USA was 3 hrs away from Economic, Political Collapse... last Sept.
POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 11:44
VIEWED: 42658
PAGE 5 of 16
Capitalism v. Socialism
Capitalism - is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled. In capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded by private individuals or corporations, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are primarily determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy largely free of government intervention.
I've heard some argue that we should be a strictly capitalist society and have no "social" institutions such as schools, fire departments, police and public roads. Well I think back to the part in the above paragraph that states: "commodities and services are primarily determined by voluntary private decision", so if it were up to Merril Lynch or Citibank do you think they would invest in building a school or paying the fire department for putting out a fire at the home they sold you? How about insurance companies? What do we do with them? Aren't they just another form of socialism?
How about the banking system? We place our hard-earned money into a bank that then makes a loan to Mr. Smith to start a car dealership. The bank actually uses the money from several depositers to loan him charging him 10% and paying the depositers a mere 2% for their savings. Socialism or capitalism? One man is benefitting from the loan that came from the many depositers at that bank.
Mr. Smith could have cut out the middle man (the bank) and went to those people depositing their money and said "I'll pay out 5% if you'll just lend me the money to start this business." He pays out less interest for the "loan" and the depositers make more than the measly 2% return on investment. I know, this is too simplistic a treatment to ever work in real life. My point is capitalism still relies upon the general population purchasing a product or service. It is this close to the unthinkable (for those that think strict and unchecked capitalism is the answer).
Socialism - refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.
I can't imagine this country running solely on the benevolence of big business and filthy rich individuals. Still though schools, hospitals and police and fire departments are built off the blood, sweat and tears of the American people. One way or another, we pay.
SGG
Tawabawho?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ta get back to the original subject of this thread:
How come nobody else anywhere respectable has reported this?
Gotta be somebody somewhere so desperate for circulation, or Nielsens or something that they'd report it. Oh, yeah, I fergot-- " they're ALL part of the Liberal Main Stream Media conspiracy."
How come ElRusho ain't talking about this? or O'Reiley? or those libbies at the Birch Society? or the GOP members of the House or Senate?
How come Kanjorski is just talking about this on a C-SPAN talk show? How come he's not on the record, asking about it from the floor of Congress? How come nobody anywhere will coroborate what he says?
" They're all too afraid of scaring the American people. They're *A*L*L* afraid to tell the *T*R*U*T*H* ! ! ! !"
I searched with AltaVista ( Hey, it's the search engine I use. Tain't fancy like Google or Yahoo, but it's been around and has a NEWS subcategory.) Came up with a few links to the same video clip, a couple of people who doubt its credibility, and Kanj talking about other stuff.THIS POST EDITED TO CORRECT THE SPELLING OF THE GUY'S NAME I DID SEARCH WITH THE CORRECT SPELLING.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SargeX, YOU seem to be the jackass here.
Rather than argue a coherent point, rue chose to characterize anyone describing government programs as 'socialist' as "braying" morons. To me, that is asinine and detracts from the discussion.
Quote:
Rue made it very plain (and I tend to agree) that Repubs and other right-wingers tend to call ANY government social programs "socialist". She asked for a substitute word to replace the term THEY use (socialism) with one that might be less confusing and more accurate.
I didn't hear you come up with one, did I?
Because there's no need. Programs that redistribute wealth, or otherwise impose governmental control over the economy are socialistic. As has been noted here, pretty much all modern governments impose elements of socialism on the economy, including our own. I just don't see any value in inventing new words to avoid uncomfortable observations.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
So I don't see how any of their economic success could be credited to socialism, since the only aspect of these countries that is (vaguely) socialistic is an economic burden.
Seems more a vague ideological dismissal of evidence than anything else. You're unwarrantably dismissing any positive effects these "socialistic economic burdens" may have on society and it's economy. Perhaps they're not net burdens? Perhaps they cost on the front end, and pay for themselves many times over on the back.
I think it's interesting that the more heavily socialism plays in the states of Europe, the better their economies perform per-capita. Denmark for instance, probably one of if not the most socialist of all the states of Europe, is the second highest per capita economy in the world. It's outstripped only by Luxembourg, which is a tiny principality and tax haven for the rich.
While your calling them 'soft-socialism' and remarking on how all the success is really down to capitalism, you might want to remember that the implication of 'soft-socialism' is that they're also operating 'soft-capitalism'. I'd put it that neither socialism OR capitalism really create a workable system, which is why no state has successfully implemented either (try to find a purely capitalist society now or in history). It's pretty clear to me, that Capitalism can't function without 'socialist' programs like the police, like a universal education system, hell like the dole and even universal health care. Think about it, you fall ill you can't work. You lose your job and there's no safety net, you might never again become a productive member of society, I'd be willing to bet that's more costly to the economy overall than the cost of the programs in the first place.
Your statement could be fairly easily turned on it's head. Perhaps the success of these countries is all down to socialism, and Capitalism is just a social drag, that helps pay for it.
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Are you guys all still waiting for an exemplary, purely socialist, model state that you can hail as a success? Because a lot of times people have got hold of countries and tried to create one... I'd be interested to know how you account for quite a long catalogue of failures.
There have never been any socialist states. Show me an example of one. There's been some communist ones, and a few that have called themselves socialist, but that's a different thing entirely. As I said elsewhere, the Democratic Republic of Congo is neither Democratic, a Republic, or in the Congo (which is a river that runs through it, also known as the zaire).
