Funny I was going to ask the same thing about capitalism... not just for here, but globally.
Printable View
Funny I was going to ask the same thing about capitalism... not just for here, but globally.
Looks like you took the first pot shots Chuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Guess you're still living off the psueo-patriotic notions that everything is okay just as long as it doesn't affect the US, or you personally. Nice going.
It would seem that George Papandreou is about to resign:Quote:
Originally Posted by AAReagles
BBC News - Greek crisis: Papandreou 'to offer to resign'Quote:
The Greek government was on the verge of collapse after several ministers said they did not support Mr Papandreou's plan for a referendum on the EU bailout.
So perhaps the Greek electorate will not have a say after all.
"psueo-patriotic"? Seriously? No, I just look at reality. Did I say everything was okay? No, just that communism is absolutely not the way to go. Heck you don't even have to look at communist nations to see that. Just look at occupy Wall Street, and see the infighting that has already begun about the money they have collected. There will always be someone in power and someone jealous of that power. The free market system gives those out of power an opportunity to change their situation through hard work, a good idea, and yes a bit of luck. The communist/socialist system by definition can not allow anyone to change station in life. Call me crazy, but I would like the opportunity to profit from my hard work. But if you would like to share your profits with me, feel free.Quote:
Originally Posted by AAReagles
In what sense is this in-fighting somehow inferior to that which goes on inside large corporations?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
for those who want to know more about this movement and care to listen to two very eloquent persons: Chris Hedges and Amy Goodman, go to this link to listen to this Charlie Rose interview.
I found it very educational and enlightening.
Charlie Rose - A discussion about Occupy Wall Street
I never said it was superior or inferior. But the claim always seems to be that under communism everyone will be equal and all things will be peace and harmony. I'm simply pointing out the reality does not match the propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I'm in no sense advocating Communism here, but exactly the same could be said to those who have an exaggerated regard for private enterprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
How so? I don't think I have ever seen claims of free markets like I have of communism. Pretty much any time I have ever seen a debate of the merits/detriments of the two systems, the free market people are pretty up front in saying that the system isn't perfect, there are winners and loosers, etc. But those advocating communism pretty much claim that under their system all will be great and wonderful, if only those with a different view would just submit to the "will of the people".Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Look at the OWS people for one example. Their claim is that the top 1% are oppressing the 99%, that if we had equal distribution of wealth everyone would be happy. Then what's just about the first thing that happens? Their finance committee starts taking in money, and distributes it to their friends, others are mad. Pretty ironic if you ask me. Just like I said, some will always have power/money, others will be jealous. It's just a matter of which system allows for economic/political/class mobility.
Oh, there is no doubt that those advocating Communism do suffer from certain delusions way beyond those on other sides of the argument, I grant you. I suppose I am referring here to the lack of recognition of the failings of the private sector when, for example, governments hand over large tracts of the public sector to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Again, I'll be the first to admit that in a free market system there are winners and loosers. Obviously that means not everyone will be happy, and that things won't be comming up roses all the time. And yes some things are better done by the public sector than private. However, I believe those to be extremely few and far between, especially when the private sector is allowed to operate in a truly free market, free of restrictive government intervention. Many times when "public sector" projects are turned over to the private sector they are so riddled with rules, regulations, and oversight that they can't help but fail. Thus pushing the argument that the government can do certain things better. Anyway, we're way off topic now, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Capitalism isn't the problem per se, loose CREDIT is the root cause of the problem as I see it. Live within ones means and we are fine. Buy what one can afford on one's actual income, not what one can convince a lender they can afford.Quote:
Originally Posted by AAReagles
Taking my hard earned money and giving it to others less willing to work creates as much anomosity as it solves, if not more. Why should I work to improve my situation, only to have it taken from me? I' might as well be a lazy a$$ like the next guy.
Because then there would be two "lazy a$$" guys others have to support or the whole system collapses. Somebody has to work. I don't complain as long as I get a bigger share than the "lazy a$$" guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Wow Eki gets it! I never thought I'd say that. You've just explained why communism will never work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The difference that Capitalism actually works.Quote:
Originally Posted by AAReagles
Perhaps by trying to make society more equal, rather than individuals chasing wealth & consumer goods in the short term, the whole of society will ultimately benefit...?Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
How does taking something from one, to give to another, benefit society in the long run?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
If the private sector is allowed to operate in a truly free market, then one surely ends up with giant monopolies, and thus a situation no better — except ideologically in the eyes of those with, as I mentioned earlier, an exaggerated sense of respect for private enterprise — than it would have been in a situation where the state held sway.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
How does huge quantities of wealth being in the hands of a relatively few people benefit society in the long run? How does a widening gap between richest and poorest benefit society in the long run? How does an unfettered free market leading to a few companies enjoying unchallenged monopoly positions benefit society in the long run?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Many politicians on all sides of the modern political divide seem to believe that the private sector's natural altruism will fill the gap created in state involvement by the rolling-back of the state. This is deeply misguided.
Because of the nature of business, surely, seeing larger companies taking over smaller ones? This is why monopolies and mergers commissions exist in order to provide safeguards.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The Evidence in Detail | The Equality TrustQuote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Cut-throat capitalism doesn't work either. Those who can't find a work that gives them and their families decent living, will turn to crime and the few rich have to protect themselves with walls and private armies. Only some hybrid system between communism and capitalism has a chance to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I believe that capitalism with a genuine social conscience, as opposed to the impression of one, can be a genuine force for good. But let's not think that it has a monopoly on this.
But why would that happen? Say there is a monopoly on, oh I don't know, air travel. If there is one sole airline and I feel that they are ripping people off by charging too much, what stops me from buying a plane and undercutting their price and or improving upon their service? Or heck what stops me from building a high speed rail line that can get there faster and cheaper?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
True free markets encourage competition, they don't stifle it. Communism, by definition, enshrines state run monopolies. Is that good?
Ohhhh fun with statistics. Do I really need to take the time to refute all those? I will if you want me to.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Infant mortality reporting issues:Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Factors Contributing to the Infant Mortality Ranking of the United States
Mental illness reporting issues:Quote:
Problems of definition and measurement, however, hamper cross-national comparisons of health statistics. Alternative measures of infant mortality may provide better information but cannot completely compensate for differences among countries in the overall rates of reporting of adverse pregnancy outcomes. For example, very premature births are more likely to be included in birth and mortality statistics in the United States than in several other industrialized countries that have lower infant mortality rates.
How Depressed Is Your Country? - Forbes.com
Drug abuse:Quote:
...the findings are likely related in part to Americans' willingness to talk about their depression.
I'll give you this one because people in the US probably has more disposable income than many other countries (even our poor). So we literally have more money to dispose of on drugs. I guess more money is bad then. :rolleyes:
Anyway now I'm bored. Those are some pretty charts though I'll give them that. I did laugh pretty hard though when they got to the "Social Mobility" one though. I thought this was a study of "equal countries"? If they're equal how do you go from poor to rich or vice versa? Funny that.
And to think you accuse others of having a romanticised view of communism... Your perspective on the free market is, judging by these remarks, no better.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
How so? Honest question. Where is my logic flawed? In a truly free market system, why wouldn't a competing business spring up to compete with an "evil monopoly"? What barrier is there stopping them? There sure as heck is a motive, profit, and that is a strong motivator.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The real world is on my side of this argument. Why is there a Delta, a United, American, etc? Why is there a FexEx and a DHL, UPS? Why is there a Wendy's and a McDonalds? Are you suggesting that only government intervention is providing competition? That without the government somehow McDonalds would buy up Wendy's, Burger King, Jack in the Box and all the rest and be some sort of monopoly?
Competition by definition has losers. The more someone wins, the more others lose. And the more someone wins, the easier it gets for him to win some more. That leads inevitably to a situation when there are far more losers than winners. Unless there are rules and some kind of handicap system.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
[youtube]s-LIEr43_wk[/youtube]
Quote:
Now I been lookin' for a job but it's hard to find
Down here it's just winners and losers and don't get caught on the wrong side of that line
Well I'm tired of comin' out on the losin' end
So honey last night I met this guy and I'm gonna do a little favor for him
Well I guess everything dies baby that's a fact
But maybe everything that dies someday comes back
Put your makeup on fix your hair up pretty and meet me tonight in Atlantic City
Yes, I have never stated otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Basic flaw by many people. Economics is not a zero sum game. McDonalds is clearly the winner in the fast food market. But that does not mean that Wendy's, Burger King, Jack in the Box, others aren't making money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
A better question might be 'what barrier is stopping you'? I'm sure you can think of some.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
But how many mom&pop burger joints went bust and aren't making money because of them. People can't eat more fast food than they can stuff into their stomach and the population and the obesity problem aren't growing fast enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Actually that is exactly my question, substitution the adverb you for them doesn't change it one bit. But I'll play along just for fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
What barrier is stopping me in this theoretical true free market system? My own ambition, I would rather spend time with my family, and play video games than spend the time and energy needed to make a start up work. Short answer me.
What barrier is stopping me in the real world of the current US system? Again my own ambition is the main concern. But then you add in government rules, regulations, and certification processes, and those only add to drive down one's desire to devote the time and resources needed to make a start up successful.
You added the Springsteen bit after I replied. What a f'ing joke that man is. How much money has he made off of people charging them $100 to see him in concert whining about how hard it is to find a job, comin' out on the losin' end, and so on. Hypocrite. People like him and Michael Moore just make me sick. Making huge sums money in a capitalistic system by complaining about how horrible the capitalistic system is, how stupid is that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Oh no, a business might have failed. Boo hoo. I'm sorry to be so "heartless", but if those mom & pop shops were so great why couldn't they have beaten those giants? McDonalds was once a mom & pop outfit. The evil Wall-Mart was once a mom & pop shop. How did they ever compete against Macy's and Gimbals? How could a small computer company started out of some hippie's garage with a stupid fruit name ever compete against the might of IBM?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
That proves my point that there are just few winners and thousands of losers.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
And how many low-paid employees they have? I read that the CEO of a Finnish supermarket chain makes 102 times more than his employees in average. I guess it's even worse in the US.
In a capitalistic system it's very smart. You sell people what they want to buy. If somebody is stupid, it's them who pay for their stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
And not at any moment do you think that the sheer extent to which the corporate giants are entrenched, the sheer financial power at their disposal and their utter ruthlessness may be no barrier?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Oh, that old chestnut — 'you can't be a rich socialist'. Why is that attitude apparently not allowed, whereas you would presumably not have any objection to a poor capitalist?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34