I absolutely never said everyone starts from the same start line. Are you advocating that no one can ever take advantage of their own ideas, skills, or talent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Printable View
I absolutely never said everyone starts from the same start line. Are you advocating that no one can ever take advantage of their own ideas, skills, or talent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
No, but I don't object if there's a limit on how much they can exploit others using their own ideas, skills and talents. That's what I meant by a handicap system. I think it should get harder the higher you get like in a video game, not easier as it's often now.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
You keep adding stuff, or I keep posting too quickly. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
You can't seriously believe that start-ups can't compete with Nokia. That is perhaps one of the funniest things you have ever said.
Nokia was founded in 1865. Nokia makes cell phones. Apple was founded in 1976 (111 years later). Apple makes cell phones.
Cellphone Market Share Shifting - NYTimes.com
Quote:
Nokia is about to drop from its position as the leading cellphone maker in the world,
But you're right, a start up could never compete with someone that is already established :rolleyes:Quote:
Gaining strength was Apple in the No. 4 slot with 4.6 percent, up from 2.4 percent
Define "exploit". Are companies using slaves? Or do you object to someone making an honest day's wage for an honest day's work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
No, but I object somebody needing two or more low-paid jobs just to make the ends meet. I also object someone forced to be unemployed because someone else is forced to work for two just to keep his own job.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Who is forcing those people to take low-paid jobs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Lack of sufficient social security, so that a low-paid job is better than being unemployed. That's where the government and trade unions should come to play. They set the minimum wage and collect taxes and union fees to pay for the unemployed.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
By the very definition of what exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
One of the positive facts that is coming out of this Occupy movement is that we are being educated on the different types of Capitalism - as there also is different types of socialism. It is also a very common fallacy where communism and socialism are bunched together as one.
Looking for definitions of socialism I found this:
Where I hope we go in these times of change is to that well balanced combination that can exist between the type of capitalism that doesn't put a big boot on our throats and social programs that are useful and deserving.Quote:
People often confuse "socialism" with the concept of "communism." While the two ideologies share much in common -- in in fact communism encompasses socialism -- the primary difference between the two is that "socialism" applies to economic systems, whereas "communism" applies to both economic and political systems.
Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists directly oppose the concept of capitalism, an economic system in which production is controlled by private interests. Socialists, on the other hand, believe socialism can exist within a capitalist society.
:s mokin:
The question wasn't about unemployment insurance. I asked who is forcing that person to take the low paying job? Said another way, why don't they have a better paying job?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Now you want talk about minimum wages, taxes, and union fees? Come on. What do you think happens to the price of goods if governments arbitrarily increase the minimum wage? How does that affect the buying power of someone in your "low paying job" situation? How does increased taxes help that person? Union dues? Seriously, you think someone paying more in union dues will increase their standard of living?
That's a cute definition of socialism you dug up there. Try this oneQuote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com
So, as I said, by the very definition of socialism you can not have rich socialists as the ownership and control of production, capital, and land are vested in the community as a whole.Quote:
a theory or system of social organizationthat advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
How is capitalism putting a "big boot on your throat"? And how are social programs, emplemented by the government, not putting a "big boot on your throat"? Remember, governments can only give out something that it first takes from someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado