Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[Boatswain2PA]

If 90% of your well-being is dependent upon the socialist programs of this nation, then I suggest you quickly start looking for other means of supporting yourself, because our nation’s credit card is too high and it’s about to fail.

No reasonable free-market capitalist would argue to get rid of all government services, or the robust safety net that our wealth (gained due to our free-market system) allows us to provide our needy. However there is certainly room to argue that most of these services are provided at the wrong level (Federal versus State), are overfunded (military, homeland security, public schools), a few are unnecessary (HUD, DOEd, etc), .and a whole bunch who are overly burdensome (FDA, EPA, etc) .

Despite what the liberal media, and the liberal academics loudly preach from their bully pulpits, capitalism brings about a standard of living for EVERYONE that is much higher than socialism. Of course Pope Francis is right that “unfettered” capitalism breeds greed and other such evils, but capitalism restrained by a strong sense of social good is certainly the best economic mantra.

 

[holyreyes]

If 90% of your well-being is dependent upon the socialist programs of this nation, then I suggest you quickly start looking for other means of supporting yourself, because our nation’s credit card is too high and it’s about to fail.

No reasonable free-market capitalist would argue to get rid of all government services, or the robust safety net that our wealth (gained due to our free-market system) allows us to provide our needy. However there is certainly room to argue that most of these services are provided at the wrong level (Federal versus State), are overfunded (military, homeland security, public schools), a few are unnecessary (HUD, DOEd, etc), .and a whole bunch who are overly burdensome (FDA, EPA, etc) .

Despite what the liberal media, and the liberal academics loudly preach from their bully pulpits, capitalism brings about a standard of living for EVERYONE that is much higher than socialism. Of course Pope Francis is right that “unfettered” capitalism breeds greed and other such evils, but capitalism restrained by a strong sense of social good is certainly the best economic mantra.

5 out of my past 8 employers are listed among the socialist services agencies listed above. The socialist salaries and benefits I received was way, way more than the miniscule salaries I received from the capitalistic companies where they didn’t even provide healthcare insurance and I was overworked. Nope, Capitalism didn’t work for me in the USA.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

5 out of my past 8 employers are listed among the socialist services agencies listed above. The socialist salaries and benefits I received was way, way more than the miniscule salaries I received from the capitalistic companies where they didn’t even provide healthcare insurance and I was overworked. Nope, Capitalism didn’t work for me in the USA.

I am going to try to say this in a way that is not offensive…but perhaps that was because you did not provide enough benefit to your capitalist employer. In a free market, employer’s only hire people who will make them money…therefore one of the purposes of the employee is to make their employer money.

In a socialist system money doesn’t really matter to the employer, because they can always resort to force to get more money out of the taxpayer.

No system is perfect. A healthy mix of the two is important, but capitalism is ALWAYS required to write the checks required for socialism.

 

[dshix]

I am going to try to say this in a way that is not offensive…but perhaps that was because you did not provide enough benefit to your capitalist employer. In a free market, employer’s only hire people who will make them money…therefore one of the purposes of the employee is to make their employer money.

In a socialist system money doesn’t really matter to the employer, because they can always resort to force to get more money out of the taxpayer.

No system is perfect. A healthy mix of the two is important, but capitalism is ALWAYS required to write the checks required for socialism.

Nailed it.

 

[nmgauss]

Before agriculture was invented, life was a hand-to-mouth existence without any surplus for social services. How much giving to the poor is possible when there is no surplus?

When agriculture was invented, this enabled people to produce more food than they needed and to sell it at a profit. This provided a means to have wealth so that donations to churches and the poor were possible. This is capitalism at its most basic level. Cultural achievements were possible only when there was spare time to devote to them. Capitalism enabled people to specialize in their skills, thus making it possible to have crafts such as blacksmith, tailor, cobbler, candlemaker, scribe, in the local village and to support a local clergy. Without a clergy, there is no church. Without profits, there is no clergy.

Without the ability to generate profits, nobody can hope for an existence other than hand-to-mouth.

The trouble with socialism is that management of the means of production are in the hands of people who are not producing anything, and are thus unlikely to know how to manage production facilities to maximize profit. That is why socialism has been so unsuccessful. Look at the difference between Cuba and Florida? Cuba is decrepit and Florida is thriving.

 

[Inisfallen]

When agriculture was invented, this enabled people to produce more food than they needed and to sell it at a profit. This provided a means to have wealth so that donations to churches and the poor were possible. This is capitalism at its most basic level.

Well, maybe. Agriculture in its early stages could hardly be described as “capitalist.” Or even later stages. Look at medieval Europe, a time and place we sometimes look at through rose-colored glasses as the glory days of the Church.

Labor wasn’t free. The labor had no right to negotiate for his wages (or even to receive a wage). The serf was bound to the land, and to the lord (small “l”, landlord). The lord (and his lord, and his lord, right up to the king) took a cut of every transaction. Donations to the church were certainly possible, and were made frequently, but tithing (a form of taxation) was an institution, and was involuntary – it was as much confiscation of wealth as the progressive income tax today.

Guilds were the regulatory agencies of their time, controlling the production of most non-agricultural goods, and restricting entry into the market.

Capitalism and agriculture are not the same thing at all, and the development of agriculture did not lead inexorably to capitalism.

The development of trade did, but that’s another story.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Nailed it.

If the political and economic systems do not promote LOVE, then they are contributing to our world’s problems.

 

[CrossofChrist]

If the political and economic systems do not promote LOVE, then they are contributing to our world’s problems.

How does socialism promote love?

 

[nmgauss]

If the political and economic systems do not promote LOVE, then they are contributing to our world’s problems.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could live on LOVE alone? There would be no need to have material goods. We would not need food, or water, or shelter----just LOVE.

I once met a person who said that she lived on air. No food was needed. I wonder if she is still living?

If all we needed was LOVE, there would be no need to give to the poor, because they already had LOVE.

Unfortunately, we all cannot have food without competing against others for this commodity. In hunter-gatherer societies there is only so much to go around. The mere harvesting of food removes it from its availability to others. This is selfish and cannot be a loving act.

I once asked a religious friend what she would do if there was only one small morsel of food for her village. Would she grab it for herself or purposely starve? The latter answer came back. Is this LOVE? Are her neighbors better off because of her sacrifice?

This is, of course, a matter of premeditated free will. When a person is at the brink of starvation, the last thing they want to do is pass up food.

 

[Robert_Sock]

How does socialism promote love?

The system need not be socialist, but socialism lends itself to humanitarianism, which is congruent with LOVE.

 

[nmgauss]

The system need not be socialist, but socialism lends itself to humanitarianism, which is congruent with LOVE.

In socialism, money is diverted from some people to others. If the money is taken against a persons proclivity, this is not LOVE. If the person receiving the money is obligated to the donor, this is not LOVE, but a quid-pro-quo arrangement. If the recipient squanders the money on junk food, alcohol, drugs, etc., they are in worse shape than before receiving aid. Is this LOVE?

What does LOVE entail?

 

[Boatswain2PA]

The system need not be socialist, but socialism lends itself to humanitarianism, which is congruent with LOVE.

HIstory refutes this, and every other, premise that you constantly post here.

If socialism lends itself to humanitarianism then it would tend to reason that the nations who are more socialist would have greater humanitarian tendencies.

However history shows an inverse relationship between socialism and humanitarianism. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler…when power is concentrated in the hands of a few (like Socialism does) then evil prevails. What do you not understand about this?

Pope Francis is, of coure, right when he talks about the perils of unfettered capitalism. That is an evil at one extreme of the spectrum, but socialism is an evil at the other extreme.

 

[holyreyes]

I am going to try to say this in a way that is not offensive…but perhaps that was because you did not provide enough benefit to your capitalist employer.

That is sooooo not true. I worked like a dog helping to run a company and being an assistant to the CEO. It was my own car and I had to pay for my own gasoline to drive 100 miles a day to do business transactions with vendors. I terminated my employment, not the other way around because I didn’t make my employer money.
Boatswain2PA;11733951[COLOR="Red":
[QUOTE]
In a free market, employer’s only hire people who will make them money…therefore one of the purposes of the employee is to make their employer money.
[/QUOTE]
Yep, that is absolutely true and that is the philosophical flaw of Capitalism. That is why the vulnerable poor are still poor because Capitalism would not have anything to do with the poor because they have no buying power to give to the Capitalistic companies. They are seen as I once heard from people as “dependence, leeches, parasites, illness” to society…
[QUOTE="Boatswain2PA, post: 8324855"]
In a socialist system money doesn’t really matter to the employer, because they can always resort to force to get more money out of the taxpayer.

No system is perfect. A healthy mix of the two is important, but capitalism is ALWAYS required to write the checks required for socialism
[/QUOTE]
. I thought it’s more like Socialism is ALWAYS required for the perpetuation of a free market system. It is your Socialism that fights, protects, maintains, enables the freedom that you have in the USA. Without it, Capitalism simply would cease to exist.

 

[holyreyes]

Wouldn’t it be great if we could live on LOVE alone? There would be no need to have material goods. We would not need food, or water, or shelter----just LOVE.

I once met a person who said that she lived on air. No food was needed. I wonder if she is still living?

If all we needed was LOVE, there would be no need to give to the poor, because they already had LOVE.

Unfortunately, we all cannot have food without competing against others for this commodity. In hunter-gatherer societies there is only so much to go around. The mere harvesting of food removes it from its availability to others. This is selfish and cannot be a loving act.

I once asked a religious friend what she would do if there was only one small morsel of food for her village. Would she grab it for herself or purposely starve? The latter answer came back. Is this LOVE? Are her neighbors better off because of her sacrifice?

This is, of course, a matter of premeditated free will. When a person is at the brink of starvation, the last thing they want to do is pass up food.

nmgauss,

With regards to your religion as a secular humanist, im not sure if you would have the ability to understand what Robert is saying. I am not going to explain to you the 4 different types of love because it would be a very long explanation. But simply what I am going to tell you is that LOVE is not simply just a feeling or a thought but it requires outward action. It simply gives. Love without action is nothing. The philosophical work of Capitalism is selfish in every sense of the word and your labor is awarded with money. Money is not Love. God is LOVE and LOVE is God.

There is a saint and I can’t recall his name who said something like, a person who only has all the material things in the world really has nothing while another person who only has God in him has everything.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, maybe. Agriculture in its early stages could hardly be described as “capitalist.” Capitalism and agriculture are not the same thing at all, and the development of agriculture did not lead inexorably to capitalism.

The development of trade did, but that’s another story.

But is there a distinct difference? I suspect that all but the absolutely most primitive agriculture always resulted in trade. X raises wheat, Y raises grapes. X trades grain for wine. X plants corn, Y makes planting implements. With even the slightest specialization, trade is inevitable, and so is capitalism.

Near where I grew up there is strong evidence of an Indian town that existed for centuries if not millenia. It was pretty clearly agricultural, as it was on a place relative to a creek where the water could easily be diverted onto the land, and all kinds of agricultural artifacts are found there.

It’s also located on one of the main Indian “thoroughfares” that (due to the lay of the land) became a stagecoach route much later. If one wanted to go east, one went up one long hollow. If one wanted to out onto the plains, one went up another.

There is clear evidence of trade, inasmuch as plains-type and woodland-type artifacts are found there, mostly the latter. It seems fairly evident that plains dwellers brought large animal meat, hides, etc to this agricultural center, to trade for agricultural products and the products of artisans.

The very depopulation of the interior of the U.S. PRIOR to the arrival of white settlers speaks of the widespread trade that went on among the Indians. When the Eurasian diseases arrived at the peripheries, they quickly spread up and down the Indian trade routes, deep into the interior where no white man had ever trod, and wouldn’t tread for another 200 years. They wouldn’t have called that trade “capitalism”, but that’s what it was.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

That is sooooo not true. I worked like a dog helping to run a company and being an assistant to the CEO. It was my own car and I had to pay for my own gasoline to drive 100 miles a day to do business transactions with vendors. I terminated my employment, not the other way around because I didn’t make my employer money.

If you brought your employer money by working so hard, then when you left your employer probably looked at the loss of income induced by your loss, and will pay the next person more.

Yep, that is absolutely true and that is the philosophical flaw of Capitalism. That is why the vulnerable poor are still poor because Capitalism would not have anything to do with the poor because they have no buying power to give to the Capitalistic companies. They are seen as I once heard from people as “dependence, leeches, parasites, illness” to society… .

A capitalist does not look at poor people as leeches, parasites, or an illness to society. They look at EVERYONE as a valuable resource. That is why capitalists have moved much of U.S’s industry to third world countries—because there is so many resources (ie: people) there. Of course, some people are more valuable to the employee (ie: those who work hard) than others.

I thought it’s more like Socialism is ALWAYS required for the perpetuation of a free market system. It is your Socialism that fights, protects, maintains, enables the freedom that you have in the USA. Without it, Capitalism simply would cease to exist.

Again, if you think socialism fights for freedom, then you would find more freedom in socialist nations. But history has proved, ad nauseum, that it is INVERSELY proportionate.

 

[Robert_Sock]

HIstory refutes this, and every other, premise that you constantly post here.

If socialism lends itself to humanitarianism then it would tend to reason that the nations who are more socialist would have greater humanitarian tendencies.

However history shows an inverse relationship between socialism and humanitarianism. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler…when power is concentrated in the hands of a few (like Socialism does) then evil prevails. What do you not understand about this?

Pope Francis is, of coure, right when he talks about the perils of unfettered capitalism. That is an evil at one extreme of the spectrum, but socialism is an evil at the other extreme.

It was a different world when these dictators held power. And they were dictatorships, not pure socialist.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I do believe in “work” in the true essence that it benefits for the sake of others.

That’s a valid belief and I agree.
I also believe that I should keep what I earn from my work and you should keep what you earn from yours. If you have a problem with that…tell me how much of my earnings should go to you and why.

The work that the world offers us is not the true sense of work that God intends us to do.

Where on earth did you get that idea…??

I happen to know first hand that the work of the world is EXACTLY what God intends for us.

We are given a Capitalistic work that is rather selfish in every sense of the word and forced labor by secular, aetheistic communist.

I am sorry but I am not following that comment. I don’t know what “Capitalistic” work is and it seems like you are likening it to communism. Please re-phrase…

You seem to be saying that capitalistic work is the only solution in elevating poverty.

I said that the Free Market (Capitalism) is the only means of elevating people from poverty.
(sorry again I don’t know what “capitalistic work” is)

People receiving welfare are not elevated from poverty. They are still poor. When THEY decide to work their way out…they elevate themselves from poverty.

There are virtually so many people who can’t work because of disability. What are you going to do with those people? Are you then against the socialist benefit they get from Social Security? What are you going to do with the millions of baby boomer seniors who cannot work?

Those are excellent questions. I have not given them much thought. Since I have been contributing a huge portion of my taxes to the poor and disabled all of my life and the ranks of the poor and disabled are growing…that doesn’t seem to be working very well.
How do you suggest we solve this crisis???

 

[freeRadical]

It was a different world when these dictators held power. And they were dictatorships, not pure socialist.

That’s always the excuse isn’t it? Communism or socialism didn’t work because the right people weren’t in charge. A dictatorship is not pure socialist? What do you think socialism is? Socialism is when the means of the production are controlled by the state. Socialism works on one fundamental principle: force. In order to take from one and give to another you must use force. Why do you think the most countries that start off communistic or socialist end up as totalitarian states run by dictatorships? In order for the government to oversee everything and correct “injustices”, it must be given more and more power.

 

[freeRadical]

That’s always the excuse isn’t it? Communism or socialism didn’t work because the right people weren’t in charge. A dictatorship is not pure socialist? What do you think socialism is? Socialism is when the means of the production are controlled by the state. Socialism works on one fundamental principle: force. In order to take from one and give to another you must use force. Why do you think most countries that start off communistic or socialist end up as totalitarian states run by dictators? In order for the government to oversee everything and correct “injustices”, it must be given more and more power.