"Dumb things that Americans believe" -Newsweek

[Crystallas]

I like freedom more than socialism. Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't want anyone to tell me what I can or can't do, when I'm not hurting anyone else.

 

[tbo41fan]

I believe a certain bread of socialism can work...However true communism will never work in humanity. Someone is always striving for power.

Exactly, communism CAN work, but leaders strive for power and ruin it

Do you happen to have an example?

Well, no I cannot because as stated above it has never really been put in action responsibly because somebody always uses it to gain more power.

So in actuality i should say....In theory, true communism as it is layed out would work in the right hands.

 

[Crystallas]

Socialism and Capitalism is more of a spectrum than it is just black-and-white. It's more like shades of grey. But, if I were to "label" the United States as either "Capitalist" or "Socialist," I would definitely define us as a capitalism. After all, the U.S. is still the most open market soceity there is out of all the other nations in the world- please correct me if I'm wrong. I can't think of a nation that exhibits more pro-privatization/anti-government-control nation in the world than our's does.

Everything is regulated. There isn't much capitalism in the US. The man who made the blueprints for modern capitalism.
The key to capitalism is limitations of government. George Washington, Franklin, Adams all were massive supporters of these kinds of views, and that's why the Constitution was written in such a way. Jefferson was maybe the least "capitalist" of them all at the time of the writings, but even he grew to support the ideas.

People assume times were less complex in the past, but that is not true at all. With every luxury in technology we have today, the less complex our lives have become, but the demands to do more have risen because of it. In the end, comparing 16th century economics and 21st century economics is still the same from exceptions to the fundamentals. If its not one disease, its another, if it's not one environmental problem, its another.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

I like freedom more than socialism. Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't want anyone to tell me what I can or can't do, when I'm not hurting anyone else.

Freedom is all relative... not everybody in the United States is "free" to do whatever they want. Some people don't even have basic priviledges because of the poverty, directly caused by the privatization we live under in the U.S.

I'm not saying that I love Socialism. I'm just saying that there has to be moderation between government control and private control (for the good of the people).

I dislike how we have 400+ billionaires in this country, yet not everybody can afford college... a lot can't even afford food or shelter... not just "bums" but children as well... Less than 1% of the population has 99+% of all the money... is that really ethical? I'll let you guys be the judges.

 

[Crystallas]

So in actuality i should say....In theory, true communism as it is layed out would work in the right hands.

This is what many people call the "white knight theory". Where people expect a typical saint to come in, and save us all with their wise ideas. It's always going to be a pipe dream, unfortunately. And I do agree, in theory, it would be great, but as my hero, Milton Friedman, said many times.... we need to choose the "least bad solution" when dealing with government. When you think of it that way, it puts civilization into perspective. We sit behind computers, and steering wheels frustrated, and we want a genie to grant us all 3 wishes, but that's not going to happen.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

Everything is regulated. There isn't much capitalism in the US. The man who made the blueprints for modern capitalism.
The key to capitalism is limitations of government. George Washington, Franklin, Adams all were massive supporters of these kinds of views, and that's why the Constitution was written in such a way. Jefferson was maybe the least "capitalist" of them all at the time of the writings, but even he grew to support the ideas.

People assume times were less complex in the past, but that is not true at all. With every luxury in technology we have today, the less complex our lives have become, but the demands to do more have risen because of it. In the end, comparing 16th century economics and 21st century economics is still the same from exceptions to the fundamentals. If its not one disease, its another, if it's not one environmental problem, its another.

I do grasp that concept that everything, in some form or another, is regulated by the government. But is regulation such a bad thing, in itself? Regulation can serve as a safety net to protect the stock market from crashing, or to make sure economic recessions don't turn into full-blown depressions. Regulation also can make sure companies are doing ethical trade and business practices (i.e. carbon emissions regulation).

I'm a firm believer that government without some sort of "regulation" could not survive for very long.

But you are living in the right country... can you think of another nation that is as privatized as our's?

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

On the same token, privatization is a good thing. Without it, incentive to create quality goods and services wouldn't be nearly as high. I don't even need to explain how that would help.

So, like I said, there has to be balance....

 

[tbo41fan]

Freedom is all relative... not everybody in the United States is "free" to do whatever they want. Some people don't even have basic priviledges because of the poverty, directly caused by the privatization we live under in the U.S.

I'm not saying that I love Socialism. I'm just saying that there has to be moderation between government control and private control (for the good of the people).

I dislike how we have 400+ billionaires in this country, yet not everybody can afford college... a lot can't even afford food or shelter... not just "bums" but children as well... Less than 1% of the population has 99+% of all the money... is that really ethical? I'll let you guys be the judges.

yep, not everyone can afford college, start a business, etc.

IMO society as a whole needs a head body to control means of production. Privatized business is subject to fraud (of course, so would state run businesses to), and i strongly believe our capitalist views have caused wars and countless un-needed deaths.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the only reason we went to Iraq was for oil. it has been proven that they had nothing to do with September 11th, why were we there then?

Dont judge me on my views please.

 

[Crystallas]

Freedom is all relative... not everybody in the United States is "free" to do whatever they want. Some people don't even have basic priviledges because of the poverty, directly caused by the privatization we live under in the U.S.

I'm not saying that I love Socialism. I'm just saying that there has to be moderation between government control and private control (for the good of the people).

I dislike how we have 400+ billionaires in this country, yet not everybody can afford college... a lot can't even afford food or shelter... not just "bums" but children as well... Less than 1% of the population has 99+% of all the money... is that really ethical? I'll let you guys be the judges.

Well wait, you're spinning a different web here. And I swear, I'm not trying to instigate a fight, but I need to clarify a few things, not because your dumb rami, but because you are intelligent.

First off, we have rich and poverty because there is no balance in the free market. That has nothing to do with privatization. If the government gives tax breaks to groups, subsidiaries to companies, they have a massive advantage. This takes away all balance, and it's not just unfair to the "rich" but it's unfair to the poor, as those subsidiaries and exemptions don't effect them, it's the crooks that claim most of it. Regardless of which system is in place, you still have the effect of rich and poor.

And also people forget the tremendous impact rich people have, regardless of their motives in a true capitalist country.
If I have 100x as much wealth as the average person, that money is worthless, just paper or material. They still have to use that money somewhere. If they buy special clothes, they fund another person and company, if they invest their money in the market, they allow others to use that money to grow. No matter what, being rich alone doesn't hurt anyone, if anything, we want more rich people to give new generations opportunities to continue and innovate. When you apply socialist systems, you kind of ruin that natural path of wealth distribution. Because now, the richest people in America hire lawyers to get on social security, medicare, medicaid, ect ect. Now by our own ignorance, we have reversed that money flow, taking from the poor and giving it back to the rich.

 

[tbo41fan]

This is what many people call the "white knight theory". Where people expect a typical saint to come in, and save us all with their wise ideas. It's always going to be a pipe dream, unfortunately. And I do agree, in theory, it would be great, but as my hero, Milton Friedman, said many times.... we need to choose the "least bad solution" when dealing with government. When you think of it that way, it puts civilization into perspective. We sit behind computers, and steering wheels frustrated, and we want a genie to grant us all 3 wishes, but that's not going to happen.

In no way do i expect someone to come and run communism effectively, im just saying that the only way its a good idea is if someone like that would come.

On the same token, privatization is a good thing. Without it, incentive to create quality goods and services wouldn't be nearly as high. I don't even need to explain how that would help.

So, like I said, there has to be balance....

Thats a very good point.

State run products wouldnt have to be top notch because who would compete with them? nobody

 

[Scoot26]

Socialism and Capitalism is more of a spectrum than it is just black-and-white. It's more like shades of grey. But, if I were to "label" the United States as either "Capitalist" or "Socialist," I would definitely define us as a capitalism. After all, the U.S. is still the most open market soceity there is out of all the other nations in the world- please correct me if I'm wrong. I can't think of a nation that exhibits more pro-privatization/anti-government-control nation in the world than our's does.

I dont even vote us a true capitalist state anymore. It gets harder everyday for the little guy to start up a business due to local, state, and federal government startup fees, costs and all other such things.

Then also the market in some aspect becomes completely uncompetitive that all it does is just harm the consumer. Cable is set up that way, mainly because thats the way the cable companies wrote the legislation for Congress.

Freedom is all relative... not everybody in the United States is "free" to do whatever they want. Some people don't even have basic priviledges because of the poverty, directly caused by the privatization we live under in the U.S.

I'm not saying that I love Socialism. I'm just saying that there has to be moderation between government control and private control (for the good of the people).

I dislike how we have 400+ billionaires in this country, yet not everybody can afford college... a lot can't even afford food or shelter... not just "bums" but children as well... Less than 1% of the population has 99+% of all the money... is that really ethical? I'll let you guys be the judges.

I think there needs to be a balance between free market and regulation. Some regulations are good, some are overdone, and some regulation is just an overreaction to some event (For example this egg recall currently going on that is just a simple cause from corruption of local government).

And I also think its disgusting that we have 400+ billionaires in the country, but not everyone can afford their basic needs in this country. Sure some people are able to get ahead and some are simply unable to meet the needs..Those people who cant are often times just bums, but so often they arent even afforded the chance to succeed in this nation.

 

[Crystallas]

But you are living in the right country... can you think of another nation that is as privatized as our's?

Hong Kong, we buy more of their goods than they buy of ours. There is an import cap, but we never even reach it. The people don't have to go to licensed doctors to get treatment, and they live longer, healthier lives. They have more of everything, and the scary part is, because Hong Kong is under China, they are pretty much carrying the weight of Red China's government, but at the same time, the Hong Kong freedoms are so powerful, that even a nation of a billion can not take that away from it's people, that is how much they believe in it.

 

[tbo41fan]

This is actually good discussion that i thought would turn out bad. lol

 

[Scoot26]

IMO society as a whole needs a head body to control means of production. Privatized business is subject to fraud (of course, so would state run businesses to), and i strongly believe our capitalist views have caused wars and countless un-needed deaths.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the only reason we went to Iraq was for oil. it has been proven that they had nothing to do with September 11th, why were we there then?

Dont judge me on my views please.

Atleast you're not calling 9/11 an inside job...

Our capitalist views have caused wars and countless un-needed deaths. Another aspect is the Industrial Military Complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about in 1960. Defense companies obviously need wars to survive and strive.

As far as Iraq, I dont know if it was exactly for oil, as we are not currently taking any Iraqi oil, but it seemingly could have been a personal vendetta by George W. Bush, or what I think is that Dick Cheney wanted to invade for his own benefit and to get his former company, Haliburton, all the rebuilding jobs in Iraq so they could make billions.

 

[tbo41fan]

Atleast you're not calling 9/11 an inside job...

Our capitalist views have caused wars and countless un-needed deaths. Another aspect is the Industrial Military Complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about in 1960. Defense companies obviously need wars to survive and strive.

As far as Iraq, I dont know if it was exactly for oil, as we are not currently taking any Iraqi oil, but it seemingly could have been a personal vendetta by George W. Bush, or what I think is that Dick Cheney wanted to invade for his own benefit and to get his former company, Haliburton, all the rebuilding jobs in Iraq so they could make billions.

Those people piss me off...

Eisenhower was such a good president, one of the most underrated IMO

That could be with Bush, but I just have a feeling that this is just the first of many "adventures" we as a country will take into the middle east. Use terrorism as an excuse, and "oh while we are here fighting terrorism, we will just take this oil that we coincidentally need"

 

[Scoot26]

Well wait, you're spinning a different web here. And I swear, I'm not trying to instigate a fight, but I need to clarify a few things, not because your dumb rami, but because you are intelligent.

First off, we have rich and poverty because there is no balance in the free market. That has nothing to do with privatization. If the government gives tax breaks to groups, subsidiaries to companies, they have a massive advantage. This takes away all balance, and it's not just unfair to the "rich" but it's unfair to the poor, as those subsidiaries and exemptions don't effect them, it's the crooks that claim most of it. Regardless of which system is in place, you still have the effect of rich and poor.

And also people forget the tremendous impact rich people have, regardless of their motives in a true capitalist country.
If I have 100x as much wealth as the average person, that money is worthless, just paper or material. They still have to use that money somewhere. If they buy special clothes, they fund another person and company, if they invest their money in the market, they allow others to use that money to grow. No matter what, being rich alone doesn't hurt anyone, if anything, we want more rich people to give new generations opportunities to continue and innovate. When you apply socialist systems, you kind of ruin that natural path of wealth distribution. Because now, the richest people in America hire lawyers to get on social security, medicare, medicaid, ect ect. Now by our own ignorance, we have reversed that money flow, taking from the poor and giving it back to the rich.

Our money is basically worthless..It isnt backed by gold or anything anymore.

And I understand your value that if someone with money is buying stuff it puts money into the pockets of others and allows them to buy things. That is true. The thing is in this country you have people who have so much money there is no way they can possibly spend it all. Most of them just horde it in investment accounts (in which that money just circulates among other rich people) and the money doesnt do the economy a whole lot of good.

And venturing into tax cuts. The idea of supply-side economics was to put more money into the riches hands so they would use it to expand their businesses and hire more workers and spend more on goods in the economy. It works temporarily, but then suffers because they just start hording their money. Its been true in 1929, 1987, and now 2008. Its been tried 3 times in the countries history and led to the same thing all three times.

 

[Scoot26]

Those people piss me off...

Eisenhower was such a good president, one of the most underrated IMO

That could be with Bush, but I just have a feeling that this is just the first of many "adventures" we as a country will take into the middle east. Use terrorism as an excuse, and "oh while we are here fighting terrorism, we will just take this oil that we coincidentally need"

I agree Eisenhower was a good President. And he was one who was a true moderate. The guy could have belonged to either party. Though in the 1950's the Republican Party was very much a moderate party. It was until the Southern Democrats switched to Republicans in the late 60's and the Religious Right basically took over the party to form what it is today.

Well terrorism is how Iraq was sold to the country, and then we ended up breading terrorism there. The biggest mistake of the Iraq War was disbanding the Iraq Army..that alone led to the resurgency that has killed thousands of our troops.

 

[tbo41fan]

I agree Eisenhower was a good President. And he was one who was a true moderate. The guy could have belonged to either party. Though in the 1950's the Republican Party was very much a moderate party. It was until the Southern Democrats switched to Republicans in the late 60's and the Religious Right basically took over the party to form what it is today.

Well terrorism is how Iraq was sold to the country, and then we ended up breading terrorism there. The biggest mistake of the Iraq War was disbanding the Iraq Army..that alone led to the resurgency that has killed thousands of our troops.

YES!

We basically, in a nutshell pissed them off and attacked them for no reason...how else did the government think they would respond?

 

[Crystallas]

Our capitalist views have caused wars and countless un-needed deaths. Another aspect is the Industrial Military Complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about in 1960. Defense companies obviously need wars to survive and strive.

War will happen regardless of economic system. The real problem is having booming industry, then blocking or limiting trade to another country. That is the mistake on one or both sides of the court. Capitalism itself has never caused any wars. Individual abuse of power, maybe. But that happens in all of the systems.

 

[Scoot26]

War will happen regardless of economic system. The real problem is having booming industry, then blocking or limiting trade to another country. That is the mistake on one or both sides of the court. Capitalism itself has never caused any wars. Individual abuse of power, maybe. But that happens in all of the systems.

Capitalism as an economic system itself has not caused wars..I was talking about our views on capitalism. The American System that has individual abuses of power. That problem does happen in all systems because individuals seek it. And America is basically the police of the world and it will run into these problems now. But defense companies do have a self-interest and war is good for business (obviously).