35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality

[bedowin62]

CAPITALISM: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods



SOCIALISM: A POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY of social organization

try again

I am not sure I even understand your argument honestly. If you want to define socialism as absolute ownership of all means of production then that is fine but what would you call it if the government owns some of the means of production or has complete ownership of certain means of production or whatever mix you can think of?

If socialism is an absolute then there is very little reason to discuss socialism at all. If socialism includes instances where there is a mix then all major capitalist nations have some mix of socialism and capitalism. I am not overly concerned which definition of socialism you use, it is just best if you are all consistent.

why do you seek consistency when there isnt even one completely accepted definition of something?

you're stretching to find something and it isnt making you look good

If you take the less specific definition where socialism can mean a mix of ownership then your previous argument doesn't make much sense to me. I am not concerned about you using a completely accepted definition. I was pointing out the need for consistency in your use of the word.

Either way you seemed stuck in a pointless argument and my comments can help get you out of it or not.

yawn

it isnt about me "using" a completely accepted definition. there isnt one
2. i dont have to be consistent in use about something that isnt definitively defined. Either way i never said either capitalism or socialism AS PRACTICED, ( i didnt think i had to spell it out for you) is absolute in any way

 

[bedowin62]

sorry dude but if i'm stuck in a pointless argument it is one of your making. actually i only said to you; and only because you mentioned it when you spoke of either ideology having the possibility of being abused by power-hungry people; that it seems MUCH MORE likely to occur in socialist countries. that i guess by definitin puts them or at least that leader on one end, the more absolute end, but i have no control over that

 

[Bombur]

Socialism begins with the desire of some to rule over others, and the desire of others to live without the responsibility for their own lives.

This is really not true. Socialism begins with an attempt to give power to everyone so they are not ruled over by others. It is also a system that is based on everyone needing to take responsibility for their own lives.

Your understanding of socialism seems to come from modern politics more than a real understanding of it as a political philosophy.

Socialism can be implemented in many different ways and there can be many different versions of it. Socialism can also adapt over time.

A socialist form of government may lead to someone coming to power that simply wants to rule over others but that is also true of Democracy.

yup; just more true of socialism

It is most true of certain situations as much as socialism itself. When the people lack power they are far more likely to give their power to a tyrant.

When you see nations moving towards a mix of socialism and capitalism gradually there can be a shift of power away from concentrated power. This means that more people have power.

ahhh; maybe you're thinkig of the european socialist democracies??

pretty sure you can ask greece and others how empowered they feel right about now

Some European countries are doing very well. The Greece problem has far more to do with the establishment of the Euro and what that means for individual nations. The Greeks should regret giving so much power away. This has made it very hard for the nation to correct itself.

 

[Bombur]

CAPITALISM: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods



SOCIALISM: A POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY of social organization

try again

I am not sure I even understand your argument honestly. If you want to define socialism as absolute ownership of all means of production then that is fine but what would you call it if the government owns some of the means of production or has complete ownership of certain means of production or whatever mix you can think of?

If socialism is an absolute then there is very little reason to discuss socialism at all. If socialism includes instances where there is a mix then all major capitalist nations have some mix of socialism and capitalism. I am not overly concerned which definition of socialism you use, it is just best if you are all consistent.

why do you seek consistency when there isnt even one completely accepted definition of something?

you're stretching to find something and it isnt making you look good

If you take the less specific definition where socialism can mean a mix of ownership then your previous argument doesn't make much sense to me. I am not concerned about you using a completely accepted definition. I was pointing out the need for consistency in your use of the word.

Either way you seemed stuck in a pointless argument and my comments can help get you out of it or not.

yawn

it isnt about me "using" a completely accepted definition. there isnt one
2. i dont have to be consistent in use about something that isnt definitively defined. Either way i never said either capitalism or socialism AS PRACTICED, ( i didnt think i had to spell it out for you) is absolute in any way

You still have to be consistent when making an argument. Otherwise you are not logically consistent by definition.

One of the problems with any argument about socialism is how often the goal posts are moved.

 

[Contumacious]

Yet, the right believes that Capitalism is what increases wealth for the People and not socialism.

Yes, indeed.

Socialism is good for the people

Ask the Venuezuelans and the Somalians why their stores have empty shelves:

 

[bedowin62]

CAPITALISM: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods



SOCIALISM: A POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY of social organization

try again

I am not sure I even understand your argument honestly. If you want to define socialism as absolute ownership of all means of production then that is fine but what would you call it if the government owns some of the means of production or has complete ownership of certain means of production or whatever mix you can think of?

If socialism is an absolute then there is very little reason to discuss socialism at all. If socialism includes instances where there is a mix then all major capitalist nations have some mix of socialism and capitalism. I am not overly concerned which definition of socialism you use, it is just best if you are all consistent.

why do you seek consistency when there isnt even one completely accepted definition of something?

you're stretching to find something and it isnt making you look good

If you take the less specific definition where socialism can mean a mix of ownership then your previous argument doesn't make much sense to me. I am not concerned about you using a completely accepted definition. I was pointing out the need for consistency in your use of the word.

Either way you seemed stuck in a pointless argument and my comments can help get you out of it or not.

yawn

it isnt about me "using" a completely accepted definition. there isnt one
2. i dont have to be consistent in use about something that isnt definitively defined. Either way i never said either capitalism or socialism AS PRACTICED, ( i didnt think i had to spell it out for you) is absolute in any way

You still have to be consistent when making an argument. Otherwise you are not logically consistent by definition.

One of the problems with any argument about socialism is how often the goal posts are moved.

i didnt move any goalposts; so i dont have to be consistent something that, you admit by definition isnt consistent and has constantly movng goalposts. your beef isnt with me
these philosophical games are boring to me
pardon me while i disengage

 

[Bombur]

sorry dude but if i'm stuck in a pointless argument it is one of your making. actually i only said to you; and only because you mentioned it when you spoke of either ideology having the possibility of being abused by power-hungry people; that it seems MUCH MORE likely to occur in socialist countries. that i guess by definitin puts them or at least that leader on one end, the more absolute end, but i have no control over that

Power doesn't just concentrate in the hands of governments. The more power a government has the more you have to worry about power hungry people in government. The more power private corporations have the more you have to worry about power hungry corporations.

Power in the hands of government can help empower people or it can help take power away. Control over the power of government is always incredibly important.

Power in the hands of corporations can also help empower people through helping them gain wealth or some good or service.

If you want to talk about socialism you need to be able to talk intelligently about power and balance. Arguments stemming from absolutes don't match reality.

 

[Bombur]

I am not sure I even understand your argument honestly. If you want to define socialism as absolute ownership of all means of production then that is fine but what would you call it if the government owns some of the means of production or has complete ownership of certain means of production or whatever mix you can think of?

If socialism is an absolute then there is very little reason to discuss socialism at all. If socialism includes instances where there is a mix then all major capitalist nations have some mix of socialism and capitalism. I am not overly concerned which definition of socialism you use, it is just best if you are all consistent.

why do you seek consistency when there isnt even one completely accepted definition of something?

you're stretching to find something and it isnt making you look good

If you take the less specific definition where socialism can mean a mix of ownership then your previous argument doesn't make much sense to me. I am not concerned about you using a completely accepted definition. I was pointing out the need for consistency in your use of the word.

Either way you seemed stuck in a pointless argument and my comments can help get you out of it or not.

yawn

it isnt about me "using" a completely accepted definition. there isnt one
2. i dont have to be consistent in use about something that isnt definitively defined. Either way i never said either capitalism or socialism AS PRACTICED, ( i didnt think i had to spell it out for you) is absolute in any way

You still have to be consistent when making an argument. Otherwise you are not logically consistent by definition.

One of the problems with any argument about socialism is how often the goal posts are moved.

i didnt move any goalposts; so i dont have to be consistent something that, you admit by definition isnt consistent and has constantly movng goalposts. your beef isnt with me
these philosophical games are boring to me
pardon me while i disengage

I understand that what I am saying is going over your head so I will let this thought hold for now but I may have to reference it later if you demonstrate an inability to be logically consistent.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet, the right believes that Capitalism is what increases wealth for the People and not socialism.

Yes, indeed.

Socialism is good for the people

Ask the Venuezuelans and the Somalians why their stores have empty shelves:

maybe they got their management from Hostess.

 

[GWV5903]

Dude, capitalism "died" in 1929. Where do you think we got our socialism from?

You have succeeded, it is official, your in a tie with Deany for the craziest member of USMB!!

Congratulations, it takes a special effort to accomplish this, especially since you're not that into achieving much, on your own that is...

Nothing but diversion; what a surprise for the Right who is to lazy to even come up with valid arguments but expect the least wealthy to work harder.

Why do you believe we have as much socialism today? What did the Capital Right do but Hoover-ville the People.

Socialism is a failure that most 12 year olds could identify, why do you have such a problem understanding this?

So what did or does Socialism promise? Equality, prosperity and security, right?

Well it only created tyranny, poverty, misery and a very small elite class that called the shots...

Your so quick to call your foes clueless and causeless, yet there is no evidence to date that socialism is able to succeed, what's the best predictor of the future? The past...

 

[danielpalos]

We don't have pure capitalism in the US; we have a mixed market economy; socialism just needs good management.

