sponsored".
Hmm okay lets continue, lets take one example, the sba loan has a false guarantee of now 80% backed so banks are not at risk. Now ready for the catch? When you go to the sba.gov website, it says that all sba loan money must be 100% collatoralized by equity in say a home. Ummm I never bought a home I bought a business, but I did create jobs for up to 2 people without any help from the government, and I am still being called into court for "back penaltys" as a punishment for hiring americans. (The short story)
Name: Address: ATTENTION: __ "PUBLIC SERVANT(S)", On the night of December 23, 1913 the United States Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act and thereby committed the greatest act of TREASON in history. It surrendered this nation's sovereignty and sold the American people into slavery to a cabal of arch-charlatan international bankers who proceeded to plunder, bankrupt, and conquer this nation with a money swindle. The "money" the banks issue is merely bookkeeping entries. It cost them nothing and is not backed by their wealth, efforts, property, or risk. It is not redeemable except in more debt paper. The Federal Reserve Act forced us to pay compound interest on thin air. We now use worthless "notes" backed by our own credit that we cannot own and are made subject to compelled performance for the "privilege." From 1913 until 1933, the United States paid the "interest" with more and more gold. The structured inevitability soon transpired: the Treasury was empty, the debt was greater than ever, and the United States declared bankruptcy. In exchange for using notes belonging to bankers who create them out of nothing on our own credit, we are forced to repay in substance (labor, property, land, businesses, resources - life) in ever-increasing amounts. This may be the greatest heist and fraud of all time. When a government goes bankrupt, it loses its sovereignty. In 1933 the United States declared bankruptcy, as expressed in Roosevelt's Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933, confirmed in Perry v. United States, (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 L.ed 912, as well as 31 USC 5112, 5119, and 12 USC 95A. The bankrupt United States went into receivership, reorganized in favor of 115 creditors and new owners. In 1913, Congress turned over America... lock, stock and barrel to a handful of criminals whose avowed intent from the beginning was to plunder, bankrupt, conquer, and enslave the people of the United States of Americaand eliminate this nation from the face of the earth. The goal was, and is, to absorb America into a one-world private commercial government, a "New WorldOrder." With the Erie R.R. v Tompkins case of 1938, the Supreme Court confirmed their success. We are now in an international private commercial jurisdiction in colorable admiralty-maritime under the Law Merchant. We have been conned and betrayed out of our sovereignty, rights, property, freedom, common law, Article III Courts, and... our Republic. The Bill of Rights has been statutized into "civil rights" in commerce. America has been stolen. We have been made slaves, i.e. permanent debtors, bankrupt, in legal incapacity, rendered commercial "persons," "residents," and corporate franchisees known as "citizens of the United States" under the so-called "14th Amendment." Said "Amendment," which was never ratified - see Congressional Record, June 13, 1967; Dyett v. Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v. Phillips, 1975 (affirmed) - created a citizenship for corporations, abstract statutory entities which are the products and definitions of the legislature and are fully taxable and regulatable thereby. Thomas Jefferson's prophecy has come to pass: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... the banks... will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Since 1933 what is called the "United States Government" is a privately owned corporation of the Federal Reserve/IMF. It is merely an instrument whereby the banksters administer their ongoing subjugation and plunder of what was once considered "the last great hope of human freedom." All "public servants," officials, Congressmen, politicians, judges, attorneys, law enforcement officers, States and their various agencies, etc., are the express agents of these foreign principals - see Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938; 22 USC 286 et seq, 263A, 185G, 267J, 611(C) (ii) & (iii); Treasury Delegation Order #91 - who have stolen the country by clever, intentional, and unrelenting fraud, trickery, treachery, non-disclosure, mis-representation, intrigue, coercion, conspiracy, murder (example: the murder of President John F. Kennedy and the continuing cover-up), etc. If there is a greater tragedy in human history it is hard to know what it is. An insidious aspect of this is that "officials" like you may think you are "public servants," or upholding the "law," or other hoaxes. In truth you are conscientiously and assiduously serving the arch-enemies of yourselves, your own rights, your fellow citizens, continued... human rights, life, and freedom in general. YOU are seditiously administering the plunder, bankruptcy, conquest, destruction, dismantling, and elimination of your country. YOU are systematically defrauding, extorting, impoverishing, and injuring human life on the basis of crimes and lies of such magnitude, depth, and proportions as to be beyond human comprehension. By so doing, you are committing TREASON and PERFIDY so immense as "to make the angels weep." If you and your fellow "officials" do not understand the real situation, you are ignorant, naive, deceived, and conned. You are sheer dupes. If you do know and are parties to it, you are guilty of evil and heinous BETRAYAL. You are in such case TRAITORS and CRIMINALS. All of you "in power" are therefore, either fools or knaves, either of which eminently invalidates your "authority" and renders null and void absolutely all moral obligation to pay allegiance or to obey the TREASONOUS SYSTEM you enforce with such mechanical viciousness. If, you, "public servants" had any shred left of humanity, awe, heart, clarity, sanity, access to your true being and conscience, you would instantly resign and do everything possible to inform the American people of their plight and help us retrieve our rights and our country. Only by such means can you even begin to atone for your endless crimes against humanity, the lives you so arrogantly and mindlessly butcher with the "meat-grinder of the law." You DID NOT CREATE the lives you "legally" assault; they DO NOT belong to you. Ignorance of the law - moral and natural law - is no excuse. Youcannot engage in bringing harm to life and, like the Nazi's defense at Nuernberg, presume that because you do so under the "authority" of an imaginary, abstract, unreal legal fiction called "government" you are freed of the consequences of your acts. Moral and natural law are not obviated by ignorance, hubris and self-righteous militancy. Your entire system - from the ground up - is deceit and fraud. It is illicit in essence and ab initio. As Broom's Maxims 297, 729 put it: "A right of action cannot arise out of fraud." Honor is earned by honesty and integrity, not under false and fraudulent pretenses. The color of the cloth one wears cannot cover up the usurpations, lies, and treachery. "When black is fraudulently declared to be white, not all will live in darkness." More and more people are awakening to the truth. What do you think the American people will do as they discover that they have no more country, that they are slaves to mortal enemies, that they have been tricked and betrayed by their "leaders" who sold them out? what do you think they will do when they realize that all their alleged "public servants" are willing or stupidly compliant parties to the plunder, bankruptcy, subjugation, and ruin of their lives and country? Thomas Jefferson wrote: "An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens." Lincoln said: "Just as I would not be a slave, neither would I be a master." I will not participate in your corrupt, arrogant, and cruel fraud, either as perpetrator or victim. The great Indian poet Tagore wrote: "Power takes as ingratitude the writhing of its victims." I will no longer sit here and writhe. The TYRANNY over this nation MUST END! If you continue with this course, you will have natural and moral law and higher powers to answer to, not to mention all those you have wronged under phony color of law. You will also have your own laws turned against you, as you have turned the law against us. To transform the shield of protection into a sword of exploitation, subjugation, and plunder is perfidy. You have now been placed on notice. All further actions on your part will be willful! Signed: All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice. _, Sui Juris. Resolutely, an American who demands his country back.
Yeah, I don't care for the FED either. The regulations you mentioned are usually manipulated by states to openly embezzle money from the federal government, thus the illusion of services.
Big topic. Here's an incomplete response.
Capitalism is basically a way of deciding what we should do. People who have capital invest it in projects to make money. Socialism makes that decision more political, which will obviously be better IF the political system functions well.
But capitalism is no longer run by capitalists, so is it still capitalism? When you get a mortgage, you don't deal with a capitalist, you deal with a professional loan official, a representative of capital, a worker on a career path. Almost all decisions about capital are in the hands of professional experts, not the owners of the capital. So the very least we could do is eliminate the capitalists - even before we eliminate capitalism. Claro?
Very incomplete if you're going to inject such a comprehensive map of mechanisms.
we need to restructure "economics"
I agree. Our current economic system and most of those proposed by economists are antiquated and burgeon from the Industrial Revolution. We're in an information age now, we've undergone a technological revolution and we need a whole new economic system to work for all people under these very new and different global circumstances.
