First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Democratic Socialism
4439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 2/3/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Sleepneeded127 wrote:

none of this is possible any place on earth people will always want more. unless u live in complete socialism where every thing is shared no growth is allowed there are no luxuries. then you can live that way no rewards for being talented or working hard. in your world you punish those who have natural talents because they are better at thing then others.


No luxuries? I consider indoor plumbing, electricity, cars, roads, internet, cable, stable buildings, warm clothes, and clean water to be luxuries, since a large portion of the world's population doesn't have those. I don't care about hard work or having a lot of stuff, just enough work to make sure that I and the people I care for stay alive and have a few simple luxuries, and to have something to give to others who are less fortunate. Talent is nice to have, but it's not essential so I don't really care, and I don't see why people should be rewarded for being talented at being manipulative and gluttonous. I guess America isn't truly a place where anyone can become anything as I've been lead to believe; that it's not meant for inferior people like me who know what it's like to have almost nothing and who care for others who are in even worse circumstances than I've been in.



so u dont want to work hard? any one can be successful if u work hard enough. have gone from being dirt poor to rich. actor Jim Cary was homeless for a portion of his child hood yet he worked hard and and it payed off.
but u have to the effort. and no since you have no understanding of how the WORLD works not just the US.
no one is equal but in the US you have Equal opportunities if you work hard for them.
its fine to give back but not every wants to and should not HAVE to. and many countries do help out but people should not be forced to do so. when you get older and work for a living you'll she just how simplistic ur ideals are.



and cars, internet, cable are luxuries.
5231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 2/3/09

Sleepneeded127 wrote:
so u dont want to work hard? any one can be successful if u work hard enough.

I didn't mean to say I don't want to, I meant to say that that is not the key to success. There's plenty of people who do work hard just to make ends meet, many of those poor inferior people who don't deserve help have to work 2-3 jobs just to pay the rent and buy some food.



have gone from being dirt poor to rich. actor Jim Cary was homeless for a portion of his child hood yet he worked hard and and it payed off.

For every person like him who does make it, there's a thousand other people who worked just as hard and are still in the same situation they've been in their whole life. Jim Carey is lucky because he has a special talent, not everyone has a talent that will make all their hard work pay off in the end.


but u have to the effort. and no since you have no understanding of how the WORLD works not just the US.
no one is equal but in the US you have Equal opportunities if you work hard for them.

Sure we all have equal opportunity, but only so many people can take those opportunities because there isn't enough room for everyone at the top or even the middle, so that system only benefits the elite and screws everyone else. You could argue that it's simply natural selection or social Darwinism, but that leads to more bigotry, more selfishness and greed and corruption, and less room for less people to make it, until eventually the top 1% controls more than the bottom 99%.


when you get older and work for a living you'll she just how simplistic ur ideals are.

I have and still am working to help support my family, I know from experience that hard work does not equal success. I already know my ideals are simple: everyone cooperating so that we can all live decent lives without struggling, rather than only caring for ourselves and leaving the less fortunate to fend for themselves.
4439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 2/4/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:
For every person like him who does make it, there's a thousand other people who worked just as hard and are still in the same situation they've been in their whole life. Jim Carey is lucky because he has a special talent, not everyone has a talent that will make all their hard work pay off in the end.


yes it does there are always ways to get on top most ppl dont take them. they dont do what is needed to get the education to get the better job and make more money. and dont say paying for college is a problem there are loans and community schools and other ways of paying for it


Cuddlebuns wrote:

Sure we all have equal opportunity, but only so many people can take those opportunities because there isn't enough room for everyone at the top or even the middle, so that system only benefits the elite and screws everyone else. You could argue that it's simply natural selection or social Darwinism, but that leads to more bigotry, more selfishness and greed and corruption, and less room for less people to make it, until eventually the top 1% controls more than the bottom 99%.

yes they can ppl just dont make the right choices
to do so. you can start late in life you have to do it earlier in HS. but even late in life they can still change the situation


Cuddlebuns wrote:
I have and still am working to help support my family, I know from experience that hard work does not equal success. I already know my ideals are simple: everyone cooperating so that we can all live decent lives without struggling, rather than only caring for ourselves and leaving the less fortunate to fend for themselves.
yes hard work does pay off but u have to work hard at the right things. and make choices that better in the long run and not the current


1489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 2/4/09

StephyKot87 wrote:

I disagreed about Democratic Socialism or Socialism.

Economic freedom (capitalism, free enterprise, property rights), intellectual freedom (science and technology) and self-interest makes societies prosperous. Strong, utopian government (Socialism) leads to nothing but unemployment, poverty, and emigration. Socialism is immoral because it makes people subjects, chattel, owned by the state, which will plan their lives and tell them what to do. Socialism, along with Communism, are one of causes of the Great Depression, raise of National Socialist German Workers' Party and Social Welfare (Nazism) and Soviet, Vietnam War, Khmer Rouge, Serb genocide, Japanese 1986 to 1990 recession, and todays recession. And also Political Correctness

Socialists claim to want to make people better off. They claim to want to reduce poverty, not increase it. They claim capitalism lead to unemployment and deaths. And yet they refuse to approach the issue scientifically, namely by seeing what actually does reduce poverty, and adopting it.

Some of you thinks Socialism is okay or great, but once government give you something, they could also take it away from you.





You do realize that because of socialism in Germany (the rise of the Nazi party), Germany was saved from total bankruptcy. By the way, I think you are mixing socialism with communism, there are countries with socialism and capitalism merged together and it worked to a great degree, China for example (though China is communist...). Another fact that you mistaken on, France is socialist and I don't remember the people been owned by the states, in fact, you could say that they are one of the most liberal for their laws only outlaws things that do not harm other people, taking into account of justice as "minding one owns business" -Plato and "justice is a notion of fair play"-Socrates, not surprisingly, the French motto is about egalitarianism and equality. Kind of tired right now, its 2:00am so if I make any mistakes, don't get too angry.

People are too narrow minded by the way, they keep focusing on a particular word in their ultimate pontency but remember, full on capitalism is bad as full on socialism, just so you know. Just like in everything, we need moderation.
1489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 2/4/09

blancer wrote:

My countrys economy flourished under socialism. When we moved to capitalism, suddenly there was great gap between rich and poor, and economy collapsed. Now we depend on tourism. Still, we pride ourselves with socialists leftoers, like almost free healthcare, care for eldery and children and similar. Capitalism is really not for everyone, and look what global market brought us: crysis. Capitalism is flawed system, but at the moment it is best, but in my oppinion, every system which can be brougtht down by one country (when you think about it, america is responsible for every 3 major economic cryses... idiots) is stupid and bad. Unfortunately I am not economist so I am not sure what system would be better. maybe socialsim maybe not. What I am sure of is that capitalism dehumanises business and customer - provider - employer relaionship.
And socialsm is not communism, it is not utopia, and is not saying that everybody needs to be equal, it says that everybody should be treated as equal, which is different. And I think it is OK that if you make more money to pay more taxes and if you make less money, you pay less taxes. (that, logically, goes even when rich and poor have the same tax index).
As to why european social system failed, well it did not exacitly failed, it was sucked dry by tons of legal and illegal immigrants who lived off social help (you get money while not working... + bonus per kid... I knew some Turks in germany who had 6 kids... they did nothing but collected social help, and they lived better and earned more then some workers - THAT is the root of problem - masses of people who use the system as leeches, they contribute nothing).
Second thing is care for eldery. You know that mortality is smaller then natality in europe, so every year less people work for more poeople.
Thirdly, new members in EU agree to work for smaller wages, and everything in their countries is cheaper, so busnisses move their factories there, and people lose their jobs.
So, you see, if governments really had that much control, as people who area gainst socialism here argue, that would actually be good thing, since they could stop those things. But since they are democratic, they allow freedoms (although democarcy and freedom are two completely different things) for factory owners, coroprations and individuals to do as they please.
At the end, as there are many americans here, while I lived there, I knew many people who had misconceptions about communism, socialism, capitalism etc.. like they were brainwashed robots... it was really funny talking to them. I can say for croatians that we were never poor, and that in "dark ages" of communism and socialism we had more personal freedoms and social justice then I experienced while I lived in America, which I find very funny. As for Croatian economy,... our governor was elected the best bank governor in the world few weeks ago


Oh yeah, thats pretty good, when you said your government used to be a socialist country, you mean when it was part of Yugoslavia? Yeah, my family keeps saying that they were the good times but then the country went to hell when Tito died. Just so you know, I'm from Bosnia.
Posted 2/4/09

mikejacobs wrote:


StephyKot87 wrote:

I disagreed about Democratic Socialism or Socialism.

Economic freedom (capitalism, free enterprise, property rights), intellectual freedom (science and technology) and self-interest makes societies prosperous. Strong, utopian government (Socialism) leads to nothing but unemployment, poverty, and emigration. Socialism is immoral because it makes people subjects, chattel, owned by the state, which will plan their lives and tell them what to do. Socialism, along with Communism, are one of causes of the Great Depression, raise of National Socialist German Workers' Party and Social Welfare (Nazism) and Soviet, Vietnam War, Khmer Rouge, Serb genocide, Japanese 1986 to 1990 recession, and todays recession. And also Political Correctness

Socialists claim to want to make people better off. They claim to want to reduce poverty, not increase it. They claim capitalism lead to unemployment and deaths. And yet they refuse to approach the issue scientifically, namely by seeing what actually does reduce poverty, and adopting it.

Some of you thinks Socialism is okay or great, but once government give you something, they could also take it away from you.





You do realize that because of socialism in Germany (the rise of the Nazi party), Germany was saved from total bankruptcy. By the way, I think you are mixing socialism with communism, there are countries with socialism and capitalism merged together and it worked to a great degree, China for example (though China is communist...). Another fact that you mistaken on, France is socialist and I don't remember the people been owned by the states, in fact, you could say that they are one of the most liberal for their laws only outlaws things that do not harm other people, taking into account of justice as "minding one owns business" -Plato and "justice is a notion of fair play"-Socrates, not surprisingly, the French motto is about egalitarianism and equality. Kind of tired right now, its 2:00am so if I make any mistakes, don't get too angry.

People are too narrow minded by the way, they keep focusing on a particular word in their ultimate pontency but remember, full on capitalism is bad as full on socialism, just so you know. Just like in everything, we need moderation.


Tell me with example(s) what's bad about "full" on Capitalism?
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
63 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 2/4/09

mikejacobs wrote:


blancer wrote:

My countrys economy flourished under socialism. When we moved to capitalism, suddenly there was great gap between rich and poor, and economy collapsed. Now we depend on tourism. Still, we pride ourselves with socialists leftoers, like almost free healthcare, care for eldery and children and similar. Capitalism is really not for everyone, and look what global market brought us: crysis. Capitalism is flawed system, but at the moment it is best, but in my oppinion, every system which can be brougtht down by one country (when you think about it, america is responsible for every 3 major economic cryses... idiots) is stupid and bad. Unfortunately I am not economist so I am not sure what system would be better. maybe socialsim maybe not. What I am sure of is that capitalism dehumanises business and customer - provider - employer relaionship.
And socialsm is not communism, it is not utopia, and is not saying that everybody needs to be equal, it says that everybody should be treated as equal, which is different. And I think it is OK that if you make more money to pay more taxes and if you make less money, you pay less taxes. (that, logically, goes even when rich and poor have the same tax index).
As to why european social system failed, well it did not exacitly failed, it was sucked dry by tons of legal and illegal immigrants who lived off social help (you get money while not working... + bonus per kid... I knew some Turks in germany who had 6 kids... they did nothing but collected social help, and they lived better and earned more then some workers - THAT is the root of problem - masses of people who use the system as leeches, they contribute nothing).
Second thing is care for eldery. You know that mortality is smaller then natality in europe, so every year less people work for more poeople.
Thirdly, new members in EU agree to work for smaller wages, and everything in their countries is cheaper, so busnisses move their factories there, and people lose their jobs.
So, you see, if governments really had that much control, as people who area gainst socialism here argue, that would actually be good thing, since they could stop those things. But since they are democratic, they allow freedoms (although democarcy and freedom are two completely different things) for factory owners, coroprations and individuals to do as they please.
At the end, as there are many americans here, while I lived there, I knew many people who had misconceptions about communism, socialism, capitalism etc.. like they were brainwashed robots... it was really funny talking to them. I can say for croatians that we were never poor, and that in "dark ages" of communism and socialism we had more personal freedoms and social justice then I experienced while I lived in America, which I find very funny. As for Croatian economy,... our governor was elected the best bank governor in the world few weeks ago


Oh yeah, thats pretty good, when you said your government used to be a socialist country, you mean when it was part of Yugoslavia? Yeah, my family keeps saying that they were the good times but then the country went to hell when Tito died. Just so you know, I'm from Bosnia.


Yeah. everybody says those were good times. It is really good now in croatia (better then in US in my opinion... mentality and stuff... if you are from bosnia you know what im talking about... my best time in US was with people from serbia). On realted note, I hope that croatia never enters EU. And I heard that there are lot of people from Yugoslavia in Australia. Is that true? And I also heard that most of croatians there are nazi a*holes. Bastards.
1489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 2/4/09

blancer wrote:


mikejacobs wrote:


blancer wrote:

My countrys economy flourished under socialism. When we moved to capitalism, suddenly there was great gap between rich and poor, and economy collapsed. Now we depend on tourism. Still, we pride ourselves with socialists leftoers, like almost free healthcare, care for eldery and children and similar. Capitalism is really not for everyone, and look what global market brought us: crysis. Capitalism is flawed system, but at the moment it is best, but in my oppinion, every system which can be brougtht down by one country (when you think about it, america is responsible for every 3 major economic cryses... idiots) is stupid and bad. Unfortunately I am not economist so I am not sure what system would be better. maybe socialsim maybe not. What I am sure of is that capitalism dehumanises business and customer - provider - employer relaionship.
And socialsm is not communism, it is not utopia, and is not saying that everybody needs to be equal, it says that everybody should be treated as equal, which is different. And I think it is OK that if you make more money to pay more taxes and if you make less money, you pay less taxes. (that, logically, goes even when rich and poor have the same tax index).
As to why european social system failed, well it did not exacitly failed, it was sucked dry by tons of legal and illegal immigrants who lived off social help (you get money while not working... + bonus per kid... I knew some Turks in germany who had 6 kids... they did nothing but collected social help, and they lived better and earned more then some workers - THAT is the root of problem - masses of people who use the system as leeches, they contribute nothing).
Second thing is care for eldery. You know that mortality is smaller then natality in europe, so every year less people work for more poeople.
Thirdly, new members in EU agree to work for smaller wages, and everything in their countries is cheaper, so busnisses move their factories there, and people lose their jobs.
So, you see, if governments really had that much control, as people who area gainst socialism here argue, that would actually be good thing, since they could stop those things. But since they are democratic, they allow freedoms (although democarcy and freedom are two completely different things) for factory owners, coroprations and individuals to do as they please.
At the end, as there are many americans here, while I lived there, I knew many people who had misconceptions about communism, socialism, capitalism etc.. like they were brainwashed robots... it was really funny talking to them. I can say for croatians that we were never poor, and that in "dark ages" of communism and socialism we had more personal freedoms and social justice then I experienced while I lived in America, which I find very funny. As for Croatian economy,... our governor was elected the best bank governor in the world few weeks ago


Oh yeah, thats pretty good, when you said your government used to be a socialist country, you mean when it was part of Yugoslavia? Yeah, my family keeps saying that they were the good times but then the country went to hell when Tito died. Just so you know, I'm from Bosnia.


Yeah. everybody says those were good times. It is really good now in croatia (better then in US in my opinion... mentality and stuff... if you are from bosnia you know what im talking about... my best time in US was with people from serbia). On realted note, I hope that croatia never enters EU. And I heard that there are lot of people from Yugoslavia in Australia. Is that true? And I also heard that most of croatians there are nazi a*holes. Bastards.


Yeah its true, many Balkans are in Australia and they are loving it ^^, can't blame them, its the best place in my opinion and I have travelled alot. Yeah, many Croatians are nazi assholes and also Serbians are been violent, nationalistic and xenophobic, while the Bosnians just sit back, drink their beer and watch soccer, typical >>.
1489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 2/4/09

StephyKot87 wrote:


mikejacobs wrote:


StephyKot87 wrote:

I disagreed about Democratic Socialism or Socialism.

Economic freedom (capitalism, free enterprise, property rights), intellectual freedom (science and technology) and self-interest makes societies prosperous. Strong, utopian government (Socialism) leads to nothing but unemployment, poverty, and emigration. Socialism is immoral because it makes people subjects, chattel, owned by the state, which will plan their lives and tell them what to do. Socialism, along with Communism, are one of causes of the Great Depression, raise of National Socialist German Workers' Party and Social Welfare (Nazism) and Soviet, Vietnam War, Khmer Rouge, Serb genocide, Japanese 1986 to 1990 recession, and todays recession. And also Political Correctness

Socialists claim to want to make people better off. They claim to want to reduce poverty, not increase it. They claim capitalism lead to unemployment and deaths. And yet they refuse to approach the issue scientifically, namely by seeing what actually does reduce poverty, and adopting it.

Some of you thinks Socialism is okay or great, but once government give you something, they could also take it away from you.





You do realize that because of socialism in Germany (the rise of the Nazi party), Germany was saved from total bankruptcy. By the way, I think you are mixing socialism with communism, there are countries with socialism and capitalism merged together and it worked to a great degree, China for example (though China is communist...). Another fact that you mistaken on, France is socialist and I don't remember the people been owned by the states, in fact, you could say that they are one of the most liberal for their laws only outlaws things that do not harm other people, taking into account of justice as "minding one owns business" -Plato and "justice is a notion of fair play"-Socrates, not surprisingly, the French motto is about egalitarianism and equality. Kind of tired right now, its 2:00am so if I make any mistakes, don't get too angry.

People are too narrow minded by the way, they keep focusing on a particular word in their ultimate pontency but remember, full on capitalism is bad as full on socialism, just so you know. Just like in everything, we need moderation.


Tell me with example(s) what's bad about "full" on Capitalism?


Well, full on capitalism means that workers would have no "minimum wage", very few rights at all and it would, in most cases, have no right or power in politics, basically the typical scenario of the "rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer", and don't forget that they also have the worst working conditions etc, perfect example would be industrial revolution. You do know that the concept of unions come from communism?
8046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / never after
Offline
Posted 2/4/09
nah.. polity is the best government..

Democracy is the perversion of Polity since Democracy is for the poor and not for the entire people

Polity is for the good of the entire people.. which is very hard to achieve..

all in all... no such thing is perfect government..

22 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/4/09

Sleepneeded127 wrote:
yes it does there are always ways to get on top most ppl dont take them. they dont do what is needed to get the education to get the better job and make more money. and dont say paying for college is a problem there are loans and community schools and other ways of paying for it



Sleepneeded127 wrote:
yes they can ppl just dont make the right choices
to do so. you can start late in life you have to do it earlier in HS. but even late in life they can still change the situation



Sleepneeded127 wrote:
yes hard work does pay off but u have to work hard at the right things. and make choices that better in the long run and not the current


You have a very niave view of how things work IMO, and I'm going to refer to a number of points you have made to prove my point.

First of all, do you think the homeless can afford to pay to further their education? Not a chance. They're more concerned with getting the basic necessities they need to live. They can't afford to make choices that are better in the long run, because they need to concentrate on the short term just to survive. Education is not their priority. Their priority is getting food, and a roof over their heads.

Also, hard work doesn't always pay off. The reason for this is, in fact, Capitalism itself. Capitalism spawns greed, and makes it possible for money to buy money. The rich have more opportunity to make money than the poor, because they can use the power that comes with their wealth to take opportunities from the poor so that they can make an extra buck, and this has been known to happen. In reality, the poorer you are, the harder it is to climb the rungs of the class ladder, regardless of how hard you work. There is only so much money in circulation, and with each passing day the rich obtain more and more of this money, making it increasingly more difficult for hard work to pay off for the poor.

Capitalism is the reason for the current recession. The banks wanted to make an extra buck, so they gave out the loans that resulted in the recent housing crisis. They took an irresponsible risk with huge amounts of money and paid dearly for it. Then they blew the first bailout package on multi-million dollar bonuses for their executives. This plunged the American government further into debt, and caused a collapse of the American economy. The truth of the matter is that Capitalism has made the States a burden on the world economy. Many nations rely on the sale of resources to America to maintain an economic surplus, which is the key to a stable economy, as can be seen in nations such as Sweden. The collapse of the American economy however, means that America can no longer afford to import these resources, and as a result, the economies of these other countries collapse as well, because they can no longer maintain an economic surplus. The thing is, the American government spends and spends, and doesn't consider the consequences, as can be seen by the national debt, which is constantly increasing at an exponential rate. At the global level, debt causes instability, it leads to economic collapse.

There are many nations in the world who have prospered under systems of democratic socialism, and a number of these countries, such as Sweden, prove my point that economic surplus is the key to stability. However, a nation's economy is only as stable as that of the nation's major trade partner. Since America is at the heart of world trade, and greed is at the heart of the American economy, the world economy cannot enjoy any stability until America's unstable Capitalist system has been reformed.

So the question you need to ask yourself is, would you rather work hard to live comfortably, with enough money to buy numerous luxuries and have the financial security of a stable economy, or would you rather work hard to live extravagantly, with all kinds of money that you'd never spend and little to no financial security? That is the respective difference between democratic socialism and Capitalism.
4439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 2/4/09

_Al_ wrote:


First of all, do you think the homeless can afford to pay to further their education? Not a chance. They're more concerned with getting the basic necessities they need to live. They can't afford to make choices that are better in the long run, because they need to concentrate on the short term just to survive. Education is not their priority. Their priority is getting food, and a roof over their heads.

there are programs and ways out of this as well. Military service can help out there both education job and housing there are training pro
grams for homeless and many other assistance has well most do not take advantage of.


_Al_ wrote:
Also, hard work doesn't always pay off. The reason for this is, in fact, Capitalism itself. Capitalism spawns greed, and makes it possible for money to buy money. The rich have more opportunity to make money than the poor, because they can use the power that comes with their wealth to take opportunities from the poor so that they can make an extra buck, and this has been known to happen. In reality, the poorer you are, the harder it is to climb the rungs of the class ladder, regardless of how hard you work. There is only so much money in circulation, and with each passing day the rich obtain more and more of this money, making it increasingly more difficult for hard work to pay off for the poor.
difficult yes but it is possible if the right choices are made early enough.

_Al_ wrote:

Capitalism is the reason for the current recession. The banks wanted to make an extra buck, so they gave out the loans that resulted in the recent housing crisis. They took an irresponsible risk with huge amounts of money and paid dearly for it. Then they blew the first bailout package on multi-million dollar bonuses for their executives. This plunged the American government further into debt, and caused a collapse of the American economy. The truth of the matter is that Capitalism has made the States a burden on the world economy. Many nations rely on the sale of resources to America to maintain an economic surplus, which is the key to a stable economy, as can be seen in nations such as Sweden. The collapse of the American economy however, means that America can no longer afford to import these resources, and as a result, the economies of these other countries collapse as well, because they can no longer maintain an economic surplus. The thing is, the American government spends and spends, and doesn't consider the consequences, as can be seen by the national debt, which is constantly increasing at an exponential rate. At the global level, debt causes instability, it leads to economic collapse.
it was the government then pushed the banks to make such loans and the ppl were dumb enough to take loans that could not pay back.


