Debate heats up: Capitalism vs. Socialism

[HAL 9000 96]

For all those confused about the government controlling aspects of our lives under an economical system of politics needs to look back at the classical definitions of capitalistic and socialist theory. They in fact should be looking at political ideology, not economics.

[S and S 12]

Sounds like what's could end up being necessary is a healthy blend of the two without any hysterical, Cold War hysterics. Then the rich will continue being rich and most people will just stfu.

It is unlikely that the United States will ever return to "Laisez-Faire Capitalism". The excesses of the robber barons in the late 19th century put an end to that. The current direction is for more and more government control of industry. Maybe it is time we stop kidding ourselves, and finally move to a model where industry and government are no longer adversaries, but partners.

A simple look at current times tells us that the old, solitary robber barons have been somewhat replaced by the eccentric board of directors at many institutions we all criticize yet some rush to defend vicariously by attacking Obama's fresh role in stabilizing the stock market.

I haven't seen the stock market stabilizing since I checked the news this morning. Did I miss something?

[HAL 9000 96]

Sounds like what's could end up being necessary is a healthy blend of the two without any hysterical, Cold War hysterics. Then the rich will continue being rich and most people will just stfu.

It is unlikely that the United States will ever return to "Laisez-Faire Capitalism". The excesses of the robber barons in the late 19th century put an end to that. The current direction is for more and more government control of industry. Maybe it is time we stop kidding ourselves, and finally move to a model where industry and government are no longer adversaries, but partners.

A simple look at current times tells us that the old, solitary robber barons have been somewhat replaced by the eccentric board of directors at many institutions we all criticize yet some rush to defend vicariously by attacking Obama's fresh role in stabilizing the stock market.

I haven't seen the stock market stabilizing since I checked the news this morning. Did I miss something?

Tends to happen when one just recently passes a bill and needs to put all aspects of that bill into play. As in looking forward to the next year.

[S and S 12]

Sounds like what's could end up being necessary is a healthy blend of the two without any hysterical, Cold War hysterics. Then the rich will continue being rich and most people will just stfu.

It is unlikely that the United States will ever return to "Laisez-Faire Capitalism". The excesses of the robber barons in the late 19th century put an end to that. The current direction is for more and more government control of industry. Maybe it is time we stop kidding ourselves, and finally move to a model where industry and government are no longer adversaries, but partners.

A simple look at current times tells us that the old, solitary robber barons have been somewhat replaced by the eccentric board of directors at many institutions we all criticize yet some rush to defend vicariously by attacking Obama's fresh role in stabilizing the stock market.

I haven't seen the stock market stabilizing since I checked the news this morning. Did I miss something?

Tends to happen when one just recently passes a bill and needs to put all aspects of that bill into play. As in looking forward to the next year.

okay, I thought you meant now. For everyone's sake, I hope it does stabilize.

[HAL 9000 96]

I hope it gets fixed so greed doesn't trump the economic well-being of the entire planetary market. Tall order that some just fail to want to understand.

[S and S 12]

I'll never be rich, I know that and accept that, but I don't have a problem with people who work hard to become rich. I don't think being rich necessarily makes you greedy, though they can go hand in hand. I'm a firm believer that if someone works hard then they deserve the money they earn so long as it is legal and they pay appropriate taxes. The thing is that under socialism, the chance to go from being poor to rich is much less. If the rich must pay too much taxes, like in past time where it could be more than 90 percent, then they put a lot less back into their company which means they hire less people, thus creating less jobs. It can be a vicious cycle.

[_Simpson_ 250]

For all those confused about the government controlling aspects of our lives under an economical system of politics needs to look back at the classical definitions of capitalistic and socialist theory. They in fact should be looking at political ideology, not economics.

They go hand in hand, consider them both.

[HAL 9000 96]

For all those confused about the government controlling aspects of our lives under an economical system of politics needs to look back at the classical definitions of capitalistic and socialist theory. They in fact should be looking at political ideology, not economics.

They go hand in hand, consider them both.

Of course they do. Both idiots and smart people can be good socialists or capitalists. Homicidal maniacs or well-intended fellows the same.

Problems arise when we ascribe tenets of one political system to characteristics of an economical ideology that is flat out incorrect. Selective knowledge of history sadly clouds many folks' ability to rationalize one thing for what it is.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Is there anyone here for Socialism?

I am if I can get lots of free stuff for doing nothing. But we already have socialism, paying for kids I never had the fun of making, extra money in my electric and gas bill for people that cannot afford it. Extra money for health insurance for those that don't pay, extra taxes for WICK, extra taxes for that idiot building inspector, extra taxes for police that run around and ticket everyone, and the list goes on and on. Never got a dime from the government, not even my VA benefits due to some phony fire. If I have to work my a$$ off so can everyone else.

Exactly what is socialism? And why is it considered new?

A collective ownership for the most part, or as some say the stepping stone to communism. Its a idea that through collective ownership(such as housing) no one will go with out. It may sound good but its not very realistic. Keep in mind too that there is different levels of socialism.

Collective ownership would be communism, by definition. Europe works a little different historically, for the most part, than the US does. Socialism is not that far from the way Europe has been historically governed. You can still practice Socialism, and let the market set prices. Many countries in the rest of the world, have command economies, without being Socialist, where prices are set by a central authority, and not by the market. There is a huge mix of possibilities out there.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'll never be rich, I know that and accept that, but I don't have a problem with people who work hard to become rich. I don't think being rich necessarily makes you greedy, though they can go hand in hand. I'm a firm believer that if someone works hard then they deserve the money they earn so long as it is legal and they pay appropriate taxes. The thing is that under socialism, the chance to go from being poor to rich is much less. If the rich must pay too much taxes, like in past time where it could be more than 90 percent, then they put a lot less back into their company which means they hire less people, thus creating less jobs. It can be a vicious cycle.

Perhaps because under socialist economics, attaining innumerable and ridiculous excess in the hands of a few is not the primary goal... rather... it is a more fair guarantee that the most members of a society can attain not just a comfortable level of living but one where survival does not depend on the contributions to the economy of a select few.

In reality a wise political system should incorporate aspects of both capitalist and socialist economics in order to avoid the disasters we currently see before us due in large part to too much of one thing: greed.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'll never be rich, I know that and accept that, but I don't have a problem with people who work hard to become rich. I don't think being rich necessarily makes you greedy, though they can go hand in hand. I'm a firm believer that if someone works hard then they deserve the money they earn so long as it is legal and they pay appropriate taxes. The thing is that under socialism, the chance to go from being poor to rich is much less. If the rich must pay too much taxes, like in past time where it could be more than 90 percent, then they put a lot less back into their company which means they hire less people, thus creating less jobs. It can be a vicious cycle.

Perhaps because under socialist economics, attaining innumerable and ridiculous excess in the hands of a few is not the primary goal... rather... it is a more fair guarantee that the most members of a society can attain not just a comfortable level of living but one where survival does not depend on the contributions to the economy of a select few.

In reality a wise political system should incorporate aspects of both capitalist and socialist economics in order to avoid the disasters we currently see before us due in large part to too much of one thing: greed.

[HAL 9000 96]

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It was a passion play, for sure!

[S and S 12]

I'll never be rich, I know that and accept that, but I don't have a problem with people who work hard to become rich. I don't think being rich necessarily makes you greedy, though they can go hand in hand. I'm a firm believer that if someone works hard then they deserve the money they earn so long as it is legal and they pay appropriate taxes. The thing is that under socialism, the chance to go from being poor to rich is much less. If the rich must pay too much taxes, like in past time where it could be more than 90 percent, then they put a lot less back into their company which means they hire less people, thus creating less jobs. It can be a vicious cycle.

Perhaps because under socialist economics, attaining innumerable and ridiculous excess in the hands of a few is not the primary goal... rather... it is a more fair guarantee that the most members of a society can attain not just a comfortable level of living but one where survival does not depend on the contributions to the economy of a select few.

In reality a wise political system should incorporate aspects of both capitalist and socialist economics in order to avoid the disasters we currently see before us due in large part to too much of one thing: greed.

So any decent person who makes more money than they need should just hand it over immediately to the government or poor, otherwise they are being greedy?

[_Simpson_ 250]

Is there anyone here for Socialism?

I am if I can get lots of free stuff for doing nothing. But we already have socialism, paying for kids I never had the fun of making, extra money in my electric and gas bill for people that cannot afford it. Extra money for health insurance for those that don't pay, extra taxes for WICK, extra taxes for that idiot building inspector, extra taxes for police that run around and ticket everyone, and the list goes on and on. Never got a dime from the government, not even my VA benefits due to some phony fire. If I have to work my a$$ off so can everyone else.

Exactly what is socialism? And why is it considered new?

A collective ownership for the most part, or as some say the stepping stone to communism. Its a idea that through collective ownership(such as housing) no one will go with out. It may sound good but its not very realistic. Keep in mind too that there is different levels of socialism.

Collective ownership would be communism, by definition. Europe works a little different historically, for the most part, than the US does. Socialism is not that far from the way Europe has been historically governed. You can still practice Socialism, and let the market set prices. Many countries in the rest of the world, have command economies, without being Socialist, where prices are set by a central authority, and not by the market. There is a huge mix of possibilities out there.

Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. It is difficult to discern the true differences between socialism and communism, as various societies have tried different types of both systems

One difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is mainly an economic system, while communism is both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control.