Whitewashing US history with 'patriotic education' -Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
@JonNC @Balto1

So, the difference between socialism and capitalism or free market is this:

In socialism, the economy and the government are one and thus the government decides who will have access to what.

In capitalism, the economy is separate from the government, and the government decides only limitations on what and how people can act and own.

In socialism, the man who makes windows with glass an inch thick (mentioned above) would not be allowed to create a business out of this skill, if indeed he were permitted to develop it at all; in capitalism he is free to develop and sell the fruit of his skill.
 
JonNC said:
Except that it isn’t a free market.
Click to expand...
Do you define a free market where producers compete with each other for sales and the consumer is free to choose?

What do you think of this?

Suppose you have all the pharmaceutical markets colluding with each other to keep the price of drugs high. All of them will set the price of their products high so that it gives them a very high profit margin. The consumer has no choice but to pay for the product since they need it.

Is this a free market?
 
Last edited:
One of the goals of the US was to “Christianize” the Philippines, which by the way is a majority Catholic country.

I don’t know if this is due to Americans not considering Catholics as Christians or just plain ignorance.
 
Capitalism also allows for the concept of “Price Gouging”. This can go unchecked if the Government does not step in.
 
Capitalism does not have “natural” boundaries; that is why it requires government.

Consider driving. A car allows us to go as fast as we want, however we want, etc.

In order to keep bad things from happening when people drive, the government imposes rules: everyone drive on the same side of the road, don’t drive too fast, etc.

However, we can still use the cars within those boundaries to go wherever we can afford to go.
 
I agree, but Republicans like Trump want to strip away the rules and allow Capitalism to go unchecked as much as possible.
 
It may be noted as well that the principal native combatants were the “Moros” or Muslim Filipinos, who are now problematic to the government of the Philippines.
 
This is a good article. It was written by former presidential candidate George McGovern after running a B&B in his retirement.

One of McGocern’s campaign promises was to give every person in the US $1000 (in 1972, when the minimum wage was around $1.60 or less).
RidgeSprinter said:
Republicans like Trump want to strip away the rules and allow Capitalism to go unchecked as much as possible.
Click to expand...
Let’s go back to the driving analogy. When I was learning to drive, my mother would tell me to drive more towards the center of the road when I got too close to the edge.

Conversely, if i got too close to the middle, she would tell me to drive more towards the edge.

It’s the same way with capitalism. If there are too many regulations, capitalism stops working well. If there are too few, capitalism might work fine, but people suffer.

So we have a situation in which people tell their government they want more safety measures in factories. So the government does that. People stop suffering, and capitalism absorbs that additional cost.

But suppose the people wanted workers to be even safer and said all the workers had to be bundled in fireproof bubble wrap.

The workers would be unable to do their jobs and capitalism would come to a halt.

Here and now, the Ds want to increase restrictions on businesses, and the Rs want to reduce restrictions on businesses.

As a result, we are always making those types of adjustments drivers make to keep about the right level of restrictions. We go a little too far in the number of restrictions, then we pull back to too few, and then we get to around the right place.

Until something changes and we start the cycle over again.

So Trump wants to “strip away rules and allow [c]capitalism to go as unchecked as possible.”

This does not mean he wants to remove all rules regulating businesses, does it? The “as possible” part of what you wrote shows that.

Capitalism going as unchecked as is good for the society is good for the society.

Capitalism having no checks at all is bad for the society, it is true, but having too many rules, too much checking, is also bad for society.

Notice that before the shutdown, the economy was going so well that record lows in unemployment were reached for groups who have been historically disadvantaged.

Isn’t a higher level of employment for black people something that people who are against racism are for?
 
Last edited:
I agree.
But we have to maintain a precarious balance of limitations.
To far one way it is bad.
To far the other way it is bad.
 
Annie said:
In socialism, the man who makes windows with glass an inch thick (mentioned above) would not be allowed to create a business out of this skill, if indeed he were permitted to develop it at all; in capitalism he is free to develop and sell the fruit of his skill.
Click to expand...
These are beautiful windows; a full story high and very decorative while still highly functional. In a socialist country, one might reasonably doubt they would be made at all, even if a person had the skill. In talking about socialist economics, I’m always reminded of something Solzhenitsyn said about the Soviet Union. He characterized it as “…where labor is cheap and capital is dear, unlike in the West where it’s the other way around…”

We usually don’t think of it that way. But in socialist states, particularly the more authoritarian ones, it takes so much of the capital to maintain the regime that not enough is left for a proper level of investment. Socialism “eats its seed corn”, as it were.
 
Sarcelle said:
Do you define a free market where producers compete with each other for sales and the consumer is free to choose?
Click to expand...
And more. It also involves individuals offering their labor and time in exchange for compensation. An employer offers compensation in return for an employee’s time and labor.
Sarcelle said:
Suppose you have all the pharmaceutical markets colluding with each other to keep the price of drugs high. All of them will set the price of their products high so that it gives them a very high profit margin. The consumer has no choice but to pay for the product since they need it.
Click to expand...
I think anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws have an appropriate place. This is where free markets taken to an extreme actually hurt the economy. Competition is important. It is one of the fatal flaws of socialism, where the government holds the monopoly.
 
RidgeSprinter said:
Capitalism also allows for the concept of “Price Gouging”. This can go unchecked if the Government does not step in.
Click to expand...
In Isabel’s wake, private contractors from nearby states brought their heavy equipment to Virginia to clear fallen trees from people’s houses. Producers and shippers of generators, plywood and other vital supplies worked overtime to increase the flow of these goods to Virginians. What was it that got these people and millions of others to help their fellow man in time of need? Was it admonitions from George Bush? Was it conscience or love for one’s fellow man?
I’ll tell you what it was. It was rising prices and the opportunity for people to cash in on windfall profits. Windfall profits are one of the vital signals of the marketplace. It’s a signal saying that there are unmet human wants, leading people to strive to meet those wants. It stimulates the supply response to a disaster.
Click to expand...
 
Annie said:
In socialism, the economy and the government are one and thus the government decides who will have access to what.

In capitalism, the economy is separate from the government, and the government decides only limitations on what and how people can act and own.

In socialism, the man who makes windows with glass an inch thick (mentioned above) would not be allowed to create a business out of this skill, if indeed he were permitted to develop it at all; in capitalism he is free to develop and sell the fruit of his skill.
Click to expand...
Wrong, actually. In socialism there are small businesses and entrepreneurship. And certainly so in democratic socialism. People really misunderstand the concept of socialism.
 
Nepperhan said:
In socialism there are small businesses and entrepreneurship. And certainly so in democratic socialism. People really misunderstand the concept of socialism.
Click to expand...
Insofar as there are small businesses in a system, it is not socialist.

Socialism is different from democratic socialism.
 
Hmm which Protestant version?

Below is an American cartoon on the acquisition of Hawaii, Cuba and the Philippines. I don’t know about you, but the occupants of those places don’t look like that.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
. . . . I am fiercely anti-abortion, but I will never support . . . this President . . . regardless of court politics.
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
Wrong, actually. In socialism there are small businesses and entrepreneurship. And certainly so in democratic socialism. People really misunderstand the concept of socialism.
Click to expand...
Democratic socialism is a contradiction, unless one means majority rule with protection of individual rights. Socialism requires authoritarian rule, either by a despot, or by majoritarian tyranny.
The concept of socialism isn’t hard. It is government strict control or ownership of the means of production.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top