Capitalism or Communism? Is communism really that horrible?

[Charles_Main]

Going into this i would like to say that i am more on the capitalist end of the spectrum. Though going into this i am generally capitalist knowing the pros and cons of them both may change your own mind. Even though communism was originally a social thing it has also found itself as a government with one man in control. So lets try and picture it with a U.S or near that style democracy.
In essence capitalism is smaller government and communism is huge government. Now before your western instincts tell you to instantly choose capitalism think of the benefits of huge government control in your life.
In communism ideal/original communism everyone is equal. Though it almost never happens that a nation goes completely on the guidelines of a known social policy. Everyone is equal and therefore have the same things to live on and lean on their whole lives. Everyone once again must be equal in society and as a result you lose the right to earn. So in exchange for a lifetime safety net given by the government you give up the ability to earn your way up the ladder. This is because only one social class exist and that is common working class. So you have nothing to look foward to besides that life forever.
It is up to you to decide whether that is a bad or a good thing for you. As a result of this innovation potential is silenced. So is a lifelong safety net really worth losing earning rights and silencing so much potential for innovation?
Now knowing the main gains and losses of communism lets talk about capitalism.
Essentially capitalism is the exact opposite of communism in its original and purest form. In ideal/original capitalism they're is pretty much no government interference in your life. Of course they still have laws as any other nation but if you follow them you are left alone for all of your life. Capitalism is that sweet freedom you taste, love and learn about. In ideal capitalism you can go out and earn it all. You can dream big and dream about the journey there. You can be a bigshot nobody will ever forget. But with that ability to dream big and earn it all you lose that security you had with communism. And if someone earns too much capital they can decide to make everyone else work for dirt cheap money if they choose. They can dominate or without a law from it a monopoly can occur. And if you fail you have nothing to fall back on unless a generous citizen with decent capital decides to help you up.
So is the freedom of capitalism worth the possibility of ending up with nothing?
In conclusion i would like to share my opinion. I belive the risk involved with capitalism is worth the big dreams and potential unlocked that comes with it. People have bigger things to live for and more fuel to live on. Because "the dream" actually exist. In addition to the fact that the world/nation could innovate so much faster.
I would like for you to build an opinion of your own and for you to give me your feedback and for you to discuss amongst youselves.

Why don't you move to Havana and find out.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Going into this i would like to say that i am more on the capitalist end of the spectrum. Though going into this i am generally capitalist knowing the pros and cons of them both may change your own mind. Even though communism was originally a social thing it has also found itself as a government with one man in control. So lets try and picture it with a U.S or near that style democracy.
In essence capitalism is smaller government and communism is huge government. Now before your western instincts tell you to instantly choose capitalism think of the benefits of huge government control in your life.
In communism ideal/original communism everyone is equal. Though it almost never happens that a nation goes completely on the guidelines of a known social policy. Everyone is equal and therefore have the same things to live on and lean on their whole lives. Everyone once again must be equal in society and as a result you lose the right to earn. So in exchange for a lifetime safety net given by the government you give up the ability to earn your way up the ladder. This is because only one social class exist and that is common working class. So you have nothing to look foward to besides that life forever.
It is up to you to decide whether that is a bad or a good thing for you. As a result of this innovation potential is silenced. So is a lifelong safety net really worth losing earning rights and silencing so much potential for innovation?
Now knowing the main gains and losses of communism lets talk about capitalism.
Essentially capitalism is the exact opposite of communism in its original and purest form. In ideal/original capitalism they're is pretty much no government interference in your life. Of course they still have laws as any other nation but if you follow them you are left alone for all of your life. Capitalism is that sweet freedom you taste, love and learn about. In ideal capitalism you can go out and earn it all. You can dream big and dream about the journey there. You can be a bigshot nobody will ever forget. But with that ability to dream big and earn it all you lose that security you had with communism. And if someone earns too much capital they can decide to make everyone else work for dirt cheap money if they choose. They can dominate or without a law from it a monopoly can occur. And if you fail you have nothing to fall back on unless a generous citizen with decent capital decides to help you up.
So is the freedom of capitalism worth the possibility of ending up with nothing?
In conclusion i would like to share my opinion. I belive the risk involved with capitalism is worth the big dreams and potential unlocked that comes with it. People have bigger things to live for and more fuel to live on. Because "the dream" actually exist. In addition to the fact that the world/nation could innovate so much faster.
I would like for you to build an opinion of your own and for you to give me your feedback and for you to discuss amongst youselves.

Why don't you move to Havana and find out.

gee who can decide? Maybe communism slowly starving 75 million to death in the USSR and Red China was not so bad?? We'll discuss amongst ourselves. Thanks so much or the direction!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Stand by for all-or-nothing bullshit response in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . .

I've heard it 10,000 times. If they United States had a single mile of railroad subsidized by the government, that proves the free market is a failure. Yet, the same turds will tell you that unregulated capitalism was the cause of the Great Depression.

So what caused the Great Depression or any depression/recession?

LOTS of things caused the Great Depression. Do you really think anything in economics - or life - is that simple and direct and lacking in complexity?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what caused the Great Depression or any depression/recession?

The government.

In the case of the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve caused it by inflating the supply of credit. Hmmmm, what other recession does that remind you of?

So is the federal reseverve responsible for all recessions/depressions by inflating the supply of credit or only the Great Depression? Was this also the cause of European nation's depressions?

There is not a single recession/depression, including the Great Depression, for which the federal government does not come in for a lion's share of the blame. I can't imagine how you could think otherwise.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So is the federal reseverve responsible for all recessions/depressions by inflating the supply of credit or only the Great Depression? Was this also the cause of European nation's depressions?

yes government is always responsible since the free market is self- correcting while the government monopoly is not!!

Are depressions/recessions part of that self-correcting process?

Small recessive cycles are part of the self-correction, yes. Prolonged recessions and depressions? For that sort of damage, you need the power of the federal government.

 

[regent]

So the usual reason given for creating the Federal Reserve was the panic of 1907 and that was incorrect. So was their a panic of 1907 and if so was it caused by the Federal Reserve?

as a liberal you won't have the IQ to understand central banking

1) no it was correct ,and???????????????????????

2) yes there was a panic in 1907

3) yes it was caused by the Federal Reserve or more specificially the lack of the "reserve function" that the Federal Reserve was supposed to perform and was then designed to perform.

Your foot-work is worse than ever. If panics are caused by the Federal Reserve and the the Federal Reserve did not come into play until 1913 how could it have caused the Panic of 1907?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So the usual reason given for creating the Federal Reserve was the panic of 1907 and that was incorrect. So was their a panic of 1907 and if so was it caused by the Federal Reserve?

There was quite a bit more to it than that. If you really want to know, here you go.

At the end of World War I, nations like Germany, Britain, and France were badly damaged and needed to rebuild. In Germany's case, there were also huge war reparations to be paid. The US emerged from that war as the major money lender to the world, which became very problematic when our banks started failing.

During World War I, many European nations went off the gold standard, and the resulting inflation had the effect of sending much of the world's gold supply into American banks. Some nations, like Great Britain (which had lost its standing as the major financial center of the world to New York City and was anxious to recover it), tried to go back to the gold standard after the war, but it simply wasn't possible by then.

In 1928, the US Federal Reserve, in an attempt to stem the outflow of gold from the US to other nations and to control the US stock market by dampening its boom, raised interest rates. This caused a new influx of gold back to the United States, and other countries reacted by instituting deflationary policies, which had the effect of restricting economic activity and reducing price levels.

In October of 1929, the US stock market experienced its infamous crash. However, this was not responsible for the Great Depression, although many people mistakenly believe it was. The problem was that, for the first time ever, a US President - Herbert Hoover - thought it was his job to try to "fix" the economy, and his policies exacerbated and prolonged the economic contraction of that period.

Normally, the typical economic reaction to such a downturn would be for wages to fall. But in the case of the Great Depression, manufacturing held wages steady, while prices fell anyway. The result was that companies ended up laying off workers. Unemployment skyrocketed and production plunged. Why were the wages held steady when they wouldn't normally have been? He organized conferences in December of that year with business, industrial, and labor leaders to urge them to a "high wage" policy. And, of course, he instigated the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.

Okay, if you've read this far, and actually want to hear more, let me know and I'll continue in another post. This is running really long. Personally, I doubt a single lib has bothered to read this.

 

[bripat9643]

So what caused the Great Depression or any depression/recession?

The government.

In the case of the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve caused it by inflating the supply of credit. Hmmmm, what other recession does that remind you of?

So is the federal reseverve responsible for all recessions/depressions by inflating the supply of credit or only the Great Depression? Was this also the cause of European nation's depressions?

lnflation of the money supply is responsible for most boom/busts. The current recession is a classic example. For more on this subject refer to "Theory of Money and Credit" by Ludwig von Mises.

 

[usmcstinger]

Going into this i would like to say that i am more on the capitalist end of the spectrum. Though going into this i am generally capitalist knowing the pros and cons of them both may change your own mind. Even though communism was originally a social thing it has also found itself as a government with one man in control. So lets try and picture it with a U.S or near that style democracy.
In essence capitalism is smaller government and communism is huge government. Now before your western instincts tell you to instantly choose capitalism think of the benefits of huge government control in your life.
In communism ideal/original communism everyone is equal. Though it almost never happens that a nation goes completely on the guidelines of a known social policy. Everyone is equal and therefore have the same things to live on and lean on their whole lives. Everyone once again must be equal in society and as a result you lose the right to earn. So in exchange for a lifetime safety net given by the government you give up the ability to earn your way up the ladder. This is because only one social class exist and that is common working class. So you have nothing to look foward to besides that life forever.
It is up to you to decide whether that is a bad or a good thing for you. As a result of this innovation potential is silenced. So is a lifelong safety net really worth losing earning rights and silencing so much potential for innovation?
Now knowing the main gains and losses of communism lets talk about capitalism.
Essentially capitalism is the exact opposite of communism in its original and purest form. In ideal/original capitalism they're is pretty much no government interference in your life. Of course they still have laws as any other nation but if you follow them you are left alone for all of your life. Capitalism is that sweet freedom you taste, love and learn about. In ideal capitalism you can go out and earn it all. You can dream big and dream about the journey there. You can be a bigshot nobody will ever forget. But with that ability to dream big and earn it all you lose that security you had with communism. And if someone earns too much capital they can decide to make everyone else work for dirt cheap money if they choose. They can dominate or without a law from it a monopoly can occur. And if you fail you have nothing to fall back on unless a generous citizen with decent capital decides to help you up.
So is the freedom of capitalism worth the possibility of ending up with nothing?
In conclusion i would like to share my opinion. I belive the risk involved with capitalism is worth the big dreams and potential unlocked that comes with it. People have bigger things to live for and more fuel to live on. Because "the dream" actually exist. In addition to the fact that the world/nation could innovate so much faster.
I would like for you to build an opinion of your own and for you to give me your feedback and for you to discuss amongst youselves.

As an infant were you dropped on your head? I can not believe God would make a person as stupid as you.

The book estimates that Mao caused the deaths of 70 million people in peacetime, making him a far worse killer than Hitler or Stalin. It portrays him as a sociopath who loved killing and allowed millions of peasants to starve to death while he exported food to pay for his nuclear weapons
Mao Zedong - Sacred Symbol And Bloodiest Mass Killer New Biography Portrays Him As A Sociopath

In sum the communis t probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HT

Your lack both basic historical knowledge and rational thinking. I bet some one else does your thinking for you.
You a perfect example of how bad our public schools have deteriorated.

 

[Uncensored2008]

THERE ARE LESS THAN THREE THOUSAND MEMBERS IN THE AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY.

The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) is redundant to the democrats. The two parties are interchangeable.

You understand big and small numbers, right son?

There are more KKK members nationally than there are members of the American Communist Party.

I strongly doubt that. 3,000 KKK members? Not a chance. I'd doubt even 300.

Who the fuck dropped you on your god damn head?

Irony....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are depressions/recessions part of that self-correcting process?

Have you ever had even an introduction to economics course?

{Question: What Is the Business Cycle?
Answer: Parkin and Bade's text "Economics" gives the following definition of the business cycle: The business cycle is the periodic but irregular up-and-down movements in economic activity, measured by fluctuations in real GDP and other macroeconomic variables. If you're looking for information on how various economic indicators and their relationship to the business cycle, please see A Beginner's Guide to Economic Indicators. Parkin and Bade go on to explain: A business cycle is not a regular, predictable, or repeating phenomenon like the swing of the pendulum of a clock. Its timing is random and, to a large degress, unpredictable. A business cycle is identified as a sequence of four phases:

Contraction: A slowdown in the pace of economic activity
The lower turning point of a business cycle, where a contraction turns into an expansion
Expansion: A speedup in the pace of economic activity
Peak: The upper turning of a business cycle
}

What Is the Business Cycle?

 

[Uncensored2008]

no in a Republican capitalist economy you might get a minor recession but nothing worse since the free market is self correcting while a government monopoly is the exact opposite.

Recession is part of the correction process. In any market system, there will be recessions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So the usual reason given for creating the Federal Reserve was the panic of 1907 and that was incorrect. So was their a panic of 1907 and if so was it caused by the Federal Reserve?

The real question is whether the federal reserve mitigated the panic of 1929? If not, then it is demonstrably a failure.

 

[regent]

So the usual reason given for creating the Federal Reserve was the panic of 1907 and that was incorrect. So was their a panic of 1907 and if so was it caused by the Federal Reserve?

The real question is whether the federal reserve mitigated the panic of 1929? If not, then it is demonstrably a failure.

No, the question was as stated. It was a cause and effect question. One poster said panics were started by the Federal Reserve System so my question was in effect, did we have panics before the Federal Reserve System was inaugurated?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So the usual reason given for creating the Federal Reserve was the panic of 1907 and that was incorrect. So was their a panic of 1907 and if so was it caused by the Federal Reserve?

as a liberal you won't have the IQ to understand central banking

1) no it was correct ,and???????????????????????

2) yes there was a panic in 1907

3) yes it was caused by the Federal Reserve or more specificially the lack of the "reserve function" that the Federal Reserve was supposed to perform and was then designed to perform.

Your foot-work is worse than ever. If panics are caused by the Federal Reserve and the the Federal Reserve did not come into play until 1913 how could it have caused the Panic of 1907?

I didn't say it caused it but that the lack of a Federal Reserve like function caused it. Why not reread for comprehension??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

no in a Republican capitalist economy you might get a minor recession but nothing worse since the free market is self correcting while a government monopoly is the exact opposite.

Recession is part of the correction process. In any market system, there will be recessions.

but why, if the free market is self-correcting???? When you have the entire market consolidated by a Fed monopoly then there is no self correction by 1000's if not millions of individual decisions, just one federal decision, if wrong, that sinks the entire country. Making sense now??

 

[bripat9643]

no in a Republican capitalist economy you might get a minor recession but nothing worse since the free market is self correcting while a government monopoly is the exact opposite.

Recession is part of the correction process. In any market system, there will be recessions.

According to Ludwig von Mises, the business cycle is pure the result of inflationary polices of the monetary authority. However, inflation can occur even in the absense of a monetary authority, but how that occurs is somewhat complicated to explain here. It can be prevented if the government isn't allowed to print money. When the government does have the authority to print money, then inflation is inevitable. The incentives for politicians are all in the wrong direction.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

did we have panics before the Federal Reserve System was inaugurated?

as a liberal you lack the IQ to understand. Yes we had panics. No human on earth has ever disagreed. Yet, you think its an important issue.

What does that tell you?


.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

According to Ludwig von Mises, the business cycle is pure the result of inflationary polices of the monetary authority.

true, all people don't suddenly get lazy and want to stop eating and working, businesses don't all decide they want to lose to their competition. What happens is the liberal government monopoly subverts the entire economy from Washington!! There is no other explanation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

but why, if the free market is self-correcting????

Simple, we don't barter.

We use a medium of exchange, money. Since there is a money supply then inflation can occur. A static pool of money chasing an expanding pool of goods will make the value of the money greater. An expanding pool of money chasing a static pool of goods will make the value of money less.

In a vibrant economy, both the pool of money and goods expand. The trick is to get them to expand at the same rate so that the value of money remains constant.

When you have the entire market consolidated by a Fed monopoly then there is no self correction by 1000's if not millions of individual decisions, just one federal decision, if wrong, that sinks the entire country. Making sense now??

I don't understand where you are trying to go? There must be an agreed upon medium of exchange for a market to exist. Given this, then some entity will be responsible to expand or contract the money supply to match market activities. Whether the fed or congress, it will still be a single entity.

And the fed has made plenty of utter insane decisions that have not sunk the country. The current game of quantitative easing coupled with absurdly low interest rates is one of the worst monetary policies in history, yet the county isn't sunk. Bernanke is basically sucking the value out of fixed assets and real property to fund deficits. This will shift wealth from the middle class to the government, but will not "sink" the country.