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.]

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.

Socialism means that society collectively provides something. The US military is collectively funded by US society. That's socialism no matter what your alleged dear departed dad allegedly thought.

 

[CoolBrees]

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.

My dad is alive and he was a Col too. Graduated in '69 from the Air Force Academy

He is the one that taught me that.

 

[coldseat]

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.

Tying health insurance to employment is the dumbest thing we do as a country. Regardless, health insurance as a concept and in operation is completely socialist.

 

[TampaJoe]

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?

The US Constitution was written in such a way to limit the power and authority of the Federal Government to those things enumerated in the US Constitution. Limited government. Powers not enumerated in the Constitution are left to the states provided those states do not violated provisions and rights found in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It is a very decentralized structure allowing much individual liberty. It lends itself to capitalism much more easily than to socialism IMO.

I do not hold the opinion that social democracies are inherently bad. If that is the system choosen by those cultures, that is their decision to make. I simply don’t think it is workable in this country for the reasons I have stated. I may agree with many of the problems you have named and may agree with many of those ideals. Where we differ is which government structure gets us where we as a country and a society want to go.

So I don’t want the government telling people how much they can make or how much they can keep. I believe in government with limits and believe we must collect sufficient funds to service that government. I believe in reasonable social safety nets. I believe in equal opportunity. I think most of us do. Where we differ is on where and how we achieve those goals.

I don’t believe in government deciding on how much an individual can make or how much an individual may keep. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in reasonable progressive taxation. Be we do live in a free country. As many have pointed out, we have no Kings or monarchs here. I don’t think the Founders intended to design a government that behaved as a monarch. They only gave the Federal government limited authority and protected the rights of the individual to make decisions for themselves.

Hopefully that answers your question.

 

[TampaJoe]

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.


Apparently, it's hard for you to understand.

Perhaps you have a different definition for socialism than I. Sounds like it.

 

[TampaJoe]

Tying health insurance to employment is the dumbest thing we do as a country. Regardless, health insurance as a concept and in operation is completely socialist.

Private ownership is not by definition “socialism”.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

So I don’t want the government telling people how much they can make or how much they can keep.

True socialism does not tell people how much they can make. Our government already tells us how much money we can keep with federal income tax and other federal taxes. Both are a right granted to the government by the US Constitution.

I don’t believe in government deciding on how much an individual can make or how much an individual may keep.

Socialism doesn't decide how much people make. You must not believe in our government, TampaJoe, because our government already decides how much we get to keep by way of the income taxes it imposes.

That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in reasonable progressive taxation.

Taxation of any kind is the government deciding what people get to keep. You say you're against that, but here you are saying you're okay with that. You have contradictory beliefs and opinions.

Be we do live in a free country. As many have pointed out, we have no Kings or monarchs here. I don’t think the Founders intended to design a government that behaved as a monarch. They only gave the Federal government limited authority and protected the rights of the individual to make decisions for themselves.

Socialism is an economic system. It is not a governmental system. Socialism can exist within a democracy and a democracy can exist with socialistic economic policies. That's been happening in the US since the very beginning. Public schools and the US military are two examples of how we collectively provide something of benefit to all. That is the very epitome of socialism coexisting with democracy for the benefit and preservation of democracy. Capitalism in America has been much more destructive to our democracy than our socialists policies ever have or ever will be.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Perhaps you have a different definition for socialism than I. Sounds like it.

If your definition of socialism says it's a form of government that doesn't allow private ownership, then you are using the false definition of socialism that is used by tyrannical capitalists who want to discredit socialism because it's a threat to their corrupt power that their corruption of capitalism gives them.

True socialism is simply society collectively agreeing on providing certain resources to all people on an equitable basis. I think that we as a society should collectively provide everything a human needs to be biologically and emotionally safe and healthy equitably to every person without profiting.

People would still be free to make as much money as they want and own private property, but the more they make the greater percentage they have to pay in taxes to keep providing all of the things that contribute to them being able to make more money. The more you benefit financially from what society provides, the more you pay for the cost of society providing those things that you benefit from.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Private ownership is not by definition “socialism”.

That's a deceptive definition that tyrannical capitalists have told you. Private ownership and socialism are not exclusive. Both can and do exist in the same system. Right here in the US we have several socialistic policies, yet we still have private ownership. I'm in full support of socialism and private ownership. We can have both and we are better off with both.

 

[Sendai]

My dad is alive and he was a Col too. Graduated in '69 from the Air Froce Academy

He is the one that taught me that.

Outstanding.

In the early 60’s my dad was affiliated with the Academy doing presentations and candidate interviews.

