Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

United States with Capitalism

Posted Sep 19, '13 at 10:49am

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

Our government is getting very greedy.  They just take, take, take, spend, spend, spend.  "Hey Joe, you go work hard, make money, but I'll take some of it, because Tim doesn't want to work.  And I'll take some of it and buy some weapons."  i just think it's totally wrong, and unnecessary.  So I was thinking of a good alternative.  Capitalism seems like the safest bet.  If you want somebody to find your stolen purse, who would work harder?  A police station trying to protect their reputation so they would make more business, or a police station who just wants to get back to their workout equipment, and are getting paid anyway?  If you want to fund some sort of movement, go ahead, you shouldn't be FORCED to in this so called "free country."  I just don't see the downside.  If you lose ur job, then it'll still be easier to live because you won't have to pay taxes and you're not taking money from other hard workers.  (If you don't want bills, then don't use the appliances or such)  I mean, it just seems like the right way to live, where YOU are in charge of your own life.  Why should these guys get to have authority over you?

 

Posted Sep 19, '13 at 2:51pm

Nurvana

Nurvana

2,179 posts

Our government is getting very greedy.

Agreed, to an extent.

Hey Joe, you go work hard, make money, but I'll take some of it, because Tim doesn't want to work

Sounds like conservative rhetoric to me. I assume you're making a complaint about welfare, and while that isn't necessarily how it works, I would agree that there are some people who abuse it. But if welfare didn't exist I think it would drastically change the life of the 99%. Now I'm not necessarily preaching for the 99%, but if the government didn't provide welfare, republicans would just complain about how the gov't wasn't providing for "impoverished american citizens", while now they're just apparently people who can't work for themselves.

Capitalism seems like the safest bet.

I'm not sure what you mean. America is a Capitalistic society.

If you want somebody to find your stolen purse, who would work harder?  A police station trying to protect their reputation so they would make more business, or a police station who just wants to get back to their workout equipment, and are getting paid anyway?

A common argument against a more socialistic economy. But I'm not sure a police station is a very good example for this, since they're not necessarily "making more business" and are already paid by the state.

Anyway on your post as a whole, I think you'd find that as far as the type of society you find ideal, you're not gonna find a better place for it than you United States. Unless of course you're looking for a nation where pageants are banned for those under sixteen.

 

Posted Sep 19, '13 at 4:19pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

America is a Capitalistic society.

Still well on the Capitalistic side, but it's a mixed economy that's inching in the Socialistic direction.

But I'm not sure a police station is a very good example for this, since they're not necessarily "making more business" and are already paid by the state.

That, and it might not be best to have a mercenary-based law enforcement, although the current system pulls plenty of crap now. On second thought, maybe some competition could work because such things would be really bad for business and people would choose a better-trained service.

 

Posted Sep 19, '13 at 4:51pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

The problem with privatizing emergency services stems from two issues:

1) There will always be crime, fires, and heart attacks. I could open up my own police station and offer terrible service, because there will always be crime and people would rather have terrible police than no police.

2) And an even greater issue: Where will the profits come from? Are you going to charge people to chase after their stolen goods? To put out their house fire? To give them CPR (though hospitals are allready somewhat privatized.) I think we can all agree that if you're having a heart attack then you need a doctor. But trips to the hospital cost tens of thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Should poor people be punished for their poverty if the fire department decides to charge 10K to put out fires?

Taxes suck, I'll give you that. But the good things they help achieve help to offset this: Free emergency services (police, fire, etc). AIDs research. Servicable roads for us to drive on. A national postal system. A military to defend our freedoms.

Why should these guys get to have authority over you?

1) Otherwise life would be nasty, brutish, and short.

2) [Political] Nature abhors a [Power] vacumn.

 

Posted Sep 19, '13 at 6:49pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

KnightDeclan, just take an economics course or two. You'll quickly realize that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to sound mean or anything, but I can't state it another way ... what you're saying is flat out incorrect.

However, I will link a concept that covers what you've said.

Public Goods

 

Posted Sep 20, '13 at 12:41pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

A common argument against a more socialistic economy. But I'm not sure a police station is a very good example for this, since they're not necessarily "making more business" and are already paid by the state.

Exactly, but if it were capitalist, then they would be more of a business.

1) There will always be crime, fires, and heart attacks. I could open up my own police station and offer terrible service, because there will always be crime and people would rather have terrible police than no police.

Let's say there are two police stations in one town.  They would be competing to get more business, and try harder and do a better job.

2) And an even greater issue: Where will the profits come from? Are you going to charge people to chase after their stolen goods? To put out their house fire? To give them CPR (though hospitals are allready somewhat privatized.) I think we can all agree that if you're having a heart attack then you need a doctor. But trips to the hospital cost tens of thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Should poor people be punished for their poverty if the fire department decides to charge 10K to put out fires?

Good point, I guess i didn't think of that.  Well, of course, medical treatment isn't free today.  And I think that there would still be insurance companies.

KnightDeclan, just take an economics course or two. You'll quickly realize that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to sound mean or anything, but I can't state it another way ... what you're saying is flat out incorrect.

Everybody has different opinions, why does yours have to be right?  A country should want to have a government where at least MOST people are happy.  Can you name anybody in the U.S that's completely satisfied with our government?  If we at least tried out a capitalistic government, we could see.  The government was made for the people, not the people for the government.

However, I will link a concept that covers what you've said.
Public Goods

This is basically volunteer work, there's a major difference

 

Posted Sep 20, '13 at 8:57pm

Jacen96

Jacen96

2,191 posts

2) And an even greater issue: Where will the profits come from? Are you going to charge people to chase after their stolen goods? To put out their house fire? To give them CPR (though hospitals are allready somewhat privatized.) I think we can all agree that if you're having a heart attack then you need a doctor. But trips to the hospital cost tens of thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Should poor people be punished for their poverty if the fire department decides to charge 10K to put out fires?

In ancient rome, Crassius made his millions by first buying the houses near the fire at a reduced price (or else he wouldn't put out the fire), and then sold them back for twice what he paid.

Exactly, but if it were capitalist, then they would be more of a business.

Capitalist (at least as I understand it), is where people are free to make millions by being successful business men, however, it isn't right to have emergency services be business (see crassius/crassus, w/e his name was).

Everybody has different opinions, why does yours have to be right?  A country should want to have a government where at least MOST people are happy.  Can you name anybody in the U.S that's completely satisfied with our government?  If we at least tried out a capitalistic government, we could see.  The government was made for the people, not the people for the government.

I think you should read up on capitalism.

~~~Darth Caedus

 

Posted Sep 20, '13 at 11:39pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

Let's say there are two police stations in one town.  They would be competing to get more business, and try harder and do a better job.

Competition doesn't guarantee a better product. A mortitioner, knowing that people will always die, can offer terrible services and yet still retain business because the need is always there. It'd be the same woth these police businesses: I'd rather have terrible cops patrolling the atreets for crime, because the alternative of no cops is much worse.

Competition works because it forces companies to offer incentives to use their product. Apple wants to make the beat iPhone as possible so it can steal custer era from Android and give people an incentive to buy their product. I don't have to buy an iPhone; I could exist quite happily without a smartphone. But I get the iPhone because I believe it to be superior to the competing products. But competition will not work with emergency services because my incentive is simply to stop the emergency. I will always choose to prevent my house burning down than doing nothing; I will always choose to stop me getting mugged than doing nothing. In a sense, emergency services have a sort of monopoly on disaster.

Good point, I guess i didn't think of that.  Well, of course, medical treatment isn't free today.  And I think that there would still be insurance companies.

Except that the health insurace issue is a giant, vicious cycle. Medical treatment is expensive, so insurance agencies charge rates to pay for it. The hospitals, knowing they can get money from the insurance company, raise proces. Insurance companies then raise rates or drop coverage of certain procedures, inorder to offset the cost. Consumer is screwed, but continues to pay the rates because the alternative of the full price of an operation is worse. And you can't switch hospitals, because its an industry-wide phenomenon. Competition does not guarantee a better product; see above.

Everybody has different opinions, why does yours have to be right?

Why do yours have to be right?

 

Posted Sep 22, '13 at 10:11am

filming

filming

2 posts

"Hey Joe, you go work hard, make money, but I'll take some of it, because Tim doesn't want to work.  And I'll take some of it and buy some weapons."

If you're referring to the military, they're protecting your country.

Why should these guys get to have authority over you?

Because if you were to be an outsider, you'd be living like cavemen. You're given a choice to be safe with the rest or be hated without the rest.

 

Posted Sep 22, '13 at 1:37pm

Moegreche

Moegreche

2,780 posts

Moderator

This is an aside, but I'd have to say that a capitalistic healthcare system seems to be a much better option. Granted, I'm only comparing this to the UK healthcare system. But at least here it seems like you get what you pay for. There are constantly stories about people dying whilst waiting to be treated or people receiving the wrong treatment because patient files get mixed up. There was recently a story concerning nurses who are essentially incompetent (as ascribed by NHS) and yet continue to work in the field. It also seems that many hospitals are just haemorrhaging money.

Part of this comes down to the fact that people will go to hospital here without a second thought. A while back there was a story about a man who went to A&E for a splinter. He was advised to do so by the NHS hotline, but still. If you know you're going to have to pay to go to hospital, I imagine most people would think twice before making that call.

The problem is - I don't know what the solution might even look like. On the one hand, it's great to be able to go to the doctor, get a prescription, and not have to pay anything at all. But viewing the system as a whole, it looks like an absolute nightmare. I would be very hesitant to have a major surgery performed in the UK given the number of mistakes that occur on a daily basis.

But, as has been pointed out, privatisation of some government services just doesn't make sense. The police, for example, need to be properly attached to the judicial system (and thus, the government as a whole) in order to avoid potentially serious violations of rights. Simply put, I wouldn't want to have a privatised police force.

As for the welfare system - sure, it's abused by a number of people. But during its first few years, it helped a tremendous number of people to establish themselves as positive members of society. In short, there are lots of people who genuinely need welfare and only want to use it to get back on their feet. I can imagine various changes to the system that might cut down on its abuse, although I'm not sure that the cost of these changes would offset the losses caused by said abuse.

 
Reply to United States with Capitalism

You must be logged in to post a reply!