Results 61 to 70 of 70
12-07-2012, 01:43 PM #61
1: Imperfect communism doesn't default to socialism. They are two separate ideologies, albeit with the same roots. But that's like saying imperfect Judaism defaults to Christianity because they come from the same roots.
2: If you're going to be as glib as possible, that will do, yes. And don't look now, but the US isn't completely capitalistic either. Do you have government health care? Do you have welfare? There are socialist aspects of the US and have been for a long, long time. But you don't want socialism hittingyour shores...too late. Obama is turning the country socialist...except that you've had these socialist programs for years and years. America says socialism is bad, but borrows from it and then says it's not socialism because socialism is (describe communism here)
Back to your simplification though, basically, yeah. And neither has to work perfectly to exist. In fact, I don't know of any ideology, political, fiscal, religious et al, that works perfectly. As long as thing like greed, envy and human emotion get involved, and they always will, nothing will ever be perfect. So to say any one ideology has to be successful to exist or it's something else makes no sense. Everything would be nothing, because nothing is successful.
Under the idea of communism everyone is the same. That's why everyone was "comrade" in the USSR (hence the term "commie"). Even the leader doesn't technically exist and is not referred to as a leader. Gender, race, it doesn't matter, you're equal. Religion? Well, communism runs best under atheism as the idea of personal righteousness creates inequality. You put in as much as you can and take out the same as everyone else, whether they worked as hard as you or not. Any leftovers go to government to redistribute again, but there shouldn't be leftovers.
We all saw how it worked in practice with the USSR. Their government was fat, their highly regarded citizens (ie: really good hockey players) had run of the place and everyone else waited in line for days just to eat scraps.
Socialism let's you work as hard as you want and reap the rewards. Socialism just asks for some of it back to help those who can't do the same. Again, in practice it also helps those who don't want to do the same.
Capitalism, true capitalism, doesn't do any of that. True capitalism is almost libertarian with an attitude of, "I got mine, get lost." It makes sense in that you get what you work for, but it also leads to higher crime, which leads the wealthy to take control and can often lead to a fascist police state.
Canada is mostly socialist with an air of capitalism. The US is mostly capitalist with an air of socialism. The US's economy tanked and took the world with it. Except that Canada did pretty well. I haven't heard any horror stories out of Sweden either.
12-07-2012, 04:16 PM #62
Can the fruits of capitalism be used in positive ways to help socially? Of course, it's simply finding the happy medium.
I've always believed that capitalism has created more freedom and lifted more people out of poverty that any other economic system, so I found it interesting that this fellow seems to agree.
12-07-2012, 04:29 PM #63
12-07-2012, 05:48 PM #64
12-07-2012, 06:20 PM #65
12-07-2012, 06:28 PM #66
12-07-2012, 08:54 PM #67
Taking all of this into consideration I have thought the "health care crisis" has been caused by lack of planning and personal responsibility.
12-07-2012, 10:42 PM #68
As for socialism, people need to think about how insurance works in general.
A group of people pay premiums.
10% of the population has problems all of the time.
Kind of socialism, right?
Why did premiums go up for auto workers in the U.S.?
Their population go older and were more sick. This is difficult on businesses if their work force is older.
12-07-2012, 11:38 PM #69
The market would be much more efficient if the government wasn't so involved. Who agreed to let the banks merge there commercial and investment operations? The government. And who agreed to continue to backstop the big banks when there investment operations took on even more and more riskier investments? The government.
If the banks would have known that they were going to go bankrupt if there risky investments went south, most of them would not have put that capital at risk. The government has distorted the markets to such an extent, that it's hard to call it a free market system. The excessive printing of money has been great for those invested in the stock market, not so good for the people buying food and gas or living off fixed income investments.
12-07-2012, 11:51 PM #70