I had the great fortune to coach a couple of young men who are Academy graduates and pilots.

 

[Huntn]

The US Constitution was written in such a way to limit the power and authority of the Federal Government to those things enumerated in the US Constitution. Limited government. Powers not enumerated in the Constitution are left to the states provided those states do not violated provisions and rights found in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It is a very decentralized structure allowing much individual liberty. It lends itself to capitalism much more easily than to socialism IMO.

I do not hold the opinion that social democracies are inherently bad. If that is the system choosen by those cultures, that is their decision to make. I simply don’t think it is workable in this country for the reasons I have stated. I may agree with many of the problems you have named and may agree with many of those ideals. Where we differ is which government structure gets us where we as a country and a society want to go.

So I don’t want the government telling people how much they can make or how much they can keep. I believe in government with limits and believe we must collect sufficient funds to service that government. I believe in reasonable social safety nets. I believe in equal opportunity. I think most of us do. Where we differ is on where and how we achieve those goals.

I don’t believe in government deciding on how much an individual can make or how much an individual may keep. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in reasonable progressive taxation. Be we do live in a free country. As many have pointed out, we have no Kings or monarchs here. I don’t think the Founders intended to design a government that behaved as a monarch. They only gave the Federal government limited authority and protected the rights of the individual to make decisions for themselves.

Hopefully that answers your question.

Thanks, but I disagree with you. A government built on the philosophy of equal opportunity, and equality before the law, we’ve completely failed, but that’s beside my point. A society can only be successful if the divergence of wealth is strictly controlled, of course the caveat has to be the the government represents all the citizens participating in the society and most of society must participate in the rules we create to control commerce. We failed there too. Ultimately corruption signals our end, the end of any economic system.
We are in End Game Capitalism. There should be no billionaires period and a wealth cap of $10m. The market must be heavily regulated and taxed for infastructure, education, healthcare, social safety nets, and pensions. In a modern society no one should have to work till they drop.
As is, what is observed is the wholesale disenfranchisement of the market and citizens as millions of jobs are exported, the market is cannibalised, as the Capitalists spend unimaginable amounts of $$$ on the MIC, while slashing taxes for the wealthy as if they really need and deserve the welfare. Now in anticipation of the coming bad times and unrest, civil liberties are under attack, our Peice of work POTUS is fantasizing about shipping citizens to El Salvador. We simply can’t take this shirt, it’s destroying us. At this point in time, the survival of our country would benefit tremendously if we put this convicted Felon in jail where he should be.

 

[TampaJoe]

Thanks, but I disagree with you. A government built on the philosophy of equal opportunity, and equality before the law, we’ve completely failed, but that’s beside my point. A society can only be successful if the divergence of wealth is strictly controlled, of course the caveat has to be the the government represents all the citizens participating in the society and most of society must participate in the rules we create to control commerce. We failed there too. Ultimately corruption signals our end, the end of any economic system.
We are in End Game Capitalism. There should be no billionaires period and a wealth cap of $10m. The market must be heavily regulated and taxed for infastructure, education, healthcare, social safety nets, and pensions. In a modern society no one should have to work till they drop.
As is, what is observed is the wholesale disenfranchisement of the market and citizens as millions of jobs are exported, the market is cannibalised, as the Capitalists spend unimaginable amounts of $$$ on the MIC, while slashing taxes for the wealthy as if they really need and deserve the welfare. Now in anticipation of the coming bad times and unrest, civil liberties are under attack, our Peice of work POTUS is fantasizing about shipping citizens to El Salvador. We simply can’t take this shirt, it’s destroying us. At this point in time, the survival of our country would benefit tremendously if we put this convicted Felon in jail where he should be.

You are correct in that you and I don’t agree on government and economics. Respectfully. I don’t see where any government that places the kind of limitations you describe can call itself a free country. What you describe crosses the line between individual liberty and authoritarianism IMO. The government and politicians become the monarchs. They explain it to you claiming it’s for your own good or for the collective good. I believe that is precisely the reason our Constitution was written in such a way to limit the power of the central government.

It amazes me that people on this board complain regularly about the dysfunction in our government and at the same time seek to give that same dysfunctional government more authority and power over daily life. What will destroy us is giving up more and more of our individual liberties to the government.

JMHO

 

[Dragon]

This is the core logic behind Danish social democracy:

A question I often hear is: “Why should wealthy individuals pay the same percentage in taxes—or even slightly more—than the factory worker on the floor?”

The answer is simple: Because those at the top benefit more from what society provides.

A business owner doesn't succeed in isolation. Their success is built on a solid foundation of public goods and services:

• A well-educated workforce, trained largely at public expense
• Compensation schemes that cover sick pay when employees are absent
• Well-maintained roads and infrastructure that allow goods to move efficiently
• Affordable and reliable utilities like electricity, internet, and clean water
• Public transportation systems that get workers to the factory floor every day
• Free and continuing education, helping workers stay up to date with new skills—often subsidized even while on payroll

These systems are not optional perks; they’re critical to the success of every business. And that’s why it’s only fair that those who benefit the most from society’s investments also contribute the most.

 

[MT15]

You are correct in that you and I don’t agree on government and economics. Respectfully. I don’t see where any government that places the kind of limitations you describe can call itself a free country. What you describe crosses the line between individual liberty and authoritarianism IMO. The government and politicians become the monarchs. They explain it to you claiming it’s for your own good or for the collective good. I believe that is precisely the reason our Constitution was written in such a way to limit the power of the central government.

It amazes me that people on this board complain regularly about the dysfunction in our government and at the same time seek to give that same dysfunctional government more authority and power over daily life. What will destroy us is giving up more and more of our individual liberties to the government.

JMHO

Do you not see how the GOP is infringing upon individual liberties more and more every day? They are telling universities what courses they can and cannot teach, they have taken bodily autonomy away from women, they want to outlaw certain medications and forms of birth control, they are telling corporations how they can and cannot carry out new employee orientation, they want to prevent children from reading certain books whether the parents agree with the ban or not, they want to tell parents what sorts of medical treatment they can or cannot have for their children.

There is definitely a party that stands against individual liberty and freedom, and it’s the GOP. How do you square that with your ideas about smaller government and individual freedoms?

Democrats aren’t forcing anyone to do anything individually - not nearly at the rate the GOP is going on about it. They are usually on the side of allowing people the freedom to live their lives as they wish.

Corporations are what democrats like to regulate. And their regulations generally involve keeping corporations from harming the environment and cheating and/or harming the people who work for them. I’d much rather have individual freedom and be protected from big corporations than the other way around. In fact, the GOP wants to tell corporations how to run their HR departments anyway, so even corporations aren’t safe from the GOP.

 

[TampaJoe]

Do you not see how the GOP is infringing upon individual liberties more and more every day? They are telling universities what courses they can and cannot teach, they have taken bodily autonomy away from women, they want to outlaw certain medications and forms of birth control, they are telling corporations how they can and cannot carry out new employee orientation, they want to prevent children from reading certain books whether the parents agree with the ban or not, they want to tell parents what sorts of medical treatment they can or cannot have for their children.

There is definitely a party that stands against individual liberty and freedom, and it’s the GOP. How do you square that with your ideas about smaller government and individual freedoms?

Democrats aren’t forcing anyone to do anything individually - not nearly at the rate the GOP is going on about it. They are usually on the side of allowing people the freedom to live their lives as they wish.

Corporations are what democrats like to regulate. And their regulations generally involve keeping corporations from harming the environment and cheating and/or harming the people who work for them. I’d much rather have individual freedom and be protected from big corporations than the other way around. In fact, the GOP wants to tell corporations how to run their HR departments anyway, so even corporations aren’t safe from the GOP.

When I refer to government at the federal level it is government as a whole. Democrats, republicans and independents. Elected, appointed, and employed. All of it. It either works as a whole or it does not. Don’t get me wrong.

Don’t get me wrong. Government has a role to play. You mentioned regulation. Reasonable prudent regulation is needed and is provided for in the Constitution. I have no issue with that as long as government stays in its lane. Those lanes are defined in the Constitution and its amendments.

So if you are asking me, I believe. In limited federal government as defined in the Constitution. It doesn’t matter which party happens to temporarily hold the various leadership positions.

And lastly, most laws and regulations impact individuals. That’s why they are there after all. Whether one “likes” them or not depends on who is impacted. Just because you may not care about the other side doesn’t mean the law or regulation is just of fair.

 

[Sendai]

This is the core logic behind Danish social democracy:

A question I often hear is: “Why should wealthy individuals pay the same percentage in taxes—or even slightly more—than the factory worker on the floor?”

The answer is simple: Because those at the top benefit more from what society provides.

A business owner doesn't succeed in isolation. Their success is built on a solid foundation of public goods and services:

• A well-educated workforce, trained largely at public expense
• Compensation schemes that cover sick pay when employees are absent
• Well-maintained roads and infrastructure that allow goods to move efficiently
• Affordable and reliable utilities like electricity, internet, and clean water
• Public transportation systems that get workers to the factory floor every day
• Free and continuing education, helping workers stay up to date with new skills—often subsidized even while on payroll

These systems are not optional perks; they’re critical to the success of every business. And that’s why it’s only fair that those who benefit the most from society’s investments also contribute the most.

