To the people who would debate it. Socialism VS Capitalism.

Post Reply New Topic

Hey, that's what I'm going to do, too! Sweet!

Hey! Lets all do something!! !

....at least so long as we don't blow up large parts of Ohio like we did last time.

socialism and capitolism are both foolish on their own. it's the blending, mixing, and moderation of them that actually helps society.....but unfortunately people mostly can't comprehend that. especially anarchists who speak communism (i've yet to hear an anarchist who doesn't just end up talking about communes). and being in the punk scene...i've heard a few anarchists.

Their are other sytems too you know. Mercantilism and and Distributism Imperialism corporatism fits in too. Too many confuse capitalism with mercatilism wich procceeded iit. Its defined by centralized banking, inflationatory monetary policy, defiecits spending large national debt heavy protective tarriiffs, massive granting of state monopolies and generalized state interventionism to benefiet the state, massive public works, military interventionism capturing markets maintaining colonies for raw material and sending back finished goods. Distrubutism is neo-mideavalism, and everyone here knows what corpratism is

Capitalism. Hands down. Socialism is a load of crap. In my opinion anyways

Capitalism had been dead in America since at least FDR and the New Deal. True capitalism requires that the government step out of the way of all economics. While laws enacted in the lated 19th century against monopolies are anti-capitalist, I think its safe to say that the U.S. hasn't had a true capitalist system since the early 20th century.

For example, the last time I worked a full year and calculated what the government took out of my check it was around 18%. That includes federal income tax, SS tax, state income tax, and medicare tax. When you add to that a 6% sales tax and the portion of my rent that goes toward the local property tax, I get something closer to 25% taxation of my gross pay.

That is not a capitalist system.

I realize that America hasn't had true capitalism for a while, but it's still modified capitalism, and retains a majority of the elements--just not "hands off." (Forget how to spell it, "laissez fair" or whatever. Never could spell that...hahah.) Since Bush got in, though, things have definately been more capitalist. It's as though everyone's forgotten what they figured out in the Teddy Roosevelt/Taft era: that Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was a load of bull, and that competition doesn't always work because there's always a victor, and oftentimes there will be a mostly undefeated victor. Think Iron Chef. Think that guy who wouldn't loose on Jeapordy for a long ass time, Ken Jennings. Capitalism isn't dead; just wounded. And it's coming back for revenge, sadly.

The thing is, if the government doesn't control the corporations then the corporations control government--as they do now. So while we don't have true capitalism, we still retain some of its worst elements. We might as well have pure capitalism at this point.

your confusing capitalism with mercantilm, the instant you have centralized banking, you have mercantism

your confusing capitalism with mercantilm, the instant you have centralized banking, you have mercantism

I don't see how--I didn't say anything about centralized banking, and I realize the difference between capitalism and mercantilism. Mercantilism is based on the theory that resources are limited and that each country should get as much gold and silver as possible. Capitalism was what burned that theory out. Domestically mercantilism more closely resembles socialism, but on a larger scale, it does resmble capitalism in a way--capitalism is ruthless competition between businesses, wheres mercantilism is ruthless competition between different countries.

calling inequality immoral might well call gravity immoral. inequality is hardwirid into reality. called the pareto prociple, 20 of the people create 80 perecent of the wealth(20 percent of whatever causes have the other 80 percert o f the causes), interfere with that and wealth stops being created.

also look up powerlaw

Hyperion, I didn't say anything about inequality at that point. I was talking about capitalism and inequality earlier, but unless you quote or reference a name, it's generally taken you're responding to the most recent post. You replied to nothing in my post and yet gave no direction as to which post you were replying to--please be clearer next time, because I am quite confused.

Regardless, I'll respond: there will always be inequality, yes, rather what I think is immoral is when there's more inequality than there otherwise would be because the rich made it so, and when there could be less equality but the rich prevented it from being so, because they want to have more money than they could ever spend and they always want more. That's what I have a problem with.

im refering to the pareto principle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law. 20 percent of the people create 80 percent of the wealth, interfere with that wealth stops being created.


equality is stated goal privilege is always the result.

corpratism is not capitalism.

capitalism precludes any notion of centralized banking.
and the instant you cease to have pure capitalism you dont.

and you need the rule of law for capitalism to funtion, protection from force and fraud, enforcement of contracts. when corparations are not penalized for fraud capitalism ceases to be.

are you for consumer protection? then you must be against keneysianism.

how so. Says law- supply creates its own demand.
as oppossed to the keynesian you seam to be for
wich says demand creates supply

if junk is put on the market it will be bought.



you would be suprised to learned it was adam smith who created the labour theory of value in the wealth nations and the wealth of nations was political not economic.

in fact smith was a horrible economist.

your better of reading carl menger who actually created capitalism years before smith and did it better.