America is the greatest country in the world.

[maximon555]

I could care less about Canada.




I think you are replacing capitalism with human greed.

Definition of CAPITALISM

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
-----------------------------

I don't know how more obvious i can make this:

You are blaming the ability to completely own your business for all these things.


I"m sorry but at this point i don't see how you actually think blaming capitalism is ok.
-Much less the point of it. What other economic system do you propose?



If the hospital bill was that much, they were not insured, and they had so little money or friends who would lend them that much(which i guess it would need to be immediate as well) that they had to sell their house:


What makes you think that this service would be provided in the needed time for free otherwise?

-You don't know what you are talking about. Sorry, but you don't.

I suggest Socialism and a Global Tax on the CO2 and pollution emissions.We can live without money, but we cannot live without a healthy environment.

[Commander X]

I suggest Socialism and a Global Tax on the CO2 and pollution emissions.We can live without money, but we cannot live without a healthy environment.

So you think every rich person is going to be willing to give up their money and that there will be no corruption in the distribution of that money?

[maximon555]

So you think every rich person is going to be willing to give up their money and that there will be no corruption in the distribution of that money?

Yeah, I know, it's just an utopia,due to human egoist nature, of working for himself and hardly for others,but we can dream.

[Commander X]

Yeah, I know, it's just an utopia,due to human egoist nature, of working for himself and hardly for others,but we can dream.

Dreams and fantasies will only lead to disappointment and sadness.

[maximon555]

Dreams and fantasies will only lead to disappointment and sadness.

Without dreams we wouldn't make any advances, because we would have no ambition, no motivation, no drive to accomplish anything, therefore we really wouldn't have a life if nothing ever changed.

[Commander X]

Without dreams we wouldn't make any advances, because we would have no ambition, no motivation, no drive to accomplish anything, therefore we really wouldn't have a life if nothing ever changed.

Only a few can truly understand.

[Empire]

I suggest Socialism and a Global Tax on the CO2 and pollution emissions.We can live without money, but we cannot live without a healthy environment.

-Yeah ok C02 emissions, sure w/e, don't care.


Ok so why is socialism better than capitalism? Please explain.

[vaporak10]

I'm just wondering since everyone seems to be hating on the capitalistic government, what is the right government then? And doesn't Canada use the free enterprise system which is capitalist.

Just curious

[maximon555]

-Yeah ok C02 emissions, sure w/e, don't care.


Ok so why is socialism better than capitalism? Please explain.

Albert Einstein wrote:
In capitalism we see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production,although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

[Empire]

Ok so why is socialism better?
-Still waiting.

[Commander X]

Ok so why is socialism better?
-Still waiting.

Unfortunately, you will never get that answer because it doesn't work well on a large scale because then you have to worry about how the economy will run and so forth. It works better on small scales such as housing co-ops. All large scales tests such as North Vietnam failed miserably.

[Empire]

Unfortunately, you will never get that answer because it doesn't work well on a large scale because then you have to worry about how the economy will run and so forth. It works better on small scales such as housing co-ops. All large scales tests such as North Vietnam failed miserably.

I know the arguments from both sides well enough. I know the cons and pro's of both too. But i'm wanting to see what his opinion/viewpoint is on the subject.

[maximon555]

I know the arguments from both sides well enough. I know the cons and pro's of both too. But i'm wanting to see what his opinion/viewpoint is on the subject.

I think I've made my point but let me resume my point of view, socialism is better, because income and economic matters are in jurisdiction of the community,inspires the "we are all in this together" ideology.However,Capitalism leads to the exploitation of the poor and the weak with a clear cut "every man for himself" ideology.Under a socialist regime, socialism takes the responsibility, the ownership and the wealth away from the elite at hands it to the poor, the economically oppressed, the proletarians.Poverty would be inexistent and societies would adopt an egalitarian form, raising the standard of living not only for the successful, but also for a nation as a whole by increasing the access to the healthier food and lifestyles not affordable under a capitalist regime.Under Socialism, we would not have a fast growing economy, but a more stable one, safer on the long run.

[Empire]

I think I've made my point but let me resume my point of view, socialism is better, because income and economic matters are in jurisdiction of the community,inspires the "we are all in this together" ideology.However,Capitalism leads to the exploitation of the poor and the weak with a clear cut "every man for himself" ideology.Under a socialist regime, socialism takes the responsibility, the ownership and the wealth away from the elite at hands it to the poor, the economically oppressed, the proletarians.Poverty would be inexistent and societies would adopt an egalitarian form, raising the standard of living not only for the successful, but also for a nation as a whole by increasing the access to the healthier food and lifestyles not affordable under a capitalist regime.Under Socialism, we would not have a fast growing economy, but a more stable one, safer on the long run.

What you are talking about is "best case scenario".

You are assuming:

1. The government can handle all this. Which at the moment, they can't.
2. That people will want this change.
3. That people will all work together.
4. That anyone with any amount of money will give it up.
5. That this would still work with the other economies of the world.
6. That immigration would just decimate it.


Assuming everything goes right, SURE it could be better than the current guided-capitalism that is in place. But in that case, you might as well make a best case scenario of the system in place as well and you'd get a pretty good result too.
---------------------------------------------
Oh and btw: Saying one thing is bad does not prove the other is better. Whole Einstein quote was a waste.
-------------------------------------------------------------


The point I am trying to make is that given the current state of the US, socialism would not work. It would not only crash our economy, but everyone else's as well.(including canada's).

You can claim capitalism is evil and such, but truth be told you and the rest of the world benifit quite a bit from it and you wouldn't live in such luxury without it.
-In fact your socialism wouldn't work half as good without it.

You can claim capitalism isn't fair. Well thats true. But life isn't fair and people are free to leave.

[maximon555]

What you are talking about is "best case scenario".

You are assuming:

1. The government can handle all this. Which at the moment, they can't.
2. That people will want this change.
3. That people will all work together.
4. That anyone with any amount of money will give it up.
5. That this would still work with the other economies of the world.
6. That immigration would just decimate it.


Assuming everything goes right, SURE it could be better than the current guided-capitalism that is in place. But in that case, you might as well make a best case scenario of the system in place as well and you'd get a pretty good result too.
---------------------------------------------
Oh and btw: Saying one thing is bad does not prove the other is better. Whole Einstein quote was a waste.
-------------------------------------------------------------


The point I am trying to make is that given the current state of the US, socialism would not work. It would not only crash our economy, but everyone else's as well.(including canada's).

You can claim capitalism is evil and such, but truth be told you and the rest of the world benifit quite a bit from it and you wouldn't live in such luxury without it.
-In fact your socialism wouldn't work half as good without it.

You can claim capitalism isn't fair. Well thats true. But life isn't fair and people are free to leave.

I've never said that socialism was better,i said it was more fair,stable and safer .Thats why i said that it's just a utopia,a dream-world.and claiming that "life isn't fair" is just a justification for behavior that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak,to say that life isn't fair is not an excuse to fleece the working man. The rich have contrived to usurp our wealth in a hundred different immoral ways. They are crooks so do not defend them by saying life isn't fair. They do things every day that common people would not do to others because it isn't right . For them it is for the interest of profit. What is fundamentally unfair is that some should gain so much by not playing fair, while others are left with so little by playing fair.So anyways,this discussion is meant to clarify what should be done, what could have been done, and what needs to be done in the future. Not to say "life's a bitch, then you die"."