Only a Capitalist faces layoffs
No exploitation of the worker as promised by Socialism
Only a Capitalist hires a man to work
Only a Capitalist owns private property
In closing I can only say that I prefer the promise of failure that is inherent in the Capitalistic system over the promises of success that is promoted by the Socialistic system.
What say you?
UPDATE:
At the suggestion of one of my valued commenters I will change the wording of the preference that I made above to;
In closing I can only say that I prefer the guarantee of failure to some persons that is inherent in the Capitalistic system over the promises of success to all persons by the Socialistic system. The only thing that both systems possess in common are politicians who will lie to the people.
20 comments:
Too many of the youth today are hooked on the promise of socialism and have no idea of the liberty the give up and the downside(s) to the system.
Since I'm a bit grumpy today, given the corporate profits reports for 2010
(up 31%, several trillion),
CEO pay averaged $9 million in 2010 (a new record!) and 32,000 new jobs were created at McDonalds...
RE: "promise of failure that is inherent in the Capitalistic system"
I stick with my
long time assment: Trickle Down Economics = a two story outhouse...and replace 'promise' up there with 'guarantee'. 'course ya know I'm a mixed economy guy, Griper. :)
Who'd want to argue with 70 years of "success" in Russia?
BB,
since you're being grumpy today, i'll leave my questions for another time. :)
Gorges,
don't forget the success of China, No. Korea, as well as Cuba.
.
In your simple, simplistic, silly and shallow post, you set up a rather absurd choice. If the complete economic failures under the eight years of the previous USA administration cannot open your eyes to the FAILURE of 'capitalism' then remain blind to reality.
Socialism works quite well in many parts of the world. So well that the socialist countries of Japan, China, Germany, and Canada (to name only four) own USA because of capitalism's failure.
Keep waving your ragged banner of 'freedom' if it will keep you happily blind.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
welcome Ema, it is good to see a new face.
if my post is indicative of my blindness to reality as your comment declares then i can only say one thing.
i would rather be blind to political reality than economically brainwashed as your comment implies of you.
but i'll offer you the same challenge that i offered every other person of your mindset. if you believe that socialism is a better economic system than capitalism then go ahead, turn this nation's economy into a socialistic system.
i'll guarantee one thing. it will have to be people of my ilk that will have to rescue this nation once your system has collapsed in on itself.
Now, now Griper..today YOU are being grumpy! :)
he grins, if I be grumpy, BB then as lista would say, i can blame only you for it. it shows how much of an influence you have been on me over the years together. :)
.
Griper,
"but i'll offer you the same challenge that i offered every other person of your mindset. if you believe that socialism is a better economic system than capitalism then go ahead, turn this nation's economy into a socialistic system."
This will definitely come as a shock to you. USA is a socialistic system and so is its economy. You have heard of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, hospitals, and libraries haven't you? All of these and more make USA a good place to live because these add to a quality of life _for ALL_.
"i'll guarantee one thing. it will have to be people of my ilk that will have to rescue this nation once your system has collapsed in on itself. "
Should the people's system collapse it will not be because we the people's government choose to help, support, and take care of the people. USA was brought to its knees because criminally corrupt crony capitalist. These same capitalist are using moronic supporters of 'freedom' to get away with their crimes. So many chumps allow themselves to be manipulated to act against their own good.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Ema,
he grins, so our nation is already a member of those nations under a socialistic system of economics.
i'll have to admit i am very pleased to have met someone like you that has such a deep understanding of the discipline of economics. i guess that just shows how ignorant i am.
just a couple of questions for you tho.
1. when did the American people decide that the capitalist system no longer was the desired system of econonics?
2.who was the leader of this nation when sociialism replaced the capitalist system?
3. when does the cleansing of those who still hold to the capitalist ideas begin or has it already begun? and if alredy begun how is it being done?
4.when does the cleansing of those who still hold to the belief that we are a nation under God begin or has it already begun? and if begun how is it being done?
.
Griper,
"1. when did the American people decide that the capitalist system no longer was the desired system of econonics?"
Who said the people did? Is this one of your talking points you learned from Glenda Beck; that everything is either/or? Again this may surprise you, but every economic system in the modern world is a combination of capitalism and socialism. One will find capitalists in socialist systems and socialists in capitalist system. This assures a balance that benefits all.
"2.who was the leader of this nation when sociialism replaced the capitalist system?"
Replace is the wrong word. Socialism came in to USA with the Constitution, so George Washington probably get much of the credit for the wisdom. It is in the Constitution (We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.).
"3. when does the cleansing of those who still hold to the capitalist ideas begin or has it already begun? and if already begun how is it being done?"
Not sure what you mean by this nonsense. Is this another one of those either/or scenarios Glenda Beck has come up with?
"4.when does the cleansing of those who still hold to the belief that we are a nation under God begin or has it already begun? and if begun how is it being done?"
Not sure what you mean by this nonsense. Is this another one of those either/or scenarios Glenda Beck has come up with?
FYI: 'a couple' in English means two. You asked four questions; or have you noticed?
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Ema,
"Who said the people did? Replace is the wrong word. Not sure what you mean by this nonsense."
yup, i agree with you. i was being very presumptuous with these questions. tis but another sign of my ignorance on the subject of economics.
------
"
FYI: 'a couple' in English means two. You asked four questions; or have you noticed?"
yup, again i must agree with you. the word "couple" does mean two, in a literal sense. shows my ignorance once more not only in economics but also in the English language.
------
"Again this may surprise you, but every economic system in the modern world is a combination of capitalism and socialism."
now, i'll have to admit that this is brand new information. you have been enlightening me beyond belief, Ema. here i was under the impression that there is or have been some nations that have outlawed capitalistic practices. and it was done so because it did away with those evil men who exploited the worker with their profit making.
i guess my understanding of the meaning of socialism is a conditioned response.
i'm sure glad you came around and enlightened me on its meaning. but this begs a couple of new questions.
if capitalism is as evil as you say then what purpose is it serving a nation to allow it to continue to exist within a society?
doesn't allowing it to continue to exist just promote division in the people and allow an evil to be promoted as a good thing?
It is interesting to look at different
countries with respect to how much their government spends, eg. As a percent of GDP- and consider the
data compared to their ‘degree of
socialism’. Heck, even throw in the comparible tax rate. For example:
tax rate govt spending
US 26.9 38.9
Canada 32 39
Australia 30.8 34.8
(with rather similar gov’ts)
Bangladesh8.8 34.8
Burma 3 8
(sort of third world places)
Israel 33.5 42
Sweden 47.9 52.5
Belgium 46 50
Britain 38.9 47.3
Germany 40.6 43.7
Denmark 49 52
Norway 42.1 40.2
Finland 43 49
(European mixed economy types)
Turkey 23.5 23.4
Russia 34.1 34.1
(balanced budget countries)
Cuba 41.2 78.1
(communist country)
Venezuela 13.6 34
Libya 3.4 43
S. Arabia 6.6 29.1
Kuwait 1.5 31.8
(nice to have lots of oil)
We note that of these,
Canada, Norway, Finland
Sweden, Australia and Denmark seem to make the top ten in most rankings ...
BB,
what is the correlation between what a national government spends and gdp?
One correlation between what a gov't spends and its GDP is the ratio of
public v private participation in the market place: for example the figure for the US, 38.9% public sector spending, all levels of
gov't, leaves 61% of all
other GDP activity as
private.
mmm, that doesn't leave very much for private activity considering that tax revenues must come out of that 61%, does it or am i reading you incorrectly?
No, it consumes a large sector of our economy;
historically lower, grew over time and only in WWII
was it higher. Almost as high as Israel & Norway, which are sometimes regarded as socialist trending. Of course a lot can be read into figures,
one example being that we
and Israel spend a lot on
military. What do you make of Burma's 92% private
money as percent GDP?
Oops! meant to provide some depth with higher. historically speaking...
BB,
"What do you make of Burma's 92% private
money as percent GDP?"
just from these two figures i'd say that those of us who hate to pay taxes need to demand that our governments stop spending so much of the gdp.
but the problem i have in using the two figures is that a common denominator cannot be used.
what i mean by that is that gdp and government spending can be divided up so as to ascertain the per capita of spending is.
but the tax rate as used cannot be. it's common denominator can only be the number of taxpayers which is a much smaller population.
thus there is a comparison of unequals unless i am missing something. does statistical analysis allow for this type of comparison?
Post a Comment