 

[Dragonlady]

Socialism is a failure that most 12 year olds could identify, why do you have such a problem understanding this?

So what did or does Socialism promise? Equality, prosperity and security, right?

Well it only created tyranny, poverty, misery and a very small elite class that called the shots...

Your so quick to call your foes clueless and causeless, yet there is no evidence to date that socialism is able to succeed, what's the best predictor of the future? The past...

Your post is utter bullshit.

The most successful countries have a mix of capitalism and socialism. It's a balancing act - rewarding the best and the brightest, encouraging entrepreneurs, but at the same time protecting lower income workers from exploitation and the inevitable downturns that occur in capitalistic economies.

In order for an economy to be successful, you need a thriving and upwardly mobile middle class. The US had all of this going for itself, until Reagan was elected in 1980. Reagan's changes to the tax code disrupted that balance, and the result has steadily eroded the middle class. People were encouraged to borrow rather than save, and now the middle and working class are completely tapped out. Most of the country's wealth has been transferred to the top 1% or the largest corporations. Upward mobility has been stifled, and a post-secondary education can saddle you with life-long debt. This is not a sustainable model.

Economies which are tilted more toward the socialist model don't have the extremes of wealth and poverty, either in their corporations or the citizens, that is currently seen in the US. And contrary to your assertions, a socialist economy doesn't promise or even try to achieve fiscal parity amongst its citizens, but rather a distribution of assets across the economy which reduces the levels of poverty and need among the working class, while rewarding the entrepreneurs, business owners and professional classes according to their ability and the ambition.

When lower income families has sufficient income to sustain themselves, to enjoy some savings, and some comfort, it raises the levels of security and happiness throughout the nation. When you have financial stability and security, it enables you to take some risks, and to be less fearful for your future. It gives them a stake in the success or failure of their nation.

 

[danielpalos]

The right is always clueless and Causeless.

 

[GWV5903]

Your post is utter bullshit.

The most successful countries have a mix of capitalism and socialism

Yeah China and Cuba have to beat back all of the illegals that want sanctuary in their "Great Society"...

Thanks for making my point...

Do you have a valid point or do you just beat your head against the wall?

 

[Dragonlady]

Your post is utter bullshit.

The most successful countries have a mix of capitalism and socialism

Yeah China and Cuba have to beat back all of the illegals that want sanctuary in their "Great Society"...

Thanks for making my point...

Do you have a valid point or do you just beat your head against the wall?

Again with the bullshit. Neither China nor Cuba are mixed countries. Both are totalitarian dictatorships.

Try Canada, the Scandanavian countries, Europe, and Japan.

 

[bedowin62]

We don't have pure capitalism in the US; we have a mixed market economy; socialism just needs good management.

capitalism is not our political system; it is our economic system, which makes your whole point irrelevant palos.

Also the same can be said of our democratic republic political system and our mixed-market economy, that it just needs better management

either way your point is rendered moot danielpalos

but you keep trying and failing to say something

 

[danielpalos]

Only to the clueless and the Causeless.

Government is socialism. The law is socialism, not capitalism. How is socialism in our mixed market economy not relevant?

 

[bedowin62]

Only to the clueless and the Causeless.

Government is socialism. The law is socialism, not capitalism. How is socialism in our mixed market economy not relevant?

because it isnt socialism; in the same sentence you're reminding of our mixed-market economy, we dont have true socialism.
mixed is mixed dullard, you're saying it yourself
you keep trying to have it both ways
like the immature child you are

oh an intellectually dishonest coward

 

[danielpalos]

Your post is utter bullshit.

The most successful countries have a mix of capitalism and socialism

Yeah China and Cuba have to beat back all of the illegals that want sanctuary in their "Great Society"...

Thanks for making my point...

Do you have a valid point or do you just beat your head against the wall?

Your post is utter bullshit.

The most successful countries have a mix of capitalism and socialism

Yeah China and Cuba have to beat back all of the illegals that want sanctuary in their "Great Society"...

Thanks for making my point...

Do you have a valid point or do you just beat your head against the wall?

Yes, Capitalism "died" in the US in 1929; why do you believe we have more socialism; because Socialism had to bailout Capitalism, like usual.

 

[danielpalos]

Only to the clueless and the Causeless.

Government is socialism. The law is socialism, not capitalism. How is socialism in our mixed market economy not relevant?

because it isnt socialism; in the same sentence you're reminding of our mixed-market economy, we dont have true socialism.
mixed is mixed dullard, you're saying it yourself
you keep trying to have it both ways
like the immature child you are

oh an intellectually dishonest coward

Only the clueless and Causeless say that.

I never said we have true socialism, just like i never said we have true capitalism.