Capitalism (1 Viewer)

[Huntn]

Capitalism- good or bad?

This is not my answer that it is bad per se, but the following is what triggered this thread. When I think of a country, I think of it’s citizens as being members of Team USA, Team Canada, or Team UK, etc, and with companies, corporations, I see issues where the emphasis is on profits, not my team. For corporations, the team is not my country, but my small group of capital collectors, and one thing that irritates me constantly is when I call a company, say a U.S. based insurance company and I end up talking to someone in India, or the Philippines. Hey profits up, but citizens (team members) are disenfranchised, the income levels of the home country is undermined, millions of jobs exported to cheap labor locations. I’ve witnessed this in manufacturing for at least the last 30-40 years. When it comes to profits there is no National loyalty. As I said, the team is the corporation, and sometimes, it’s not even the people working locally, some of those like assembly line workers are viewed as drains on the bottom line. Thoughts?

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

The problem with what you propose is that our government isn’t designed to operate in that manner.

Our government used to operate more in the manner I spoke of, still operates in many ways in that manner,. and could go back to doing it as much as it used to. Re-study your American history and Civics. It's a always a choice how the government operates, because you've got your facts wrong.

I'll point out just a few facts, so that you can see the factual inaccuracies in your statement, food assistance programs, public not-for-profit water services, rent and housing assistance, medicaid, medicare, ACA, publicly owned not-for-profit electric and gas utilities, public not-for-profit transportation, public schools free for K-12 with not-for-profit food services and not-for-profit public higher education schools, social security, the military, law enforcement agencies, fire departments, public roads, and on and on.

We are still doing a lot of those, we used to do a lot more of it and we can go back to doing a lot more of it if we choose to do more of it.

We can’t agree on how to properly fund our current entitlement programs.

That is only because almost all Republicans and some Democrats are doing the bidding of the billionaires and looking out for their interests at the expense of the rest of the 99.5% of us, including you. If we removed the influence of billionaires on elections and lobbying of Congress, we'd be able to reach compromises on the budget like we once did and can do again.

Expanding it beyond what already exists will overwhelm the governments ability to manage and fund those programs.

You're being lied to about that, TampaJoe.

We can easily provide a lot more help to the people who need help and even those who don't need the help. All we have to do is get billionaires to actually pay taxes at a level they can easily afford. And no, that won't keep them from being billionaires. That's like saying if we tax crystal meth at a level crystal meth addicts can afford, they'd stop using crystal meth because they won't want to pay those taxes.

Billionaires will not stop chasing billions of dollars just because they have to pay more taxes on the billions they hoard. That's a lie that the billionaires tell you to scare you into not making them pay the taxes they can afford. By the way, none of those billionaires would be billionaires if they were born and raised in the poorest countries on the planet. They might still be entrepreneurs, but they would be selling goods out of cart on the roadside or from a booth in a marketplace, or they would be criminals trafficking illegal goods, illegal services, and/or people.

The reason billionaires should pay a lot more is because they benefit a lot more from everything that we collectively provide to them as a society, community and government. The people who benefit the most should pay the most. It's completely fair and equitable.

It's immoral that the people who benefit the most from our collective efforts and labor, proportionally pay the least and in some cases, they pay nothing at all.

Not to mention the constitutional challenges along the way.

There are no constitutional challenges to anything I've mentioned, that's why we've already done it all before and continue to do a lot of it. Anyone that tells you it's unconstitutional is lying to you. You do know that the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld eminent domain, don't you?

Maybe that’s the fundamental flaw with socialism.

First off, you haven't actually shown any flaws that are inherent to socialism. In fact, the flaws that you pointed out are a direct result of the government being controlled and corrupted by poorly regulated capitalism.

Second and most importantly, socialized necessities and capitalized non-necessitates is neither socialism or capitalism. It's a hybrid of both that minimizes the disadvantages and flaws of both systems. The most important thing about that socialism capitalism hybrid is that it's the decent and moral way for human beings to treat one another.

 

[TampaJoe]

Our government used to operate more in the manner I spoke of, still operates in many ways in that manner,. and could go back to doing it as much as it used to. Re-study your American history and Civics. It's a always a choice how the government operates, because you've got your facts wrong.