_Al_ wrote:
There are many nations in the world who have prospered under systems of democratic socialism, and a number of these countries, such as Sweden, prove my point that economic surplus is the key to stability. However, a nation's economy is only as stable as that of the nation's major trade partner. Since America is at the heart of world trade, and greed is at the heart of the American economy, the world economy cannot enjoy any stability until America's unstable Capitalist system has been reformed..

yes the system need to be reformed but there are just as many countries that have fail that have done well with socialism.


_Al_ wrote:
So the question you need to ask yourself is, would you rather work hard to live comfortably, with enough money to buy numerous luxuries and have the financial security of a stable economy, or would you rather work hard to live extravagantly, with all kinds of money that you'd never spend and little to no financial security? That is the respective difference between democratic socialism and Capitalism.


but it is wrong to restrict how ones use there income and how it is gained.
socialism is fine in small countries. one the size of the US would not work.
the government should not be involved in how a person earns their money or runs there business


22 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/4/09 , edited 2/4/09

Sleepneeded127 wrote:
there are programs and ways out of this as well. Military service can help out there both education job and housing there are training programs for homeless and many other assistance has well most do not take advantage of.


What if a person cannot meet the physical requirements demanded by the military? That would not be of any help to that person. Personally, if I were an American, I wouldn't want to join the military anyway, no matter what my circumstances are. The chances of being killed in action are quite high. This is because the American military is, IMO, poorly trained in comparison to those of nations such as Canada, Germany, Russia, etc. The only advantage the American military can boast is more advanced military technologies, but no matter how advanced your technology is, better trained soldiers will still have the edge. Why is it that Canada is having to maintain a foothold in Kandahar, the most dangerous region of Afghanistan for foreign soldiers, when they were one of the UN members that opposed Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan? Also, why are the numbers of American casualties so much higher than Canadian casualties, when the Canadians are the ones on the front lines?

Maybe there are other programs that I am unaware of, but your major example has numerous flaws.


Sleepneeded127 wrote:
difficult yes but it is possible if the right choices are made early enough.


Yes, it is possible, but not for everyone. Only a lucky few will be able to make it. The rest will be left with nothing to show for their hard work. Capitalism is about big business, and the essential basis behind it is to help the rich to accumulate more wealth. The essence of what it is acts against the poor to keep them from climbing the class ladder.


Sleepneeded127 wrote:
it was the government then pushed the banks to make such loans and the ppl were dumb enough to take loans that could not pay back.


The government never forced the banks to make those loans. The banks did it on their own. As early as 2003, these banks were being warned that these risk-laden loans were causing a housing bubble, but the banks ignored these warnings. The major economy killers were the sub-prime mortgages, which were born out of a typically Capitalist greed for more money.


Sleepneeded127 wrote:
yes the system need to be reformed but there are just as many countries that have fail that have done well with socialism.


I'd say the odds are still in favour of democratic socialism, as the economy of the US, one of only a handful of remaining major Capitalist nations, has failed at least twice now. That's just counting the current recession and the 1929 stock market crash, nevermind the smaller recessions in between.



Sleepneeded127 wrote:
but it is wrong to restrict how ones use there income and how it is gained.
socialism is fine in small countries. one the size of the US would not work.
the government should not be involved in how a person earns their money or runs there business


It is not wrong to restrict how money is gained or used. It is wrong to gain money through unethical means, or to use money to unethical ends. Do you believe that extortion should be allowed then? That's basically what you are saying when you say that it is wrong to restrict how money is gained. Extortion is essentially stealing, it's a major criminal offense, but according to what you just said, it's ok, because it's wrong to restrict how money is obtained.
4439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 2/4/09 , edited 2/4/09

_Al_ wrote:


What if a person cannot meet the physical requirements demanded by the military? That would not be of any help to that person. Personally, if I were an American, I wouldn't want to join the military anyway, no matter what my circumstances are. The chances of being killed in action are quite high. This is because the American military is, IMO, poorly trained in comparison to those of nations such as Canada, Germany, Russia, etc. The only advantage the American military can boast is more advanced military technologies, but no matter how advanced your technology is, better trained soldiers will still have the edge. Why is it that Canada is having to maintain a foothold in Kandahar, the most dangerous region of Afghanistan for foreign soldiers, when they were one of the UN members that opposed Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan? Also, why are the numbers of American casualties so much higher than Canadian casualties, when the Canadians are the ones on the front lines?


] then u are not doing every thing it takes the option it there the training is on par if not better then most. you mention Gremany read thishttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1091559/German-soldiers-fat-fight-Taliban-drink-boys-dry.html

the higher casualties are do in part of higher number and being on front lines as well.
and you fall realize the hundreds of non combat jobs offered.

Maybe there are other programs that I am unaware of, but your major example has numerous flaws.
yes there are flaws in everything but they are still options to be looked at



_Al_ wrote:

Yes, it is possible, but not for everyone. Only a lucky few will be able to make it. The rest will be left with nothing to show for their hard work. Capitalism is about big business, and the essential basis behind it is to help the rich to accumulate more wealth. The essence of what it is acts against the poor to keep them from climbing the class ladder.

and big business makes jobs. the problem now is that there re too many restrictions that drive cost up causing out sourcing


_Al_ wrote:
The government never forced the banks to make those loans. The banks did it on their own. As early as 2003, these banks were being warned that these risk-laden loans were causing a housing bubble, but the banks ignored these warnings. The major economy killers were the sub-prime mortgages, which were born out of a typically Capitalist greed for more money.
not forced but the government encouraged
them to do so


_Al_ wrote:
I'd say the odds are still in favour of democratic socialism, as the economy of the only remaining major Capitalist nation has failed at least twice now. That's just counting the current recession and the 1929 stock market crash, nevermind the smaller recessions in between..
but after each time it grows larger then before. socialism is static with little growth


_Al_ wrote:
It is not wrong to restrict how money is gained or used. It is wrong to gain money through unethical means, or to use money to unethical ends. Do you believe that extortion should be allowed then? That's basically what you are saying when you say that it is wrong to restrict how money is gained. Extortion is essentially stealing, it's a major criminal offense, but according to what you just said, it's ok, because it's wrong to restrict how money is obtained.


stealing is a different case entirely. you should be able to use your money for what ever u with and be able to grow you business as you want with out breaking laws. but it is a lot of the restrictions that hurt

22 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/5/09
It has been proven that Capitalism is unstable in larger countries. Even Japan's Capitalist economy has failed, and their corporations take a more ethical standpoint than their American counterparts. The only 2 countries that have really been successful under Capitalism are Denmark and Switzerland. Neither has ever had an internal economic collapse, and both are centuries older than the United States. In both area and poulation Japan is the smaller, so I will compare Japan to the other 2.

Denmark is the larger of the 2 in area, and is still only about an 8th of the size of Japan. Population wise Switzerland is larger, but Japan's population is still more than 16 times larger. Huge differences there, and it shows that Capitalism is not a good option for a large country. Long term, it is good for small countries only, due to the instabilities when used in larger countries. It is fine for larger countries in the developing stages, as it stimulates weak economies, but once the economy is strong, it's too much of a risk to the stability of the economy.


Sleepneeded127 wrote:
but after each time it grows larger then before. socialism is static with little growth


That's not necessarily always the case. Recessions can be unnecessarily destructive to an economy, and there's always the chance that the economy may not recover completely. That's perhaps the biggest major risk and flaw of Capitalism. The ability of the American economy to recover from the current recession will be determined by how far it falls. If it falls back to where it was at the lowest point in the Great Depression, then it may never completely recover, because of the inflation that American Capitalism has caused throughout the world.


Sleepneeded127 wrote:
stealing is a different case entirely. you should be able to use your money for what ever u with and be able to grow you business as you want with out breaking laws. but it is a lot of the restrictions that hurt


Stealing is not a different case. It is a means of obtaining money, just as an honest income is a means of obtaining money. Stealing, however, is unethical, and illegal. You say that restrictions hurt growth, but you fail to consider that laws in themselves are restrictions, and you seem to have no problem with them.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.