something for you dimwits to consider

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Zoomerang96 said:
so often people take sides on debates simply to stand in the "right" or the "left". is it too much to ask for people to be issue-based in their opinions?

that's all. carrion.

Bear...

it is a wonderful concept.....

and I would like to say I have tried to do that in here.....

So often I find myself on opposite sides of people I admire, my head spins........

Other times, I find I am not welcome by some individuals even if I take their side in a debate....because I am viewed as being too conservative........

LOL

I do not know.
 
i'm not asking you or anyone to change your minds.

if you're passionate enough to post about it on here, and at least appear to be openminded to the issues - how can you be faulted for it?

i may not agree with it - i may think you're crazy, but then that's my right to think that.

and as you know, my opinions are worth more than yours... :sexywink:
 
drhark said:


Capitalism works best and indeed thrives in democracies. Free societies and free markets are interrelated.

Authoritarianism is necessary to enforce socialism.


it's funny you say that. i recall the united states supporting regimes in chile, guatemala, argentina, brazil, nicaragua, cuba, s. vietnam, el salvador, s. korea, uzbekistan, turkey, iraq, and s. africa, to name a few, touting their free and fair markets while citizens were left to deal with some of the most brutal goverments in history. hardly free societies if you ask me.

speaking of chile, their people elected a marxist president via democratic election...heaven forbid. don't you recall the other 9/11?



I would argue that if you're now making a living wage, your quality of life would not increase if we became socialist. Maybe it would increase slightly in the short term until the economy came to a screeching halt. So why take the money from people who choose to succeed and be rewarded?

a "living wage" is all people need provided it includes shelter, sanitation, food, water, education, and health care. i'm not asking for any more. i'm just asking that everyone have equal access. i think it's necessary to "take" money from the wealthy so that everyone is able to have the same footing in life. i would like to know why you would possibly think it is perfectly ok to deny people anything on the above list because they can't afford it for whatever reason.

edit- i'd like to point out that i don't believe stalin's vision of "socialism in one country" to be a viable option. the success of libertarian socialism hinges on global change.


a grandiose and dramatic statement indeed, especially considering that roughly half of the earth's population lives on less than $2 a day.

When was the Third World ever thriving?

i don't believe it ever was, but then again it never really had a chance now did it? either way, those people have done nothing to deserve to be relegated to the trash bin of history. i suppose i see a drastic change of the system as favorable to letting them rot.

easier said than done although I believe with capitalistic American ingenuity and free market forces we'll get there soon

right, when oil companies become non profit organizations. :rolleyes:


regarding the topic of this post, i also agree that truth does not lie in the middle. moderate ground is not necessarily the best ground. that being said, i believe that most of my opinions on issues would fall on the left side of the spectrum, not because i simply want to hold down the left, but because that's how i think. that being said, we are all the same one you look past political opinion. we are all carbon based life forms with basic needs and desires. some of us just have vastly different means of expressing them.
 
Last edited:
Let's analyze this for a second here...

With capitalism, there are unlimited opportunities available for the individual to choose which is best for them. However, your idea may make someone else rich. The beauty of capitalism is that you normally wouldn't worry about making more than a high school drop out if you have a double master's degree. Post education is encouraged in order to advance your career. If you dream of having your own business, you can make that a reality. I've done it numerous times. It's very satisfying. I believe hard work should be rewarded, and I believe in providing incentives to encourage a productive society.

With socialism, the government - not the individuals - control the nation's resources. It is founded on opposition to free enterprise and a free market. Americans first considered this due to low pay, long hours, and hazardous working conditions. Our solution was to create a needy balance of regulation in free markets. Socialism is often linked closer to communism than it is to capitalism. Socialism in America would mean defeating its cause as the land of opportunity. Creating your own business would not be possible under socialism.

The interesting thing is that we have a capitalist government with a small, healthy amount of socialist principles. Many businesses provide unions, which protect jobs. Some do not, such as Walmart. However, unions are not everybody's cup of tea. A part time worker's salary would be intervened by unions as much as taxation, at least for an employee in high school.

In conclusion, capitalism is like a box of chocolates... :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool:

And socialism.. that's more like a mousetrap. :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Last edited:
Zoomerang96 said:
so often people take sides on debates simply to stand in the "right" or the "left". is it too much to ask for people to be issue-based in their opinions?
I agree with a few issues that my side of the debate doesn't always support. At times, it shocks people.
 
wait, did melon say capitalism and corporate profits are one and the same? wow, that scares me. i guess shes not an entrepreneur...maybe she is. whose kidding who...she's not.
 
What do you mean by 'socialism', Macphisto? Just curious cause it's not the same thing as communism, although you may think it is.

Most western countries incorporate a capitalist economy with some 'socialising' elements... hence 'social democracy'.
 
I think we all make a mistake when we think our particular political point of view handles all things the best. Point is that
sometimes the conservative viewpoint is the best answer to a problem, sometimes the liberal answer is the one. When either side thinks they have all the answers, it's dangerous. I'm not about to leave my faith with either side on every issue. Both sides have made huge errors that have hurt this country. Both sides have done things that have helped.

And I think it is absolutely dangerous when one political party--either one--controls everything--particularly the radical fringe.
Unless it is an emergency situation or such an unconscienceable one (and I am sure we will differ on that), I prefer slow change.
One party's control leads to action without foresight. If nothing else, the balance of power slows things down so issues can be thought out. The balance of power forces some reason, some compromise.

Mainstream America is not radical. When the pendulum swings too far one way, Americans vote the other side in. Then vote
them out when the pendulum swings too far again. No one has a mandate forever, no matter the spin on either side.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
With capitalism, there are unlimited opportunities available for the individual to choose which is best for them. However, your idea may make someone else rich. The beauty of capitalism is that you normally wouldn't worry about making more than a high school drop out if you have a double master's degree. Post education is encouraged in order to advance your career. If you dream of having your own business, you can make that a reality. I've done it numerous times. It's very satisfying. I believe hard work should be rewarded, and I believe in providing incentives to encourage a productive society.

I thoroughly detest capitalism. Yes, your idea may make someone else rich. What's more, capitalism just encourages people to compete rather than to co-operate and people step on others to achieve the accumulation of the almighty dollar. Forget working for the common good, let's now work for the individual profit!

I dislike capitalism even more than I dislike the sham that is the popularity contest of democracy, and that's saying a lot. Though with democracy, I can't think of any better idea that works in practice. With capitalism ... well, socialism sounds a whole lot nicer. Especially when people don't lump it together with communism.
 
Kieran McConville said:
What do you mean by 'socialism', Macphisto? Just curious cause it's not the same thing as communism, although you may think it is.
No, it's not the 'same thing' as communism.

Socialism is against the success of free market and free enterprise, and demands state control over them when they become too successful.

Communism - The government owns everything and they get the most and best of everything.
 
Re: Re: something for you dimwits to consider

Red Elephant said:


Most offensitive thread ever.

Mods:

Delete him.

~U2Alabama

delete me, and i'll annihilate you.

~red ships of pre-packaged arabia
 
Macfistowannabe said:
No, it's not the 'same thing' as communism.

Socialism is against the success of free market and free enterprise, and demands state control over them when they become too successful.

Communism - The government owns everything and they get the most and best of everything.

I can see you didn't finish reading what I wrote. No matter.
 
I read it, but I can care less about starting a big catfight over social democracy.
 
I have to agree with BonosSaint's post. No party is the absolute truth. Both have done good things, and both have their shortcomings.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
I read it, but I can care less about starting a big catfight over social democracy.

Never mind catfights, just acknowledging that it exists would be a start. Instead of all this 'socialism hates the market' stuff.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
It exists. Are we cool now? :wink:

We cool, Macfist. Always read your posts. I like a reasonable sparring partner. I confess woeful ignorance in the subtleties of the various economic system philosophies. US is a hybrid, however. We're not a pure capitalist society. Beyond my utterly conservative disdain for rewarding people who do not contribute and take no personal responsibility for themselves, USA does recognize a need for a safety net for the following reasons that pure capitalism would not address:

1. We have people in this country who cannot take care of
themselves.
2. Corporate profits are often based on paying the lowest
acceptable wage to workers. Because capitalism allows, and
for the bottom line encourages outsourcing, marketability
of skills becomes skewered.
3. Hard work does not always equal success. Playing office
politics does. How many people in this forum work in places
that protect the poorest workers and hang the best workers
out to dry. Often the new class of managers is short-sighted
and reward asskissing more than production. There are no
long-term plans. We are now the boomtowns that become
the ghost towns, because we run for the shortterm profits
and are incapable of the longterm commitment.
4. Society accepts a great disparity in income between gender,
class, age so income is not necessarily tied to contribution and
as these underpaid workers who fed the capitalist system for
so long come of age, it is unconscienceable not to care for
them.
5. There is no such thing as a self-made man. Love Bill Gates, but
he is not out there producing all those software programs, et
al that reward him so richly. Business needs labor and as long
as corporations ignore that fact, they will eventually collapse.
Corporations collapse because the product, service, safety,
etc. degrades. And that is due to the contempt management
has for labor. Labor no longer has incentive to be productive.
(See paragraph 3)
6. We are not educating our young very well and there is not
much of a work ethic being instilled, as far as I can see.
Business is not going to have much of a quality of labor pool
coming up. (Present thinking and hardworking young people
excluded from this criticism)

We need capitalism for new ideas, new inventions, capital, employment. But when capitalism no longer cares about quality,
when there is no longer a correlation between production and reward, the system becomes corrupted. We need capitalism, but a better brand than we are getting now. I suspect that without a renaissance of sorts, we cease to become the superpower we still are in fifty years or less. (Now that I've succeeded in boring and depressing everyone, I'll end. Sigh of relief, all around, including from me.)
 
there has never been a successful capitalist country that didn't take socialist ideals. ever.
 
earthshell said:
there has never been a successful capitalist country that didn't take socialist ideals. ever.

Certainly true. Marxist theory actually says that capitalism will collapse on its own with no outside interference--that is, no need for revolutions, etc. Of course, look at the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Rampant greed. Highly concentrated wealth in a few individuals and companies. People and children working long hours for little pay. In other words, ultimate deregulation/"laissez-faire capitalism." Business will always put profit and greed ahead of others' well-being.

I tend to think Marx would have been right on the money, had the Progressive era of the early 20th century never happened. Minimum wage laws. End of child labor. Unions and 40 hour work weeks. Regulation of utility companies. Antitrust enforcement.

But fast forward to the 1980s to the present, and we seem to have forgotten all the lessons of the Progressive era, in favor of greed. At the rate we're going, with all the union busting and outsourcing, we're heading right down that same path. Of course, it's doubtful that capitalism will ever collapse completely, but chances are, there will be a huge backlash against Republican/conservative ideology eventually and we'll re-regulate all over again. Unfortunately, it will probably have to get much worse here before it will get better.

Melon
 
Back
Top Bottom