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The official definition of socialism is not "redistribution of wealth", as anyone who cares to look into a dictionary would find out. YOU are the person redefining words, not Rue. Rue is trying to make a distinction not recognized or allowed by braying jackasses.
Because there's no need. Programs that redistribute wealth, or otherwise impose governmental control over the economy are socialistic. As has been noted here, pretty much all modern governments impose elements of socialism on the economy, including our own. I just don't see any value in inventing new words to avoid uncomfortable observations.
But feel free to defend braying jackassism and irrelevant definitions, if that's what you choose to do. I won't argue with you if you include yourself in that group.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But feel free to defend braying jackassism and irrelevant definitions, if that's what you choose to do. I won't argue with you if you include yourself in that group.
Good grief. You two would be easier to take seriously, and a lot more interesting to talk to, if you didn't have to rely on insults to make your points.
Regardless, socialism is about government control over the production of goods and services. That seems well understood by most here. When the government provides those goods and services it's socialism. In addition:
Quote:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.
That's the first line of the first search result for 'socialism' on Google.
Anyway, this is stupid. It's one thing to clarify definitions that are vague, but you're trying to obfuscate the argument with distractions over semantics and definitions. It's tedious and kills threads, but I suppose that's your intention.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production."
Means of production?
That's the first part of the first definition.
See anyone here advocating the state or collective ownership of the means of production?
FWIW, what the right wing refers to as "socialism" fails to meet the most basic definition. So maybe we could call it a "welfarism" but not socialism.
Quote:Only a fool would continue to discuss a topic and not pay attention to the important terms that are being used. That is the first lesson of logic: define your terms. Otherwise you'll be in a hopeless mess and your thinking will be tangled.
It's one thing to clarify definitions that are vague, but you're trying to obfuscate the argument with distractions over semantics and definitions.
Now, YOU may choose to define ANY government involvement in the economic sphere as "socialism", but it's not a definition recognized even by your very first cite.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So.....
The "socialists" here are advocating 1 part of the definition. "Redistribution of wealth"...but not the stated means of doing so. I.e. The state redistributing said wealth.
Basically, if I get this right, the idea is that everyone gives their money (the percentage to be determined) to everyone else?
So, I make $10 and hour, and somehow magically, a certain percentage of that is distributed to someone who makes less?
So in that scenario, the tooth fairy comes, takes 3 dollars from the 10, and then flys it over to the person making 4. And we are equal...
Which means, that despite my having worked longer and harder (getting a degree or whatever), my money that I earn will go to the person who never finished highschool, popped out 12 kids, and works at McDonalds?
So despite that I have a much harder job, need more intelligence and skill to do my job, I will still need to hand over my money to someone else?
Or, do you mean that people who are independently wealthy? Peoples whose PARENTS worked hard, and THEY are the beneficiaries of said work?
In that case, my parents work really hard and build a company. I am rich because they leave it to me. But, oh wait. No... I have to give those earnings away. Its the fair thing to do. Especially since someones elses parents DIDN'T work as hard, and THIEIR kids arn't as lucky.
Look, why should I work at all then? When someone else is working, I can just continue to take some of their cash.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Ta get back to the original subject of this thread:
How come nobody else anywhere respectable has reported this?
Gotta be somebody somewhere so desperate for circulation, or Nielsens or something that they'd report it. Oh, yeah, I fergot-- " they're ALL part of the Liberal Main Stream Media conspiracy."
How come ElRusho ain't talking about this? or O'Reiley? or those libbies at the Birch Society? or the GOP members of the House or Senate?
How come Kanjorski is just talking about this on a C-SPAN talk show? How come he's not on the record, asking about it from the floor of Congress? How come nobody anywhere will coroborate what he says?
" They're all too afraid of scaring the American people. They're *A*L*L* afraid to tell the *T*R*U*T*H* ! ! ! !"
I searched with AltaVista ( Hey, it's the search engine I use. Tain't fancy like Google or Yahoo, but it's been around and has a NEWS subcategory.) Came up with a few links to the same video clip, a couple of people who doubt its credibility, and Kanj talking about other stuff.THIS POST EDITED TO CORRECT THE SPELLING OF THE GUY'S NAME I DID SEARCH WITH THE CORRECT SPELLING.
Kanjorski probably got 50 lashes once he was off the air. "Dude, you broke the CODE." I think MSM doesn't want to touch something this volatile without more corroboration - who wants to be the network that starts a panic?
I was so ready to suspect Bush of trying to drain reserves on the way out. His insistence that we had to do something quickly seemed especially suspect. Then Obama needs 800 quickly. They both had Come to Jesus moments.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
How come nobody else anywhere respectable has reported this?
Because its a load of crap. At best its part of the continuing effort to scare up stimulas support by ignoring the last fifty years and pretending we're looking at the worst economy since the great depression. At worst its crazytalk.
Last fall we had a banking crisis. That made it the worst since 1987. Now its the worst economy since...1981.
Lets face it. In Sept things looked bad and Congress did panic a bit. Now things are much more calm and now its about slipping as much of the Democratic agenda and pork into this bill that they can.
This whole 'economic collapse' business is just a bunch of liars quoting a fool.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME