USA was 3 hrs away from Economic, Political Collapse... last Sept.
POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 11:44
VIEWED: 42658
PAGE 10 of 16
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
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.
Come on, think in specific terms, how can the social welfare spending be directly responsible for any of the wealth generation? All it can ideally be is kind of a lubricant for the capitalist engine, which creates the wealth.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The fuel of capitalist economies is capital: where it flows, who controls it. That's why it's called capitalism and not socialism.
This strikes me as a poor analogy - surely people (their talents, efforts and enterprise) are the fuel in the capitalist engine?
Quote:While there is an economic argument for taking care of people, you will not find that argument in capitalism.
There is therefore an economic argument for taking care of people, with social welfare - as well as obvious moral arguments.
Quote:What IS the purpose of an economy EXCEPT to meet the needs of people? So how can people's needs be a "burden"?
But you don't think that there is a balance in this, that spending more and more on social welfare can place a burden on an economy?
But what I think you mean is: If too many people are consuming and not enough are producing, eventually that will lead to poverty for everyone.
And while that may have been true enough in a pre-technological society, when all work was done by hand and survival was a matter of relentless toil, with current production techonology one person can produce enough to meet the needs of many multiples of people. We are not anywhere near a shortage of productive capacity. What there is, oddly, is a shortage of DEMAND.
Quote:The REAL waste of money is in military spending and profit.
And of course the US is already balancing itself, spending significantly (tho not as much as other countries) on social welfare.
Quote:Not sure what you're getting at here.
So what you guys are contrasting as black and white, capitalist and socialist (in order to claim a victory for socialism), are just different shades of grey - and not even of the engine itself, but the fuel. Because, I would say that all of the countries you compared have *black* capitalist engines, it is only the fuel which is a different shade of grey (in that the welfare of the *people* is socialised to a different extent).
Quote:I'm having a hard time with your analogy. There is production, consumption, and surplus. There is money supply. There is "need" (which is the raw human condition) and there is "demand" (which is "need" mediated by money).
By my definition of socialism it is an engine not a fuel(primarily a model for industry, right?), a white alternative to the black capitalist model. We see many well functioning capitalist engines, with some adjustments to stop them blowing up (they sometimes fail) - why are there no well functioning, white socialist engines? Is the idea of one just a pleasant fiction?
I think the nub that you're struggling with is the basic capitalist problem, which rears its ugly head in all its full glory every several decades: If you keep taking money out of circulation (which is what happens when money is removed as "profit") and concentrating it into the hands of fewer and fewer people, eventually nearly everybody will be able to buy almost nothing. That is how you wind up with the contradiction of the desperate unemployed: During the last Great Depression warehouses were full of good while people starved. Human need and human production were separated by lack of capital, which was sequestered away and unavailable.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
kpo
The world has already tried capitalism without pesky government taxes and social spending - that was Britain during the time 'The Adventures of Oliver Twist' and 'Jane Eyre' were published. There was great wealth of a very few and deadly poverty of the many. It was the impetus for the lengthy study 'Das Kapital'.
You have to ask yourself, if you have any perspective at all - what is the reason to support an economic system that ensures, at best, a marginal lifetime of drudgery (us wage-slaves) for all but a few thousand people out of 6.8 billion ?
What IS the purpose of an economy, anyway, if it isn't to take care of people ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
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.
What's this, per capita income? But if everything in your country is more expensive because of added tax on things (to pay for the expensive social welfare) then your purchasing power and standard of life may be no better, or worse. It seems to me your argument is heavily flawed.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Come on, think in specific terms, how can the social welfare spending be directly responsible for any of the wealth generation? All it can ideally be is kind of a lubricant for the capitalist engine, which creates the wealth.
That's not an example of any purely capitalist economies.
Why, precisely, does it have to be directly responsible any way? That would seem to be a semantic trick in order to dismiss contribution made by socialist programs. Does a public school system have a direct effect on the economy? I don't know, you tell me if you think a high standard of education in the populace will have a positive effect on a nations economy.
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
Seriously, you guys have the answers... start your own society!
REALLY!
Make it heave on earth for you, and those who believe like you.
Just go away.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
What's this, per capita income? But if everything in your country is more expensive because of added tax on things (to pay for the expensive social welfare) then your purchasing power and standard of life may be no better, or worse. It seems to me your argument is heavily flawed.
How? Because you want it to be flawed? You can't just declare it flawed on an assumption that the data goes your way. Now that IS a flawed argument.
Regardless, no it's not per capita income. It's the total economic turn over of the country, divided by the number of people living in it. Which would be a measure of how productive the economy is, which is what we were talking about. Now if you want to discuss living standards, we can do that, but we weren't talking living standards, we were talking economy.
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:Ranking is adjusted for differences in currencies.
But if everything in your country is more expensive because of added tax on things
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulf
"What IS the purpose of an economy, anyway, if it isn't to take care of people ?"
Pretty scary question, isn't it ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No....
Not really.
Economy only scares me when someone tells me I have to give what I earn to someone else who isnt working.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME