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

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

My brother, this thread is about “how ridiculous to think that the world will remain Capitialistic.” I have lived in America for about 3 decades. Of those years from school, healthcare and career, I would say that 90 % are of Socialist benefits I received that America provides. When crisis happened to me, I have yet benefitted from the private or capitalistic sectors. I wish Capitalism would step in to help out the poor or people in crisis. Not that I fully endorse Socialism but the Government of America provides these socialist services that I would say many Capitalist Americans take for granted. Would you be against all of these?

*military
*police
*firefighters
*voting
*Medicare
*Medicaid
*Social Security
*healthcare (state and county and via emergency room, for people who can’t pay)
*public libraries
*public schools
*government college grants, scholarships, and loans
*higway system (freeways/roads except toll roads)
*the FDA
*the EPA
*homeland security
*usps(i think, not sure)

In a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalistic society only three of the above government services are necessary.

Those are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

There is no other reason for government. The rest of the services mentioned above, if really needed, can be provided by the private sector.

 

[Robert_Sock]

LOVE needs to flourish in our world. The world is overrunning with needless pain, suffering and injustice. Our political and economic systems are to blame. Capitalism breeds greed, excessive power and excessive prestige and must come to an end.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

LOVE needs to flourish in our world. The world is overrunning with needless pain, suffering and injustice. Our political and economic systems are to blame. Capitalism breeds greed, excessive power and excessive prestige and must come to an end.

Bob, old friend…we went over this once before…remember

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sock View Post
A typical free market rant that carefully avoids the negative attributes of GREED, POWER and PRESTIGE that are inherent to such a system.

Greed. power and prestige…maligned terms used by communists to bash Capitalism.

GREED
In a true Free Market, Greed does not exist. People operate on the principle of SELF INTEREST. Self Interest is not greed. A man seeking to improve his lot in life so that his family benefits is acting in his own self-interest. If he, in his own self-interest, improves himself and his family, then the general good is accomplished. Communists. socialists and liberal thinkers of today call that GREED every chance they get…but it is not.

Adam Smith said it very well: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.” In other words, the butcher is not working in his shop so that you can eat; he’s doing it so that he can. But by virtue of him being there, doing what he does, you are able to also eat.

POWER
The power that exists in a Free Market is ECONOMIC Power and that is not a negative… Socialism, communism and tyranny depend on POLITICAL power. There is a big difference.
Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering everyone a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value. Political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The Free Market’s power is values; socialism’s power is fear.

PRESTIGE
Prestige is not a negative in the Free Market. It is a goal. It is earned by respecting the rights and property of others and maintaining the ruling economic principle of justice.
Prestige in a socialist/communist society is UN-earned. It is usurped by force or political power. It is simply “claimed”.

Self Interest, (What you mistakenly call greed) Power and Prestige are not negatives of the Free Market (Capitalism). They are actually positives that make the Free Market the overall best economic system in the world.

How about a new argument…

 

[freeRadical]

My brother, this thread is about “how ridiculous to think that the world will remain Capitialistic.” I have lived in America for about 3 decades. Of those years from school, healthcare and career, I would say that 90 % are of Socialist benefits I received that America provides. When crisis happened to me, I have yet benefitted from the private or capitalistic sectors. I wish Capitalism would step in to help out the poor or people in crisis. Not that I fully endorse Socialism but the Government of America provides these socialist services that I would say many Capitalist Americans take for granted. Would you be against all of these?

*military
*police
*firefighters
*voting
*Medicare
*Medicaid
*Social Security
*healthcare (state and county and via emergency room, for people who can’t pay)
*public libraries
*public schools
*government college grants, scholarships, and loans
*higway system (freeways/roads except toll roads)
*the FDA
*the EPA
*homeland security
*usps(i think, not sure)

I don’t think you understand what Socialism is. Socialism is a economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the state. In contrast with Capitalism, which is an economic system in which the means of production is controlled by individuals. So, most of the programs you mentioned aren’t socialistic, they either wealth redistribution programs or programs that everyone benefits from and, as such, should pay taxes for. Most people don’t use the term socialist correctly.

Now let’s go through your list one by one:

National Defense

This is something that the Constitution specifically says that Congress must provide. Everyone benefits from national defense so everyone should pay taxes for it. About 30% of the federal budget is spent on National Defense. I don’t see how this is socialistic. It is something everyone benefits from and, as such, should have to contribute to. In economics, we call this a benefit-received tax. These taxes are okay.

Police and Firefighters

Again, this is something that everyone benefits from and should have to contribute to. I don’t see how this is socialistic. Most police and firefighter services are provided locally and are paid for by property taxes in most municipalities. They argument is that if you own property in a city then you benefit from the city’s provision of police and fire services. This is also a benefits-received tax.

Voting

I don’t understand what this has to do with either Capitalism or Socialism.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security

These are labeled as insurance programs but they are basically wealth redistribution programs. I don’t see how these are socialistic programs. All of these are paid for by payroll taxes and the Social Security tax in particular is highly regressive, that is, it imposes more of a burden on lower income people than higher income people.

Medicare is a program in which the young, healthy, and working subsidize the old, sick, and retired. The argument is that we will all be old, sick, and retired someday so we should all pay into the system. Most old people are upper income. So this is a program in which everyone pays into, low income, middle income, upper income, but only upper income people benefit. This is a wealth redistribution program that redistributes wealth form low income people to upper income people.

Medicaid is a program in which people who are working subsidize those who aren’t, usually low income people. The argument is that we all fall on hard times and, thus, should contribute to this program. This is a program which redistributes wealth from middle income and upper income people to low income people.

Social Security, formerly know as Old Age and Survivor’s Insurance, is an insurance program to make sure that we have enough money to live on in our old age. The argument is that people don’t save enough on their own for their retirement so they must be made to by the government. This is a program that redistributes wealth from low income and middle income people to upper income people. Also, it is very regressive.

About 50% of the federal revenue is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security

 

[freeRadical]

Healthcare

Healthcare was just fine before employers starting off health insurance is a fringe benefit, nontaxable I might add, and the government started subsidizing it. Subsidies always lead to higher prices. This is starting to become more socialistic and if we ever go single payer then it will be a socialistic program. Healthcare is a very complicated matter. Not to mention that the AMA currently has a monopoly on the provision of healthcare and often restricts the supply to drive up prices.

Public Libraries

Again, this is something everyone benefits from so they should have to contribute. It is a benefit received tax. In most municipalities, they are paid for through a property tax.

Public Schools

Public schools are another very complicated matter. A case can be made that we all benefit from everyone having a primary education but, while a case can be made for government subsidization of primary schools, a case cannot be made for government running and providing the schools. In most municipalities this is paid for by a property tax.

Government Subsidization of Secondary Education

This is another case of government subsidization leading to higher prices. While a case can be made for the government subsidizing primary education, no case can be made for government subsidizing secondary education. Everyone pays for subsidization of college grants, scholarships, and loans, but most of the people that go to and graduate from college are from middle to upper income families and will be in the middle income tax bracket after getting a job after graduation. So this is a program that redistributes wealth from low income people to middle and upper income people. This is changing, however, as most people who graduate from college cannot get a job that pays well in their field.

Roads and Highways

This is another benefit-received tax, everyone benefits so everyone should contribute. Roads are paid for through the gas tax. Another name for this type of tax is a consumption tax.

FDA and EPA

The argument here is that everyone benefits from the FDA and EPA so everyone should contribute. I don’t see how this is socialistic. I personally don’t think we get our money’s worth but some people think we do.

Department of Homeland Security

Another instance of everyone benefits so everyone should contribute. I personally don’t see the point of the DHA, isn’t that what the DOD is for?

USPS

USPS is actually a private organization. They get most of their revenue from the prices they charge for their services. The only government involvement in the USPS is government guarantee of pensions. I personally don’t see the point of the USPS when FEDEX and UPS can do it much better, but this is something that the Constitution says Congress has the authority to provide.

In summary, most of the things you mentioned are not socialistic, they are basically benefit-received programs or wealth redistribution programs.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Bob, old friend…we went over this once before…remember

Greed. power and prestige…maligned terms used by communists to bash Capitalism.

GREED
In a true Free Market, Greed does not exist. People operate on the principle of SELF INTEREST. Self Interest is not greed. A man seeking to improve his lot in life so that his family benefits is acting in his own self-interest. If he, in his own self-interest, improves himself and his family, then the general good is accomplished. Communists. socialists and liberal thinkers of today call that GREED every chance they get…but it is not.

Adam Smith said it very well: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.” In other words, the butcher is not working in his shop so that you can eat; he’s doing it so that he can. But by virtue of him being there, doing what he does, you are able to also eat.

POWER
The power that exists in a Free Market is ECONOMIC Power and that is not a negative… Socialism, communism and tyranny depend on POLITICAL power. There is a big difference.
Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering everyone a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value. Political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The Free Market’s power is values; socialism’s power is fear.

PRESTIGE
Prestige is not a negative in the Free Market. It is a goal. It is earned by respecting the rights and property of others and maintaining the ruling economic principle of justice.
Prestige in a socialist/communist society is UN-earned. It is usurped by force or political power. It is simply “claimed”.

Self Interest, (What you mistakenly call greed) Power and Prestige are not negatives of the Free Market (Capitalism). They are actually positives that make the Free Market the overall best economic system in the world.

How about a new argument…

You paint capitalism as a glorious system that’s immune to the negative attributes I have listed. Where has capitalism succeeded in overcoming greed, excessive power and excessive prestige? Capitalism has failed miserably in correcting these attributes.

 

[freeRadical]

You paint capitalism as a glorious system that’s immune to the negative attributes I have listed. Where has capitalism succeeded in overcoming greed, excessive power and excessive prestige? Capitalism has failed miserably in correcting these attributes.

What economic system has done more to improve the lot of the ordinary man and bring millions of people out of indescribable poverty then Capitalism?

Greed? The whole world runs on greed. The world is made up of people pursuing their own self interest. That is never going to change. You think Socialism doesn’t run on greed? You think Communism doesn’t run on greed? Who rewards virtue? You think the US President rewards virtue? You think President Putin rewards virtue? You think the government of China rewards virtue? Is political self interest some how nobler than economic self interest? Robert, please tell me where you are going to find these angels who are going to organize society for us?

 

[freeRadical]

LOVE needs to flourish in our world. The world is overrunning with needless pain, suffering and injustice. Our political and economic systems are to blame. Capitalism breeds greed, excessive power and excessive prestige and must come to an end.

Please enlighten me on what economic or political system is going to cause love to flourish in our world? Please tell me what economic or political system is going to end the needless pain, suffering, and injustice? Capitalism has done more to improve the lot of the ordinary man and lift millions out of indescribable poverty then any economic system yet discovered. You blame Capitalism for all the ills of the world but you offer no solutions.

Where is their indescribable poverty in the world? Where is their needless pain, suffering, and injustice. It’s not in Capitalistic countries. It’s in countries where people do not have economic or political freedom.

 

[markomalley]

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

Socialism is inherently materialistic.

The antithesis of “Love”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You paint capitalism as a glorious system that’s immune to the negative attributes I have listed. Where has capitalism succeeded in overcoming greed, excessive power and excessive prestige? Capitalism has failed miserably in correcting these attributes.

Capitalism has never really failed. There are no negative attributes.

Capitalism demands the best of everyone and rewards them accordingly. It leaves everyone free to choose the work they like, to specialize in it, to trade a product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as one’s ability and ambition will carry him. A person’s success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value. When men are free to trade, with reason and reality as their only guide, when no one may use physical force to extort the consent of another, it is the best product and the best judgment that win in every field of human endeavor, and raise the standard of living higher for all those who take part in productive activity.

The flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright falsehood about Capitalism is such that the young people of today have no idea (and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of its actual nature.

The United States does not have full, perfect, unregulated, totally laissez-faire Capitalism…as it once had. Various degrees of government interference and control began in the early 1900’s. This led to a Mixed Economy. But the extent to which certain countries were free was the exact extent of their economic progress. America, the freest, achieved the most.

If a detailed, factual study were made, it would be found that the actions blamed on Capitalism were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business. The “evils”, popularly ascribed to Capitalism, were not the result of “unbridled Capitalism” , but of government power over industry. The villain in the picture was not Capitalism, not free enterprise, but government controls.

 

[markomalley]

You paint capitalism as a glorious system that’s immune to the negative attributes I have listed. Where has capitalism succeeded in overcoming greed, excessive power and excessive prestige? Capitalism has failed miserably in correcting these attributes.

Nobody paints free market economies (a/k/a capitalism) as a panacea.

The one thing the free market economies (a/k/a capitalism) have going for them is that one has a choice to act well. In a truly socialist society, that choice is taken from the individual.

 

[ishii]

You paint capitalism as a glorious system that’s immune to the negative attributes I have listed. Where have -]has capitalism /-] humans succeeded in overcoming greed, excessive power and excessive prestige? -] Capitalism has /-] Humans have failed miserably in correcting these attributes.

I fixed this for you Robert.

Ishii

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I fixed this for you Robert.

Ishii

LOL…

 

[Mickey_Finn]

In a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalistic society only three of the above government services are necessary.

Those are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

There is no other reason for government. The rest of the services mentioned above, if really needed, can be provided by the private sector.

I assume when you speak of a full uncontrolled, un regulated laissez-faire capitalistic society. You are speaking of Somalia. Been there, wouldn’t recommend it.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I assume when you speak of a full uncontrolled, un regulated laissez-faire capitalistic society. You are speaking of Somalia. Been there, wouldn’t recommend it.

No. Somalia is anarchy because, as he said, a full on capitalism requires a police, military, and judicial system. Somalia, as a nation, has neither. However capitalism does still exist there amongst tribes who fulfill this role.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Nobody paints free market economies (a/k/a capitalism) as a panacea.

The one thing the free market economies (a/k/a capitalism) have going for them is that one has a choice to act well. In a truly socialist society, that choice is taken from the individual.

To expound upon this, capitalism offers the poor a way OUT of poverty. They may not take it, and it may take a long time to get there, but there IS a way out. Socialism only offers a nation a one way ticket INTO poverty.

 

[holyreyes]

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.

Yes, to capitalize on cheap natural resources and labor and maximize profits.

 

[holyreyes]

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

Oh dear! :bigyikes:

I said that the Free Market (Capitalism) is the only means of elevating people from poverty.

Oh dear! more eek eyes :bigyikes::bigyikes:

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.

I do not agree with the notion that the only way out of poverty for vulnerable people who are poor is to start working. Would the companies hire people with mental, physical and emotional disabilities? How about seniors who are dependent on their social security alone?

 

[holyreyes]

Healthcare

Healthcare was just fine before employers starting off health insurance is a fringe benefit, nontaxable I might add, and the government started subsidizing it. Subsidies always lead to higher prices. This is starting to become more socialistic and if we ever go single payer then it will be a socialistic program. Healthcare is a very complicated matter. Not to mention that the AMA currently has a monopoly on the provision of healthcare and often restricts the supply to drive up prices.

Public Libraries

Again, this is something everyone benefits from so they should have to contribute. It is a benefit received tax. In most municipalities, they are paid for through a property tax.

Public Schools

Public schools are another very complicated matter. A case can be made that we all benefit from everyone having a primary education but, while a case can be made for government subsidization of primary schools, a case cannot be made for government running and providing the schools. In most municipalities this is paid for by a property tax.

Government Subsidization of Secondary Education

This is another case of government subsidization leading to higher prices. While a case can be made for the government subsidizing primary education, no case can be made for government subsidizing secondary education. Everyone pays for subsidization of college grants, scholarships, and loans, but most of the people that go to and graduate from college are from middle to upper income families and will be in the middle income tax bracket after getting a job after graduation. So this is a program that redistributes wealth from low income people to middle and upper income people. This is changing, however, as most people who graduate from college cannot get a job that pays well in their field.

Roads and Highways

This is another benefit-received tax, everyone benefits so everyone should contribute. Roads are paid for through the gas tax. Another name for this type of tax is a consumption tax.

FDA and EPA

The argument here is that everyone benefits from the FDA and EPA so everyone should contribute. I don’t see how this is socialistic. I personally don’t think we get our money’s worth but some people think we do.

Department of Homeland Security

Another instance of everyone benefits so everyone should contribute. I personally don’t see the point of the DHA, isn’t that what the DOD is for?

USPS

USPS is actually a private organization. They get most of their revenue from the prices they charge for their services. The only government involvement in the USPS is government guarantee of pensions. I personally don’t see the point of the USPS when FEDEX and UPS can do it much better, but this is something that the Constitution says Congress has the authority to provide.

In summary, most of the things you mentioned are not socialistic, they are basically benefit-received programs or wealth redistribution programs.

Thanks

 

[holyreyes]

What economic system has done more to improve the lot of the ordinary man and bring millions of people out of indescribable poverty then Capitalism?

Greed? The whole world runs on greed. The world is made up of people pursuing their own self interest. That is never going to change. You think Socialism doesn’t run on greed? You think Communism doesn’t run on greed? Who rewards virtue? You think the US President rewards virtue? You think President Putin rewards virtue? You think the government of China rewards virtue? Is political self interest some how nobler than economic self interest? Robert, please tell me where you are going to find these angels who are going to organize society for us?

Just because the world and everyone is greedy doesn’t mean that you have to be one.