I'll point out just a few facts, so that you can see the factual inaccuracies in your statement, food assistance programs, public not-for-profit water services, rent and housing assistance, medicaid, medicare, ACA, publicly owned not-for-profit electric and gas utilities, public not-for-profit transportation, public schools free for K-12 with not-for-profit food services and not-for-profit public higher education schools, social security, the military, law enforcement agencies, fire departments, public roads, and on and on.

We are still doing a lot of those, we used to do a lot more of it and we can go back to doing a lot more of it if we choose to do more of it.


That is only because almost all Republicans and some Democrats are doing the bidding of the billionaires and looking out for their interests at the expense of the rest of the 99.5% of us, including you. If we removed the influence of billionaires on elections and lobbying of Congress, we'd be able to reach compromises on the budget like we once did and can do again.


You're being lied to about that, TampaJoe.

We can easily provide a lot more help to the people who need help and even those who don't need the help. All we have to do is get billionaires to actually pay taxes at a level they can easily afford. And no, that won't keep them from being billionaires. That's like saying if we tax crystal meth at a level crystal meth addicts can afford, they'd stop using crystal meth because they won't want to pay those taxes.

Billionaires will not stop chasing billions of dollars just because they have to pay more taxes on the billions they hoard. That's a lie that the billionaires tell you to scare you into not making them pay the taxes they can afford. By the way, none of those billionaires would be billionaires if they were born and raised in the poorest countries on the planet. They might still be entrepreneurs, but they would be selling goods out of cart on the roadside or from a booth in a marketplace, or they would be criminals trafficking illegal goods, illegal services, and/or people.

The reason billionaires should pay a lot more is because they benefit a lot more from everything that we collectively provide to them as a society, community and government. The people who benefit the most should pay the most. It's completely fair and equitable.

It's immoral that the people who benefit the most from our collective efforts and labor, proportionally pay the least and in some cases, they pay nothing at all.


There are no constitutional challenges to anything I've mentioned, that's why we've already done it all before and continue to do a lot of it. Anyone that tells you it's unconstitutional is lying to you. You do know that the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld eminent domain, don't you?


First off, you haven't actually shown any flaws that are inherent to socialism. In fact, the flaws that you pointed out are a direct result of the government being controlled and corrupted by poorly regulated capitalism.

Second and most importantly, socialized necessities and capitalized non-necessitates is neither socialism or capitalism. It's a hybrid of both that minimizes the disadvantages and flaws of both systems. The most important thing about that socialism capitalism hybrid is that it's the decent and moral way for human beings to treat one another.

I guess we will see how all this works out in NYC if the Dem nominee wins the election. He’s talking about many of the things you mentioned. So we can see how all this works out in the current environment.

You can do many things at the state and local level that might not be possible at the Federal level. Dems control the city and state. It will be interesting to see how all this works out.

 

[CoolBrees]

I wonder if all the people that say socialism isn't workable are aware that the US military is a living example of how well socialism works. It is the largest social program in history.

 

[MT15]

I wonder if all the people that say socialism isn't workable are aware that the US military is a living example of how well socialism works. It is the largest social program in history.

Not to mention Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security.

 

[MT15]

Oh, and I saw someone on Blue Sky make this point about Mandami’s plan for the government to run grocery stores in food deserts in NYC.

She said - the government has run many grocery stores for decades. They’re called commissaries, and nobody has been complaining about that.

 

[TampaJoe]

I wonder if all the people that say socialism isn't workable are aware that the US military is a living example of how well socialism works. It is the largest social program in history.

Well that is an interesting point for sure. Another point about the military is it’s about an authoritarian as it gets.

 

[CoolBrees]

The Chain of Command is not the same thing as Authoritarianism.

This isn't hard.

 

[TampaJoe]

The Chain of Command is not the same thing as Authoritarianism.

This isn't hard.

Uh huh.

And insurance and benefits provided to military service members by their employer (the US Government) as a result of their service to this country isn’t socialism anymore than my health insurance benefits thru my employer is socialism.

You are right. It isnt hard.