So the U S tax structure where the top 10% earners pay 72% of the income taxes is on top of it’s game.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Thanks, but I disagree with you. A government built on the philosophy of equal opportunity, and equality before the law, we’ve completely failed, but that’s beside my point. A society can only be successful if the divergence of wealth is strictly controlled, of course the caveat has to be the the government represents all the citizens participating in the society and most of society must participate in the rules we create to control commerce. We failed there too. Ultimately corruption signals our end, the end of any economic system.
We are in End Game Capitalism. There should be no billionaires period and a wealth cap of $10m. The market must be heavily regulated and taxed for infastructure, education, healthcare, social safety nets, and pensions. In a modern society no one should have to work till they drop.
As is, what is observed is the wholesale disenfranchisement of the market and citizens as millions of jobs are exported, the market is cannibalised, as the Capitalists spend unimaginable amounts of $$$ on the MIC, while slashing taxes for the wealthy as if they really need and deserve the welfare. Now in anticipation of the coming bad times and unrest, civil liberties are under attack, our Peice of work POTUS is fantasizing about shipping citizens to El Salvador. We simply can’t take this shirt, it’s destroying us. At this point in time, the survival of our country would benefit tremendously if we put this convicted Felon in jail where he should be.

Hopefully in before the "government can't tell me what I can't and can't have" nonsense rebuttal.

The people who make that argument fully support the government forcefully going onto and into a person's property to forcibly remove their possessions if they judge that person to be hoarding. So they don't honestly have an issue with the government telling people what they can and can't have. Hoarding wealth is hoarding and wealth hording is much more detrimental and dangerous to a hell of a lot more people than a person hoarding things on and in their personal property.

Capitalism is an inherent system of exploitation. Exploitation always works in one direction only, the strong prey on the vulnerable. That's inherently immoral. It's also why the wealthy have brainwashed society to accept restrictions and regulations on the non-wealthy as "it has to be done," while rejecting the same restrictions and regulations on the wealthy as being "disastrous for everyone." It wouldn't be disastrous for anyone, including the wealthy. The wealth cap could be set at $100m and things would be a whole lot better.

I think the best thing to do would be to limit it to a certain factor tied to average incomes in a way that wouldn't allow manipulating the averages in an inequitable way, instead of setting it an arbitrary number. If you want to raise the wealth cap to hoard more wealth, then you have to make everyone proportionally more prosperous. Basically, if you want a 10% raise in the wealth cap, then everyone else also has to get a 10% raise in income. I don't think anyone should have over 100 times more wealth than anyone else.

At a party full of children, who would let any child at the party have 100 times more cookies and cake than any other child at the party?

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

You are correct in that you and I don’t agree on government and economics. Respectfully. I don’t see where any government that places the kind of limitations you describe can call itself a free country.

Everyday in our country, the government forcibly enters people's property and forcible takes their stuff from them. It's all done legally in compliance with anti-hoarding laws that are in nearly every city of every state.

I know you're probably thinking, "but that's justified, because it's different." Please list all of the justifications of why you think it's okay for the government, we the people, to tell people at the bottom half of society what they can and can't have, while it's not okay for the government, we the people, to tell people at the top half of society what they can and can't have?

What you describe crosses the line between individual liberty and authoritarianism IMO.

We already do it to people at the bottom half of society every day.

The government and politicians become the monarchs. They explain it to you claiming it’s for your own good or for the collective good. I believe that is precisely the reason our Constitution was written in such a way to limit the power of the central government.

We already do it to people at the bottom half of society every day and it's been ruled completely constitutional. On top of anti-hoarding laws, we use imminent domain to take people's land from them and the Supreme Court has ruled that's completely constitutional too.

It amazes me that people on this board complain regularly about the dysfunction in our government and at the same time seek to give that same dysfunctional government more authority and power over daily life.

We the people, the government, already have and use that authority and power over the daily lives of our fellow citizens in the bottom half of our society. Why should the people in the top half of our society be exempt from that same authority and power that we the people, the government, have?

What will destroy us is giving up more and more of our individual liberties to the government.

What is destroying us right now is giving up more and more of our individual liberties to billionaires who want to take all of our individual liberties away. Our government is we the people. It's not a them it's an us.

The billionaires have been using their wealth hoarding to make the government serve them and only them. If we the people don't use our government to protect ourselves from them, then we the people will lose all of our individual liberties and our government to the billionaires. We're on the razor's edge right now and you want to protect and enable the people who are holding the razor to all of us, you included.