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

[Boatswain2PA]

You can’t say it, can you? You are so attached to your dreamy ideology that you just can’t answer the question.

And that is the issue. History has dis-proved Robert’s theory over and over. Robert’s theory has introduced immeasurable evil onto the world and cost tens of millions of people their lives…yet he simply cannot accept the fact.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I fail to see why a hybrid economy is inherently evil. It’s not socialism anymore!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I understand all of your concerns because our own world economic system does not allow us to be as charitable as we are called to.

That’s true…sort of…

I don’t know what you mean by “our world economic system” but when we reach this level of equality that is proposed for our local economy…and everyone is equally poor…who will provide for the poor?

Duh!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Hmmm… Likewise, I find that to be also my concerns regarding about your postings.

Don’t be silly…My postings are RIGHT…yours are wrong!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Etc, etc, etc…

Lack of Faith and trust, Fear of the unknown, Fear of changes, Fear of relinquishing their worldly things, being stuck and born into the system, yes, all of these would make you say all of these things. I find it hard to believe that anyone would promote a low standard of living?

I find that hard to believe also…but that is exactly what president Obama is suggesting.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Don’t be silly…My postings are RIGHT…yours are wrong!

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=19401&stc=1&d=1393452656

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Fine… Then ALL MEN can perfectly function, survive and live prosperously without it (MONEY). LET’S DISMANTLE IT ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Bravo Holy. Now you are talking. Finally something to agree upon.

I am all for Economic Bartering. No government provided money. It would be immensely prosperous as long as it was beyond any government influence…like a true FREE MARKET.

Think of it… Everyone would trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent judgment. People would grow rich only if they offered better values—better products or services, at a lower price—than others are able to offer.

What a wonderful world… no one person or group could initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government would be protecting individual rights, Taxes would be voluntary.

People of formerly antagonistic nationalities would live together in peace. There would be no more war.

Holyreyes…you provided a great idea…I’m with you…let’s start DISMANTLING!!!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Inconceivable…(in all humility)

 

[Robert_Sock]

Bravo Holy. Now you are talking. Finally something to agree upon.

I am all for Economic Bartering. No government provided money. It would be immensely prosperous as long as it was beyond any government influence…like a true FREE MARKET.

Think of it… Everyone would trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent judgment. People would grow rich only if they offered better values—better products or services, at a lower price—than others are able to offer.

What a wonderful world… no one person or group could initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government would be protecting individual rights, Taxes would be voluntary.

People of formerly antagonistic nationalities would live together in peace. There would be no more war.

Holyreyes…you provided a great idea…I’m with you…let’s start DISMANTLING!!!

WOW!!!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What about the role of the grocer?

Are they charging only what is necessary to pay their costs?

The grocer won’t be in business very long that way.

Are they paying the cashier a good and generous wage?

If the cashier was not happy and satisfied with her wages…she is free to find a better paying job.

Or do they take the cash tendered, pay the minimum costs, keeping the remainder in their wallet.

Yes, of course. That is exactly what the grocer does. EXXON and Walmart do the same thing. It is called PROFIT and that is why the grocer does what he does.

He does not stock his shelves and pay his cashier wages and benefits just so you can eat. He works his butt off so HE can eat. But by doing so YOU are able to have a nice selection of fresh fruits and vegetables that you do not have to grow yourself.

This is a Free Country. If you think the grocer is selling low quality groceries or paying slave wages or charging too much…you can go elsewhere. That’s the beauty of our system.

Is this a great Country …or what?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

WOW!!!

I will take your “WOW” as agreement.

You are welcome to join Holyreyes and me on our quest to dismantle the evil government monetary system and create a true, pure FREE MARKET based on the barter system.

As a show of faith, both you and Holyreyes may send all your evil cash money to:

Zoltan’s Monetary Dismantling Service INC.
Cash Destruction Division
Wall street
NY, NY

All your worries and concerns will be over and we will start a new world economic system based on Truth, Justice and the American Way.

 

[minkymurph]

Pope Francis may not be a Marxist, but the world will eventually be Socialistic. Capitalism is doomed as a fair and just economic system, and must be abandoned. Socialism is more ready to lend itself to true Humanitarian causes, which the vast number of people will support. Capitalism is inherently anti-humanitarian, and must not be allowed due to the human atrocities that it produces.

My two cents worth is we keep reviving capitalism irrespective of its failures because humans are naturally selfish.

This may sound like a harsh thing to say, but true and it is not meant as judgmental, merely realistic.

To explain - we may disagree with unfairness, but we are less likely to shout about unfairness if we as individuals or our children benefit from the unfairness. In principle we may say something is is unfair, we sympathize with those who are disadvantaged and the sympathy may be genuine, but prepared to leave it alone if changing it means we or our children will be disadvantaged by a more fair system. If we or our children are disadvantaged by the unfairness that is a different matter we will be more open to actively bringing about change.

It is true socialism is more ready to lend itself to true Humanitarian causes and capitalism less so because socialism focuses more on community whereas capitalism focuses on the individual. In a capitalist society the attitude, ‘if me and mine are OK that’s all I need to do.’ This is understandable given a considerable percentage of people in capitalist societies think the world owes them a living, have no conscience about being a parasite on others purely for their own benefit irrespective of the burden on others, because capitalism focuses on the individual. The only societies in which socialism flourishes is societies were a significant percentage are disadvantaged because everyone has little, and there is greater value placed on people than things.

Having said that, while capitalism is cannot be described as a fair and just economic system, socialism allows little room for individualism and private enterprise which also leads to inefficient economies, injustices, and human atrocities. Even Lenin realized a certain amount of controlled capitalism was necessary.

The end product of radical capitalism and radical socialism is the same - just for different reasons. What we need is a balance between the rights and needs of the individual, and those of the community.

 

[freeRadical]

What’s the point when everybody knows the answer?

Because I want to hear it from you. It’s not that hard of a question. Have the Popes and the Catholic Church condemned Socialism or not?

 

[freeRadical]

The end product of radical capitalism and radical socialism is the same - just for different reasons. What we need is a balance between the rights and needs of the individual, and those of the community.

From each according to his ability, from each according to his need. Sound familiar?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

My two cents worth is we keep reviving capitalism irrespective of its failures because humans are naturally selfish.

I would say that is rather harsh.

While SOME humans may be selfish the vast majority are doing nothing more than looking out for their own self interest. That is a natural human trait. To want the best that one can provide for one’s family and self is a virtue.

To explain - we may disagree with unfairness, but we are less likely to shout about unfairness if we as individuals or our children benefit from the unfairness. In principle we may say something is is unfair, we sympathize with those who are disadvantaged and the sympathy may be genuine, but prepared to leave it alone if changing it means we or our children will be disadvantaged by a more fair system. If we or our children are disadvantaged by the unfairness that is a different matter we will be more open to actively bringing about change.

This is interesting…but I cannot imagine myself benefiting from “unfairness”. I will have to ask for an example of “unfairness”.

It is true socialism is more ready to lend itself to true Humanitarian causes

I am sorry but I can fine no historical evidence to back that up.

In a capitalist society the attitude, ‘if me and mine are OK that’s all I need to do.’

Not quite accurate.

The real attitude is more like WHEN me and mine are OK THEN we can focus on other things. Only when a society becomes prosperous can it begin to enjoy leisure time, promote creativity, support the arts, music, education and research. A socialistic society’s focus is not prosperity but on equality and service to the state or collective.

This is understandable given a considerable percentage of people in capitalist societies think the world owes them a living, have no conscience about being a parasite on others purely for their own benefit irrespective of the burden on others, because capitalism focuses on the individual.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Capitalists favor individualism and expect nothing that is not earned. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among people, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.

Socialism, collectivism and communism cannot recognize individual rights because they do not recognize individuals. They focus on the state and support a parasitic society of people who must be kept in a constant state of dependence.

The only societies in which socialism flourishes is societies were a significant percentage are disadvantaged because everyone has little, and there is greater value placed on people than things.

That is true. Socialist societies have a lower standard of living than Capitalist societies.
I wonder why. Perhaps it is because they place no value on the individual.

Having said that, while capitalism is cannot be described as a fair and just economic system, socialism allows little room for individualism and private enterprise which also leads to inefficient economies, injustices, and human atrocities. Even Lenin realized a certain amount of controlled capitalism was necessary.

The primary principal of Capitalism IS JUSTICE.

The end product of radical capitalism and radical socialism is the same - just for different reasons. What we need is a balance between the rights and needs of the individual, and those of the community.

When the rights of the individual come first, all of society will flourish.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Humanitarianism within capitalism is going to be rather rare in comparison that which can be obtained in socialism.

Thankfully not only has history proven this to be false, but that the Church completely disagrees as well.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Thankfully not only has history proven this to be false, but that the Church completely disagrees as well.

Again, I view the historical perspective as socialistic nations being dictatorships. It’s the dictatorships that caused these nations to abuse its citizens, not the underlying socialistic nature of these nations.

 

[tabycat]

I will take your “WOW” as agreement.

You are welcome to join Holyreyes and me on our quest to dismantle the evil government monetary system and create a true, pure FREE MARKET based on the barter system.

As a show of faith, both you and Holyreyes may send all your evil cash money to:

Zoltan’s Monetary Dismantling Service INC.
Cash Destruction Division
Wall street
NY, NY

All your worries and concerns will be over and we will start a new world economic system based on Truth, Justice and the American Way.

Don’t hold your breath for the money to come in, Zoltan!!!

 

[nmgauss]

Again, I view the historical perspective as socialistic nations being dictatorships. It’s the dictatorships that caused these nations to abuse its citizens, not the underlying socialistic nature of these nations.

Dictatorship is a form of government. Socialism is an economic system. Don’t confuse the two.

In socialism the state owns the means of production. How the state leaders are chosen is a separate concept.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

 

[epan]

Can you cite a reference so I can confirm your point?

Have you ever looked for a job from a poor man? Only people with money can offer employment. Labor is a service offered to the person with money. Services are sold just like material objects. If the market is poor for labor, then wages are poor. The one who works for lower wages gets the job, thus competing against another who wont.

Are the unemployed exploited? If there are not enough jobs for people, whose fault is that? In the Deep South, rural people go hunting, fishing, and picking greens. If they have a job, so much the better. But nobody starves to death on that regimen.

Well, gee. You might bone up on Libertarianism, which is the cornerstone philosophy for “social Darwinism” which you appear to advocate.

As I understand these points of view, yours are in direct opposition to Christian principles, including Catholic principles. Don’t take my word for that opinion. Check it what pope Francis is saying.

To answer your question, I have never looked for a job from a poor man. But then, I have never looked for a job from a rich man, either.

Not enough jobs for people? Fault? Come into the present time. Our economy is fundamentally changing. “Jobs” are going away as technology advances.

So tell me, please. If we have no need fir a large part of the workforce, what should we do? Should we kick 40% of our fellow humans to the curb and advise them to ask a rich person for a job?