 

[Sendai]

Uh huh.

And insurance and benefits provided to military service members by their employer (the US Government) as a result of their service to this country isn’t socialism anymore than my health insurance benefits thru my employer is socialism.

You are right. It isnt hard.

Yeah, the military is a good job with benefits. It sure isn’t socialist. My dear departed dad , the “Colonel “ , would heartily laugh at such a notion.

 

[CoolBrees]

The military provides food, medical, dental, education for you and your children, housing, job training for a job you are assigned, in exchange for work.

Explain how that isn't a social program

 

[Huntn]

@RobF
@SFIDC3
@Dragon
@J-DONK
@LA 2 L.A.

I appreciate your responses and general agreement. To categorize economic systems, you’d have to say capitalism is centered on “accruing capital” and socialism is centered on “social welfare”. Something hybrid that prioritizes social welfare is a must.

The fundamental problem here is that human beings become consumed with achieving not just wealth and security, psychologically not only do they want their fundamental needs met, they also think it’s wonderful that they have the financial means to do whatever they want. For most this is just a fantasy, but for those who are smart, or who have a good idea, and live in a stable system that allows them to run to the full extent, they will accrue probably more money than they ever imagined.

Are they evil? No, they’re human, but they are very, possibly selfish and shortsighted and don’t believe in the integrity of the system or their fellow human beings. And there are grounds for this feeling. The idea behind monetizing everything including medicine, healthcare, education, social services, fundamental needs like food and housing, is ultimately a losing proposition for your society. If anyone has proven it, it’s the United States of America who emerge from World War II as the richest and most powerful country in the world and we’re in the process of imploding.

Part of the reason is a human idea, that may be started back when we were in the early stages, where numbers meant safety, an economic system built on the idea of that continuous expansion is not only ideal but necessary for both success and power. And striving for this goal, maybe not all but enough of us decided that other human beings were expendable in the name of our profit and security.

The element of being in competition in a marketplace and you have to come out on top, what does that mean? It means, instead of losing, you must win at almost all costs, and that includes your workforce. Send those jobs to Asia. The first corporation to send its manufacturing to Asia circa 1970ish, set the die for all corporations to follow to remain competitive.

What might’ve prevented this? A mindset of the culture, that people as the whole, are more important than profits, that a stable overall healthy society should be the ultimate goal. But as I said, this is counter to human nature. Selfishness, my family, my tribe, my hard work, I deserve more than those strangers.

I think we’ve also reached a point where our numbers are working against us. We’re too big to be on the same page. Those on top will never voluntarily give up their status because life‘s too good for them. You could say they have separated from the rest of us, those who are merely comfortable, struggling daily, or living wretched lives because the opportunity is simply not there.

I heard a white guy in the gym the other day railing about “the slackers” living with all the free stuff they got from the government. This is in Texas. I didn’t ask him, but I assume he’s talking about Brown and Black people.”They sit in their air-conditioned public housing and live it up, while I and the rest of us are working our arses off to get by. How about, go get a job?”

That’s a great question. There are such things as motivation, income and opportunity for training and education. Without those things you can go work at some minimum pay job and suffer for your life. My impression is in some cases there are individuals who break out, but usually with the help of a third-party providing the income and the opportunity as long as the individual has some intelligence and it motivated. But this is the exception not the rule.

If you look at Trump supporters, my impression is that many of them would traditionally be blue-collar, working class, would be members of a populous party, in this country, would be likely Democrats, but who have been disenfranchised by the capital system.

The “liberals” who used to be the Democrats, who might return to this role, failed them, maybe. Look at the system, and it’s expectations of wealth. Look at the preaching of get a job and be successful or how about:”everyone can be rich”. Every time a liberal suggest a social program that’s gonna cost money, there’s a whole lot of people who rejected it, and likely turn to the “fiscally responsible party” which used to be believed to be the GOP, which only exist in name only.

MAGA, the replacement is a faux-populist party, which I describe as disenfranchised citizens. Unfortunately, the leadership of this movement has issues with honesty, basically treating their followers as sheep to be shared, making up bullshirt, in many cases, racist to keep their followers following. “It’s those other no good people who are taking from you because of the liberals.”

There’s a fundamental issue for the citizens to identify the real enemy, which is capitalism based solely on profit. Until they wake up, and if they don’t wake up very soon, we are finished.

Not only that I’m afraid that our numbers are working against us, that were not smart enough to reduce our numbers or voluntarily lessen the impact on our environment, and mother nature is gonna take care of that for us in a way they can only be ugly. I don’t see a solution on the horizon and think we’re in deep shirt.

 

[Huntn]

I wonder if all the people that say socialism isn't workable are aware that the US military is a living example of how well socialism works. It is the largest social program in history.

Except, the 20 year pension has been obliterated and contractors now rule. Capitalism in the final stages…

 

[Huntn]

The problem with what you propose is that our government isn’t designed to operate in that manner. We can’t agree on how to properly fund our current entitlement programs. Expanding it beyond what already exists will overwhelm the governments ability to manage and fund those programs. Not to mention the constitutional challenges along the way.

Maybe that’s the fundamental flaw with socialism.

Do you agree with any of my Capitalist vs Socialist premises?

What manner is our government designed to operate in? How about looking at the documents that created the country? Not desiring to start another fight with you, but I’d like to know your opinion on this.

Something along the lines of: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and Justice for all.​

Or was that Superman?

 

[Huntn]

Not to mention Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security.

Which is on the endangered “we can’t afford it” list.

 

[Huntn]

Well that is an interesting point for sure. Another point about the military is it’s about an authoritarian as it gets.

Authoritarian, a chain of command, but we are discussing social benefits. And it’s voluntary to join, but I believe that mandatory national service should be a requirement for 4 years… if this is a good place to live, how about lend a hand in its defense, instead of being a slacker? Not directed at you personally.

 

[Dragon]

What might’ve prevented this? A mindset of the culture, that people as the whole, are more important than profits, that a stable overall healthy society should be the ultimate goal. But as I said, this is counter to human nature. Selfishness, my family, my tribe, my hard work, I deserve more than those strangers.

Very well put. One of the key reasons Scandinavia has not developed into a society like the United States is due to a deeply rooted social construct centered around egalitarian values. This mindset dates back as far as the 9th century and was later articulated by Danish author Aksel Sandemose through the concept known as the Law of Jante.

Embedded in the Law of Jante is a cultural code that emphasizes humility, discourages excessive individualism, and promotes the idea that no one is better than anyone else. These values have shaped societies characterized by:

• Strong welfare states
• High levels of taxation
• Broad economic equality
• Deep social cohesion

Jante’s influence has fostered high levels of social trust and support for universal welfare systems. People are generally accepting of high taxes because there’s a shared belief that everyone should contribute to the common good and that no one should accumulate vastly more than others.

Another consequence of the Jante mindset is a cultural preference for consensus over confrontation. This is clearly reflected in Scandinavian politics:

• Multi-party coalition governments (Denmark, for example, has 13 parties represented in Parliament)
• Collaborative decision-making
• Broad, cross-party support for key social policies

Because no single party can easily dominate, the political system naturally filters out extremism and promotes stability.

In contrast, the culture in the United States revolves around personal success, achievement, and the pursuit of wealth. Individualism is celebrated, and showcasing wealth is often seen as aspirational. In Denmark, however, flaunting wealth is considered in poor taste. While the country does have ultra-wealthy families—such as those behind LEGO, Novo Nordisk, and Maersk—they tend to live quiet, private lives and rarely seek the spotlight.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Well that is an interesting point for sure. Another point about the military is it’s about an authoritarian as it gets.

What do they all swear an oath to do, TampaJoe?

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Uh huh.

And insurance and benefits provided to military service members by their employer (the US Government) as a result of their service to this country isn’t socialism anymore than my health insurance benefits thru my employer is socialism.

Another swing and miss, TampaJoe. We the people pay for all military pay and benefits. That's government socialism. Your insurance is privately paid socialism, because you only pay a premium which is only part of your total healthcare cost. You wouldn't have any insurance coverage at all if a whole lot of people weren't also chipping into the insurance pool.

You are right. It isnt hard.

Apparently, it's hard for you to understand.