Agreed.
Dude, this is totally off topic but we were checking domain names and found this.....unreal.
http://occupyyourmom.com
lol
Capitalism is slavery to the 1%. When you fools wake up and throw off your chains, it doesn't matter what we replace the ruling class with. We can argue about it after we rid ourselves of the rich. They're the greatest threat to survival the human race has ever faced.
So the Indians where slaves to themselves? Tribes have traded gold for good over thousands of years. All types of tribes, some intermingling and some closed off to the world. Some of them lived a fairly harmonious lives. Blame capitalism if you will but culture is to blame in my opinion.
I said that capitalists are a greater threat to survival than all the tyrants and terrorists since the beginning of civilization. How is that not talking about culture?
Aren't you a capitalist yourself? I mean you live in the US, go to stores and buy products, probably earn some kind of income, you likely prevented someone else from getting your job because you got it instead, etc. I would be shocked if you managed to survive down there in Tucson without being a capitalist to some degree.
A capitalist is a rentier. They have enough property to live by rents or other capital generated income. Unlike the rest of us, they don't work for their money. We work for them.
What would you call a single guy who is roofing houses for extra money?
Maybe a roofer who probably pays a lot of money to capitalist bankers that finance his real business. If you do real work, you're not a capitalist. A capitalist lives off usury and therefore, the work of others.
What do you call the roofer who uses the money he makes working with his own two hands to invest in other companies to earn a return?
Would he be a "real" worker as well as a capitalist?
Ok, so he isnt a capitalist. So what is he?
Because as far as I can see, he sees roofs that need to be fixed and hence capitalizes on it. Right?
We don't speak the same language. Or are you trying to be funny? Idiomatic logic is funny but it's cruel to laugh at it.
It is possible that he is ( trying to be funny ) - but I call him Eeyore as that is how he most often acts - depressed/defeatist.
twinkle
No Im not kidding. If we are going to say that certain people are one label, then we need to be able to label the other people who are on a smaller scale, right?
Capitalizing on things.
Wrong! I don't use capitalize for a metaphor.
Ok, so you dont use it. But how would you classify the guy who is capitalizing on his neighborhood needing roofs?
They are both capitalists, but one is a normal guy, the other is a multinational slimeball? If that is where you are going, then I agree.
I'm sorry. To capitalize means to finance, as in a business loan. The one who lends is the capitalist patron. The one who borrows is the client and owes fealty to the financial lord. A free market entrepreneur/debtor may hope to be a capitalist master someday. But the odds of that aren't good.
You have to forgive hchc - he seems to be Drain Bamaged. I mean it seems that he is torn between supporting the status quo and attacking it - has to be Drain Bammage - I mean wtf is the confusion all about?
Drain Bamage is above my pay grade. Maybe a roofer can deal with it. He should be on top of things.
It can mean to turn into capital too, like buying $100 worth of shingles and then with labor turning it into $200, right?
Needy - that is hot and hard work.
when i think of a Capitalist, i think of someone with enough money and property to control and manipulate the political process. A plumber is not a capitalist. A CEO of a fortune five hundred company is a capitalist. Of the two, the latter is a threat to my liberties, the former is just a person making a living.
What about someone who makes money by investing in that Fortune 500 company? What about the CEO of a small company? Are they a threat to your liberties?
I'd have to say that I look at that relationship the same way i'd look at the Pusher man and the hype. Both destroy communities for their own selfish pleasure but the pusher man could not play his part if it were not for the hype buying his products. If you did not invest in corporations then they would not have extra capital to buy the lobbyists. All actions have consequences, and investing in corporate power helps capitalists impinge on my civil liberties.
But I am not super wealthy. I make a comfortable living and I invest my excess cash to earn a return. We are all capitalists in one way or another.
Well yeah, I am a capitalistic component. I am a commodity, labor. My wages stagnate while those who contribute money and not labor see greater returns on their investments. Sure, we are all dependent on capitalists, but we all don't influence public policies like Capitalists do. The word "Capitalist" has no meaning to me out of a political context.
So essentially by "capitalist" you mean super wealthy people who use their money to influence the politicians all the way up to the President as opposed to people who invest their capital for financial gain? That makes more sense in the context that is being used in this thread.
I prefer the term "crony capitalism" for those who use their money to buy political influence. There are tens of millions of us who invest money in stocks and bonds who are capitalists in the traditional sense, but I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all.
Because I do see the logic of the right wing argument, In a capitalistic society where you spend your money, is just as important as who you vote for, I have miss givings about investing. But because our society demands it of us, I'd at least hope that those who do invest spend a little time investigating what types of corporate policies are subsidizing their living standard. You may find that who you invest in is as much to blame for our quagmire as those we vote for.
That is a very valid point. Most publicly traded companies have pretty good investor relations pages that give you a good idea as to how they run their business. Corporate policies should definitely be evaluated along with scores of other variables when investing. An investment doesn't necessarily have to be stocks or corporate bonds though, they can be gov't bonds, real estate, CD's, gold, etc.
I don't necessarily think that society demands that we invest. It is just the prudent thing to do. If you have more money than you need to live and pay your bills (ie savings = capital) you have to do something with it so it at least retains it's value, if not grows, for you to use in the future. Even if you just put it in a savings account at the bank you are essentially investing it because you are getting a return (albeit small) on it. If people didn't invest their savings in one way or another it will lose value over time due to inflation.
Agreed.
a plumber , who started his own business is a capitalist.
Nope, He is just a wanna be.
I believe self employed people who fancy themselves capitalists are the same type of people who are working class but consider themselves middle class. It has a lot to do with self aggrandizement. Capitalism is not the act of being self employed; It is the act of influencing policy for your own economic interests.
But if he is not a capitalist, then what is he? What economic model would he be mimicking the best?
Capitalism is just a modern euphemism for the landed gentry. It is a term in political economy and describes a class, and not the aspirations of those who covet that class.
The capitalist class is supposed to be the hardest working and smartest among us. And I believe the economic crash is making some people question that assumption.
anyone who starts their own business is a capitalist.
No, that's an entrepreneur.
A capitalist lives purely off of capital.
the USA is a capitalist society. what country do you live in?
Accurate definitions.
You?
you say that capitalists live purely off of capital, what do statists live off of?
That's the definition son.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
capital is money, do you know of any system that dosnt use some form of money?
If a statist is the same as a states rightist, it lives off the work of others: slavery.
I'm sure it means one who supports a tyrannical central government but the definition of statist is irrelevant. It's used by states rightists to divert us from their desire to have us work for them in the local tyrannies they control.
you cant walk back your initial response.
you should have looked up " statist" and " statism " before you replied.
I'm sure you mean one who supports a tyrannical central government but the definition of statist is irrelevant. It's used by states rightists to divert us from their desire to have us work for them in the local tyrannies they control.
Capitalism is an economic system, not a culture. Before you go trying to convince me that capitalism really is a culture, know that I can argue that the sky is pink, it doesn't make it so.
No thanks. I don't have the patience for semantic arguments or the inclination to try to educate anyone who doesn't know that culture, economy and politics are all about the way we support our lives and our species.
Ahh, everything is everything. Did you know, that is also a common epiphany under the influence of acid? It's the byproduct of so much information being considered at one time that the brain cannot properly map or prioritize the information.
Politics and economics are inseparable. Both are subsumed under the heading of culture. If that's not understood, the tangle is hopeless. I'll waste no more time on this thread.
Here's the difference
socialism...failed throughout the history of planet Earth Capitalism...Thrives...created most powerful nation in history of planet Earth
Other than that...yea...they are pretty similar...you fucking idiot
Germany did better than the US during the recession and is still propping up most of the EU to this day.
http://www.thenation.com/article/europes-answer-wall-street
Educate yourself.
This article is almost 2 1/2 years old. Be smarter!
US GDP has been between 1.7% and 4% growth since mid 2009, while Germany has been between .5% and 1%.
So I think we're doing better.
Show your source.
NO!
Do your own research! Are you an idiot! You don't know how to look up GDP. I can't fake it. It is what it is.
Christ! "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right!"
No source, no fact, equals hot air
What are you? A fuckin bumper sticker? You need others to your research for you? Are an executive sitting your fat ass while everyone does the work.
You don't believe the GDP numbers? Who cares? You're not gonna address the substance, but instead throw out distractions like a god damn bureaucrat ! "Any backup on this"? Hrumph!
What a joke. Hot air? You're an empty vessal? No air. air head maybe.
Please don't be mean VQkag2 :'(
ok. I'll behave.
Thank you
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/business/economy/08leonhardt.html
But don't let facts get in the way. Pick and pull any incomplete data set you need to come talk your shit. When you guna do your jump through the fiery hoop trick for us? I promise to move the trampoline at the last mintue.
So that is only 1 1/2 years old. Your gettin closer. If you look at the calendar you will see that is is now sept 2012. Look for something a little closer.
Moron!
You're the ignorant moron who uses data from 2 1/2 years ago.
Whats wrong with GDP.? You got a better number? what is it?
Did you even finish high school?. Are you able to read the article you linked.? How come you didn't know it was 2 1/2 years old.?
Idiot! You're so goddamn stupid. Why don't you stop pretending? Do you think anyone is fooled by your self proclaimed intelligence.? Embarresing. You're too stupid to BE embarrassed.!
LMFAO!
Because Germany has had the same economic structure for a long time. Doesn't it bother you a little that your arrogance gets in the way of actually thinking? You're so overwhelmed with yourself that not another thought makes it through. I can't believe you aren't nauseous with embarrassment sometimes.
http://www.indexmundi.com/germany/gdp_real_growth_rate.html
You didn't even get your numbers right, let alone understand my post was about the ability for capitalism and socialism to share space in economics. Another example is Canada. But don't don't bother looking into that. You aren't capable of seeing anything but your own reflection.
And this chart is 2 years old! it is 2012! You fuckin idiot.
You are so stupid it is pathetic. The US has had better growth than Germany. Even your year old article stated that the us is still preferable. Do you even read what you link.?
Can you read? Stop wasting time until you've passed your SAT's.
Child.
It's obvious you've lost. Your numbers are wrong (as is all your info), your're now understood as the divisive caricature you are, and you've nothing left but instigating petty battles.
My data is accurate and up to date. Yours makes the opposite case you seek to make out of date. Your data is so bad you're tryin to distract us with Canada!
LMFAO
Canada! You wanna compare the US and Canada. You think they are comparable countries mr fuckin "I'm so smart".
You are so NOT smart. You're a god damn moron!
Stick with Canada eh!
You don't like Canada? I wish I had the money. Vancouver has day cruises that run between there and Washington. Looks like a lot of fun.
California has a larger population! Perhaps that would be an intelligent comparison. But not likely.
You have not offered an intelligent case with Germany, and you Canada distraction is woefully inadequate.
I think we're done.! Back to your apocalyptic financial predictions/theories.
I believe capitalism is important because human beings are incredible builders and achievers, and the vast majority of the time rise to the occasion that they thought not possible.
I have seen people achieve incredible things from being pushed, not given the easy road out. I have also seen people go from talented to nothing but useless basement dwellers because they never got that push.
The fact that this country rose so quickly by being a beacon for people all over the globe to come here, and work your ass off, and make something for yourself, is proof economically that it works.
The case for socialism may be that when a society has lost its edge, lost its drive, or turned into such a fascist, uneducated mess, that it may have to start subsidizing certain things to simply keep segments above water. Perhaps the rabid consumerism from capitalism has warped their ability to save and prepare for the future. Some socialism may be the trade off.
If you are looking for massive results, do a Romney or Obama post haha.
You livin in the 50's ?
DK, people do still come here for work. It doesn't have to be all good or all bad to justify the complaints made by Occupy and the 99%. Just my opinion. I wish you guys wouldn't stay at each others throats.
Yes people do still come here to the USA to make a better life for themselves and their families. And when hchc say's something really stupid I feel free to call it what it is.
Something similar to what you no doubt feel about that smarmy college kid who was calling you out on your forum post today - Hey?
Really? lol, taking a swipe at me huh? ;) I know you can can make a point well enough to not depend on psycho-babble.
I never said don't call him out. I was saying as a mod you shouldn't be doing to him what you just did to me. You're a Mod, right? So you're fighting the misuse of power by 1%ers by misusing your own power? See how easy it is?
What psycho babble? And all of the people here who are supporters of OWS and all of the Occupy movements tend to moderate. So how am I misusing - what - my karma score?
I know you understood what I said. There is no need for me to explain it or repeat it.
Umm RKG you have a tendency to go off on tangents - so yeah - what psycho babble?
No one said this was capitalism. Go puke on someone elses post. There should be a cute cartoon here somewhere for you to back pat on.
This world you describe does not exist at this point in time.
Capitalism used to work in this country - then it was allowed to run - MAD.
It used to work before reagon de-regulated.A capitalist system must have tight regulations and anti-monopoly laws...as we once did...along with a secure social safety net and banks that give you loans based on orders etc for small companies.[incorporated so your private home wasnt taken...used to be like that!
And so - we are here as well as out in the streets - working towards uniting the public to regain our government and get things going in the proper direction.
Working towards uniting 'PROGRESSIVE' public, perhaps?
Anyone who questions the Potemkin President is an enemy in YOUR eyes. You are cutting out more than 1/2 the 99%.
Because an engaged public does not exist at this time.
And when the public is this apathetic, it does not matter what the system is, it will be corrupted and the people will be farmed. ITs been proven over and over again.
One system works in one country, and fails in another. The difference- the people.
Yep - the people need to be fully involved - or crapitalism can be as bad as any dictatorship that has ever been.
Well said homie. Nice R v O suggestion.
I do have to include my belief that this is not socialism or capitalism right now. Its a perverse blend of the worst of each (gov and industry partnerships).
When I was in school, I did remodeling for myself. Wanted to make a painting business go pro. Here is what me, one poor guy, needed....
A 2K a year liability insurance policy. If I didnt want workmans comp on myself, they would still charge me $100. Yes, $100 to fuckin say no thanks.
Licensing. Yes, the gov wanted me to go through their bullshit procedures to make me a licesnsed "painter". What a freakin joke. All book test, no hands on testing. What a fraud. Books cost 700-1000 dollars. The test itself cost another $500.
Here is the big kicker. They wanted access to my bank account, with a seperate account for business, that would always have at least 10k in there for "emergencies".
Now imagine being someone straight off the boat. You come over here, you are a good painter, and you want to make something for yourself. Since you are broke, you need to get a shit job to get by. You want to build your business slowly.
Your job at 7/11 pays shit. You are barely ahead. So you start doing side jobs, even though its "illegal" because you need the money. Now some hotshot licensed builder drives by, sees a guy working, and calls code enforcement on him.
Now you get a ticket. And a fine. And still have no way to come up with the 2k to get started, much less have the 10k in the bank for the "licensing board" to verify.
When you cant even go paint a fuckin house for extra money, it aint capitalism.
LOL. I was in exactly that boat when I got the boot from my missus.
Our social security system (yeah we used to call it the SS) allowed me to work, and spend my income to build up my business, buying tools, fixing up my old ute (pickup), and supporting me with income.
We can work without a licence up to a certain amount like $3,300, but anything over that, requires a licence.
A fuckin license by a bunch of clowns in suits that wouldnt recognize good work if it slapped em upside the head.
I hate that shit. Still do. Meanwhile guys like KB and Ryan are building homes out of cardboard and selling them for 400k.
Most regulatory fees for businesses are state level. This is something missing in most of the arguments about smaller gov. All the fees you mentioned are either state or county, where nobody pays attention to what local politicians are doing because it's not on MSM. Yeah, I can relate. They don't even allow street vendors here. To open a tiny bistro would cost around 80,000 and thats just to open the doors, let alone carry you through the first year. It's not what capitalism is supposed to be, for sure.