is this still going on???

Andrew states...



Ok, I am going to atempt to show you the absurdity in your argument, as it is worded.

A government owned and operated employment service, such as a fire department is not privately owned for efficiency reasons, and that is warrant to believe that it is not a socialist ideal? I find that claim to be without substance, but nonetheless lets follow it...

Using the exact same measure, none of the actions recently taken by our government contradict your model... as it has been presented, so they are not socialist measures either.

Unless of course you believe that the public itself would run the banks and the auto industry more efficiently.

What say you?

Problem is the same could be said for your version. I think that is even more frustrating. While each side says something that sounds logical, more often people tend to sound just plain set in their ways and won't budge even if proved wrong. Your wrong and I'm right. No I'm right and your wrong.. ugh

I'm essentially arguing that it is not entirely socialist. I'm not attacking you, but you have to have more than the basic econ 101/wikipedia understanding of the two systems in order to comprehend most of my arguments. If, in a capitalistic system, it is more efficient for the government to do something, then it is therefore still aligned with the capitalism model. Just because it exists in that sense in a socialism model does not mean that in every instance it exists it is socialism. It's like saying because that one apple is red, all apples are red and simply a fallacy.

The efficiency principle is applied where private citizens cannot perform a duty as well as the government. Sure, healthcare costs more for the company then medicare, but the healthcare industry has a lot more overhead because they are far more indepth with their job. They don't have the fraud levels medicare does. Either way, privatized companies are doing just fine managing healthcare and not being able to afford it does not qualify under lack of efficiency. It is by nature of economics that some win and some go without with everything in life. it all comes back to scarcity. a firehouse and the intertwined systems are very difficult to be profitable with by the nature of the business. just like how a police force cannot be private because of the potential bias. These things are not sociailism.

and we're not telling

This is a very accurate and concise evaluation of the current situation. Our economy is a bit like GM. The GM worker wants ever increasing pay and benefits but there is simply not enough money for this purpose. Countries go bankrupt just like companies and there will be a time where the majority of tax income to the US treasury will go to debt service. Think of all the good that could be done with that money instead of paying it as interest.

Some government investments pay off. Building the interstate highway system caused increased efficiency in out transportation system creating jobs and creating wealth to pay taxes. A modern rail system is needed now.

Some social programs pay off by educating youth to become productive citizens instead of criminals.

Some programs, both social and infrastructure, are just stupid and waste billions of dollars causing more damage than good. The extension of federal benefits to illegal aliens has a "warm" and caring feel to it but removes money from programs needed by citizens and provides incentives for more aliens to break our laws. Since approximately, by some accounts, ten percent of illegals commit other crimes, the nonenforcement of the immigration laws cost the taxpayer additional millions in hidden costs.

We simply do not have the money to expand social spending at this time. We are in a crisis where we are forced to spend money on needed infrastructure to create jobs but we really don't have the money to do that either.

We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to stabilize the region and prevent dangerous ideologies like the Taliban version of Islam from spreading, but we really don't have the money to do that either.

Granted i just skimmed over this, but it seems that some just don't understand socialism, and some just don't understand capitalism.

From my understanding capitalism ultimately runs socialism, communism, facism, etc. in a round about way.

Questions i have about our economic recovery are;

What exactly did they "change" to prevent another situation like the current one?

What did they say caused the current one?

When people were complaining about Bush spending trillions, and "creating" this economic collapse from this, why THEIR only solution, to do the same thing?

I am just learning here, while trying to keep an open mind...

But as far as i understand we have a completely irresponsible spending budget. I'm thinking this could be the problem. A third of our budget gos to maintaining this national debt we have, and it increases ever more.

Another thing, is in order for capitalism to work, you need capital right? Without increasing capital, you aren't increasing any potential wealth IMO.

This means, if the production of goods doesn't increase equally with money produce, you are also taxing, EVERYONE. Not going to mention this is a flat tax that is nondiscrimminating. Meaning, if you make $10,000 a year, and are struggling to support your family, your taxes just increased by 10% or more. The same goes to those making $1902313091820938 billion a year. It doesn't matter. Anyone who says this administration only raised taxes on the "upper" class is seriously under informed.

According to those with PHD's in economics, the only way to honestly get out of a depression is to create more capital.

When you look at a depression as a transfer of wealth, than you may potentially redistribute that wealth. This would be an artificial recovery, i would think...

Funny thing is, that wealth was never really transfered to the right people in the right places. They dumped some into unemployment which is a temporary fix for the lower class. And they dumped the majority into the pockets of multimillionaires and billionaires that took extreme risks knowing they were too big for the government to allow to fail.

A temporary transfer of wealth would be more appropriately a major tax return to the people. You know, thousands of dollars they could go out and spend. This would in fact bring about an artificial recovery.

The flip side to this is the fact that all the wealth will be transfered back as soon as people spend their money, and the cost of living will increase dramatically because of this. This process is called inflation, and it has horrible long term affects.

This once again brings us back to what the economists say about capital being the only true way out of a depression or recession. You have to increase production.

You have 5 meals, and 10 people to feed with $20 each. Then you decide to print more money so they can afford more...Lets say $100 each. The prices of these meals will now be worth $120 and people will still starve. Get what i am saying?

Without increasing capital, or GDP, we just increased our money supply.

Current recovery = artificial. Temporary transfer of wealth. You cannot simply throw money at the problem. Math does not work out.

Socialism, capitalism or not, this is where our fallacy was, is, and will be.

This is my understanding anyway.

Don't worry, about who it was, for what he said wasn't true, and he was an ASSH0LE.

What is wrong?

A little tiny bit is wrong.

In order for a single socialist program to exist, an armed robbery must be committed by the government, against it's citizens.

If you were to collect you socialist funds voluntarily, I couldn't care less if you live in socialism or capitalism.

This necessity for violence, is characteristic to socialism.

How sweet of you. By the way folks, this is how socialists define freedom:

"If you don't like it, - don't use it, but we will still extort the money from you for our own entitlements!"



I see. So, if I have problem with folks getting food stamps on my dime, then I must have a hidden agenda!

I would have to agree with you Nogames.

I find it insulting when anyone labels middle class and higher as being priviledged.

Not true. Many have spent their lives and made sacrifices many lower class citizens could never comprehend.

My point is, just like there are lower class citizens that are just victims of circunstances, there are very wealthy people who busted their butts getting to where they are.

The source of this statement comes from within yourself, my friend, and while I appreciate your sincerity on the matter, if you actually knew any better, it would not have even crossed your mind. That being said, no offense has been taken and none intended either.

My point is that I could very well have written critically acclaimed books on the subject and heightened many people's understandings of the significant differences between the two, and I would still not have the ability to read your mind, which is where the support for your argument seems to be. I am waiting to read it. Your arguments are stating only conclusions with very little grounds. I am seeking those grounds in order to understand how the conclusions have been drawn.



The fallacy lies in the confusion and intermingling of the two philosophies in order to attempt to justify a claim of only one.

Pure 'Capitalistic' systems do not include government 'ownership' of anything having to do with the disbursement of currency. In short, private and public ownership including the regulation of business(large and small) is capitalism, and socialism is where those things are government owned and regulated. It is clear that we dont live under either a pure capitalistic or socialistic method.

That fact needs to be established upfront. The flippantly mixing/confusing the two in an attempt to support a strict approval of one or a denial regarding the importance of the other only lends itself to a muddled argument.



Who decides what constitutes as well as?



What 'company' are you talking about? The one's co-funding the policies to the employee and/or the consumer, or the one's performing the actual medical services which are paid for through those policies?

How on earth does 'more overhead' equate to better efficiency?

Are you attempting to suggest that a privatized insurance system does not have the fraud levels that medicare does? Surely you can recognize irony in this mistaken claim! Can I assume that this references the fraudulent claims themselves, or are you referencing the rubber stamp approvals of those fraudulent claims because the payment is garuanteed as long as the paperwork in in place?

You are not supporting your statements Andrew, and this is not a good way to make a point with one who may only have a wikipedia level of understanding. Using what you know, I ask you to support what you say with some logic, something that makes sense. Act as if I know little and you are clarifying things for me... if you would.



Are they now? So then if we claim that the extremely high prices of healthcare does not reflect it's inherent inefficiency or the existence of fraud, then what is the reason for the costs being so high?



The 'nature' of economics is not 'nature' - it is man... do not confuse the two. It comes down to the individual and collective sense of ought.



Because you say it is so does not make it so. Replace the term 'scarcity' with the term 'banana' and the argument loses nor gains any value. It is still socialism, it seems that you just do not want to recognize that all socialist measures are not what you thought they were...

Those things are at the very heart of socialism Andrew. They are government owned, regulated, and operated... put into place by majority vote through the recognition of need and for the greater good of all.



Driven stated...



Through the socialistic measures which have been put into use by our country, without which there would be no way for this to have happened.

The very idea that using an example of a personal success story which necessitates the heart of socialism to provide substance against the measures which made the story possible is kind of senseless is it not?

If you remove the socialist measures you remove the possibility for the existence of the example... which is supposed to support capitalism, but actually supports socialism...

Perhaps the intent to deny the importance of socialism was not there?

That particular statement was not against socialism my friend. This was a seperate statement. I was refering to people in favor of charging a higher percentage of taxes on the wealthy, so they can give that money to the unwealthy. Just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean they didn't earn it. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are just a victim of unfortunate circumstances.

I am trying like hell not to even look at socialism versus capitalism. I think we run into unnecessary conflict when generalizing and labeling. I want to figure out what would work.

I do support a system that favors capital growth, and effeciency though. Wherever that may be.

I don't favor the printing of money for the purpose of "flooding" our system. I don't favor redistrubuting wealth either. These are artificial. Money represents goods in any system. And mathmatically if there are 8 meals available, and 10 people to feed, 2 will starve. If everyone wants a house, we can't achieve this by artificially setting the prices of these houses artificially high.

So, yes, production is yes if we want the maximum amount of people to prosper.

I am trying to be scientific in my understanding. If you notice any faults in my logic feel free to explain them.

I find it to be a matter of historical ignorance that those who favor and support the outsourcing and world market measures are often the same ones who think that this supports the idea of American capitalism, when it actually goes against it. This claim can be easily understood if one has an accurate understanding of how capitalism began in this country......

and WHY.

The 'open' world market goes against the foundation of this country's style of capitalism as it was intended to be.

Ignorance combined with wealth, greed, and power are ruining this country. Those people who defend the idea of allowing fellow Americans to fall into ruin through the rationalization of individualism which has been cloaked as capitalism need to be tried for treason against the United States of America. It completely misdirects the intention.

Take a history lesson and learn something about what it was that this country was founded upon. Read some of the letters of Alexander Hamilton concerning our intended brand of capitalism and how it was introduced. Perhaps then your perception will be more accurate, providing a basis from which to acquire an accute understanding of the complete picture of what it meant in this country. Then we can talk about the actual history behind these things which are anything other than justifying personal greed through the bastardizing of the concepts of freedom, liberty, justice, capitalism and socialism.

driven...

That post was not directed at you... they overlapped in my time.



There is one issue within your post, that is the false idea that there is not enough to feed the people...

There is more than enough.

ok, here's a small hint...

If I wanted to live in France, I would move there!!!

I can't disagree with you on that. It was really just metaphoric. Maybe i should have used "houses" instead.

For instance, if we let the free market work, without fixing the prices, the prices of houses would decrease with the growing number of houses. This would make it much easier to obtain the american "dream" of a white pickett fence and 2.5 kids wouldn't it?