I believe in capitalism, because socialism allows everybody to get mostly equal cuts. Therefore, there is no incentive to work hard, and productivity goes down pretty quickly.
Is this thread random or is this about everybody calling Obama a socialist and stuff?
I believe in capitalism, because socialism allows everybody to get mostly equal cuts. Therefore, there is no incentive to work hard, and productivity goes down pretty quickly.
Yea, but I did like the idea of equality.
Anyway I choose capitalism, because without it I would have no spending money. Right now playing the downturn stock market is the easiest way to make money for me. (5000 dollars and counting ) the idea is short-selling, don't know what I'm talking about? look it up. You will make thousands, though you do need start up cash.
I plump for a mix between the two. Populist capitalism, more akin to the social market systems which are very common in small town and rural Germany. The current form of ultra capitalism is not sustainable in the long term, and causes huge market failure.
As for the stock market, you're not producing or selling a particular good. Your commodity is value, therefore it's not really capitalism strictly speaking. A stock market could theoretically exist in a socialist system, albeit under different operating systems.
I would agree with Firefly overall. A blend of the two would have more sustainability and stability.
Absolutely right. But I think the thread is about picking one or the other. One or the other, I'd say capitalism (I explained above), but we do need some forms of *socialism* in the country to help others who can't profit in this system. Unfortunately, a lot of people go crazy when they hear that word.
I think a mix of both of them is the best but if I had to choose I would choose Socialism because, let face it, do you know anyone who has gotten rich and stayed rich in this system? I like socialism because then we dont have the top 1% of the pop with some +80% of all the wealth and then 50+ million people who can barely make it thru the month, we have more equality but not to the extreme of communism.
Without Socialism, WalMart and other major corporations would become a monopoly, raising prices once all competition is wasted.
And you guys need to know the difference between Socialism and Communism. Most of you think it is the same thing, which it's not. Only one part of Socialism may be branched into Communism, but the U.S. currently does not do this.
Socialism doesn't have the opportunity for lavish & unadulterated excess, so bye bye beverly hills & mansions the size of a golf course.
I don't think socialism works in an economy that has yet to succeed; the standard of living needs to rise significantly before I think it's terribly effective. Once it is though...
I have a small apartment with furniture that's not expensive, but still nice. The acquisition of wealth and 'things' isn't a primary driving force in my life, but I look at former executives at my company who get a salary of around 500K, then give *themselves* a 'bonus' of 2.3 million, and then decide to sell some of their stock options for nearly 20 million.
Now, if that were me, I'd be set for life - but no, they come back for another year and reward themselves with another unbelievably huge wad of cash. Couldn't some of that wealth be better served by spreading it around a little bit? Oh no! He can't afford to buy a Su-27 fighter jet with his own money; what a tradgedy....
I think socialism gets bandied about as a purely negative term. Like every other system, it has advantages & disadvantages, but I do like it on paper; and there are countries for which it seems to be working fine. Pundits rag on Sweden in how it doesn't have a powerful GNP, or that if it was a state in the USA it would be the poorest state, or that they're overtaxed & the government have too much control of the country...
I don't hear a lot of people in Sweden complaining about it though.
I'm socialist in the sense that everyone should have property. Land is not something that should be bought or sold. I also despise corporations. I'm Capitalist in the sense that I support the free market.
Land is not something that should be bought or sold
That's preposterous. For one thing, it's part of the free market philosophy, one of the 4 main economic resources in fact. If land were no longer a commodity the economy would go down the toilet.
Really how can you support the free market and still say land should not be commodity. In a free market, air would even be a commodity if it was possible!
I would agree with Firefly overall. A blend of the two would have more sustainability and stability.
You cant really have a blend of them. They are complete opposites for anyone who knows what they are talking about. There either needs to be a socialist or capitalist basis of economic production. You cannot have both the workers control the means of production, and have capitalist bosses do as well!
