Capitalism, Pros and Cons

[FireUltra 98]

Social programs are socialist. They are the government interferring in the market. Welfare, police, firemen, etc are all socialist programs.

Social programs are necessary in any civilized society. We're talking apples and oranges here. Social programs do not interfere with the market in my opinion. The free market is driven by two basic forces, supply & demand . . .that's it. And where free markets don't exist, black or gray markets will fill the void at much higher prices. I'm for necessary social programs and certain regulating authorities. Police, yes, Fireman, yes. Need those and others like them to serve, protect and save lives. FDA, yes, SEC, yes. We need federal bodies that ensure quality and ensure fair practices.

Welfare, no. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. Why? Because people in this fine country make more money on average, and have more discretionary cash than most all other societies in order to donate. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care, which is not the job of a federal body.

And there are many "socialist" systems that are doing very well. But only because they encorporate elements of capitalism in their economy.

Agreed. But no country, or Europe as a whole for that matter, can compete with the free market system provided by the US. The more capitalist a system is, the more tax revenue it creates in order to support "needed" social programs. The more socialist a system is, the less tax revenue it has to support an even heavier social program burden (calling Germany, Germany please pick up the white courtesy phone).

Lastly, I've absolutely loved the points made on this thread. I'm glad I found this message board; you people know your stuff. Thanks Kelzie!

 

[Kelzie]

Social programs are necessary in any civilized society. We're talking apples and oranges here. Social programs do not interfere with the market in my opinion. The free market is driven by two basic forces, supply & demand . . .that's it. And where free markets don't exist, black or gray markets will fill the void at much higher prices. I'm for necessary social programs and certain regulating authorities. Police, yes, Fireman, yes. Need those and others like them to serve, protect and save lives. FDA, yes, SEC, yes. We need federal bodies that ensure quality and ensure fair practices.

I certainly agree. I am a social democrat, after all.

However, people for true free markets look at any state-sponsered program as socialist. Which it is. In a true capitalist state, the rich could afford to send their children to school and the poor wouldn't. Schooling would be a private enterprise and the fact that our government basically runs it is an interference in the market. Same goes with protection, etc. Although most libertarians agree in some sort of police force. Which just goes to show you that everybody's socialist at heart. :lol:

Welfare, no. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. Why? Because people in this fine country make more money on average, and have more discretionary cash than most all other societies in order to donate. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care, which is not the job of a federal body.

Do you really think that all the people complaining about how much taxes they have to pay would cough up the money for welfare if they didn't have to pay it?

And any sort of aid has the possibility of creating dependency. Although I truely believe that cases of this are exagerrated, since I have never seen any numbers of how many people abuse the system. My mom used food stamps to keep me fed when I was a kid. I can tell you, first of all that it's not as easy to get or keep as people think. And second, my mom used it until she was done with college and could join the workforce. Which is what it's intended for. A hand up, not a hand out.

Agreed. But no country, or Europe as a whole for that matter, can compete with the free market system provided by the US. The more capitalist a system is, the more tax revenue it creates in order to support "needed" social programs. The more socialist a system is, the less tax revenue it has to support an even heavier social program burden (calling Germany, Germany please pick up the white courtesy phone).

Taxes are a form of government control of the market...but I see what you're trying to say. There is certainly a balance that needs to be obtained. But did you know the US is 10th in standard of living? Behind nine other more socialist countries? A strong economy doesn't do much if it doesn't translate into a better life on your citizen's part.

Lastly, I've absolutely loved the points made on this thread. I'm glad I found this message board; you people know your stuff. Thanks Kelzie!

You're so nice. It's scaring me. :mrgreen:

 

[FireUltra 98]

I'll make my reply without all the quotes so as not to burden the readers of this thread.
>
>

Again, don't confuse "capitalism" with a political system or party, its an economic system. There is not one Capitalist state on earth. There are unfortunately Socialist states though. Capitalism is an economic system not to be confused with the social or governing system. Thankfully, our system in the US is a federal republic which employs and encourages a capitalist economic system and not a socialist union or state.

Even within a Federal Republic, there are necessary social programs, we've already violently agreed on that. You would prefer more social assistance, and I want less, that's the basic difference there. Since this is the "economics" thread and not the "political debate" thread, I'm sticking with the economic issues here. I'll be all too happy to meet you on the "Political Debate" thread and clash your Socialism against my Federal Republic ad nasea. :mrgreen:

In regards to your welfare point, I agree that many people would not want to fund such programs if they had a choice, you can count me amongst them. There are programs similar to the government programs in the private sector that could be increased with federal aid. And before we go down the path of "private entities will charge too much or hide dollars" I think the government does a fine job right now misplacing and losing dollars without any help from the private sector.

Government taxes are not a form of market control. Texas simply represent the revenue earned by enterprising, capitalist and overall risk takers that produce markets, services, profits for taxing and jobs, also for taxing.

I'm not surprised that several "socialist" countries have a better standard of living than the US. Most all civilized socialist states offer gold plated social services to its citizenry. But most all of those countries are having huge economic challenges keeping up with their gold standard social programs because there isn't enough wealth, jobs and taxes created by the citizenry (hello Germany, please pick up the dang white courtesy phone already). Since 1970 the US has created over 57 million jobs. Jobs that create tax revenue. Europe as a whole has a similar population to that of the US and has produced 4 million jobs in the same time period. Socialist states generally do not produce job growth (calling France and its disenfranchised 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim population, please pick up the "bleu" courtesy phone if you're not too busy burning cars and killing emergency workers).

Finally, why are you scared that I'm nice? Is it too hard to believe that a conservative, free market supporting, evil energy trading monkey with wings like me can be nice when disagreeing with others? I guess all of us GOP, upper middle class types aren't the monsters we're probably made out to be in the local coffee house scene thoughout the Denver, Colorado area .

I kid, thanks for your thoughtful and respectful disagreements Kelzie.

 

[Kelzie]

I'll make my reply without all the quotes so as not to burden the readers of this thread.

Don't worry about the quotes. Everyone uses them.

Again, don't confuse "capitalism" with a political system or party, its an economic system. There is not one Capitalist state on earth. There are unfortunately Socialist states though. Capitalism is an economic system not to be confused with the social or governing system. Thankfully, our system in the US is a federal republic which employs and encourages a capitalist economic system and not a socialist union or state.

I would never confuse it. Although you seem to be confusing socialism with a political system. It is also an economis policy at the opposite end of the spectruum from capitalism. There really aren't any socialists states. That are states that are more socialist, but none that have obtained it. And European countries also have a political system. While most of them favor parliamentarism, the political system itself could favor either socialism or capitalism. Same goes with federal republics I'm afraid.

Even within a Federal Republic, there are necessary social programs, we've already violently agreed on that. You would prefer more social assistance, and I want less, that's the basic difference there. Since this is the "economics" thread and not the "political debate" thread, I'm sticking with the economic issues here. I'll be all too happy to meet you on the "Political Debate" thread and clash your Socialism against my Federal Republic ad nasea. :mrgreen:

You think that was violent? I'm trying to be nice....:lol: You catch more flies with honey than vinegar you know. Social assistance most definitely belongs in the economic thread, since it is the government messing in the economy. Even is it wasn't, stuff goes off topic all the time. I'm a mod, I promise it's okay.

In regards to your welfare point, I agree that many people would not want to fund such programs if they had a choice, you can count me amongst them. There are programs similar to the government programs in the private sector that could be increased with federal aid. And before we go down the path of "private entities will charge too much or hide dollars" I think the government does a fine job right now misplacing and losing dollars without any help from the private sector.

There are some things that the government does better than the private sector. I'm sure you'd agree, stuff like police, military, etc. I happen to believe that federal funded aid programs do a much better job than private. Do they have waste and corruption? For sure, and it should be changed. But they also have the ability to mobilize much more funds and have a degree of organization and ability to fund studies that is not seen in the private sector.

Surely you are not arguing for no aid?

Government taxes are not a form of market control. Texas simply represent the revenue earned by enterprising, capitalist and overall risk takers that produce markets, services, profits for taxing and jobs, also for taxing.

Taxes do not reflect a free market. The are the government controlling some amount of the economy. That's why most liberal economists are behind lower taxes.

I'm not surprised that several "socialist" countries have a better standard of living than the US. Most all civilized socialist states offer gold plated social services to its citizenry. But most all of those countries are having huge economic challenges keeping up with their gold standard social programs because there isn't enough wealth, jobs and taxes created by the citizenry (hello Germany, please pick up the dang white courtesy phone already). Since 1970 the US has created over 57 million jobs. Jobs that create tax revenue. Europe as a whole has a similar population to that of the US and has produced 4 million jobs in the same time period. Socialist states generally do not produce job growth (calling France and its disenfranchised 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim population, please pick up the "bleu" courtesy phone if you're not too busy burning cars and killing emergency workers).

No generalizing. :naughty There are some European economies that are doing very well. And they are the most socialist (Norway and Sweden if my memory serves).

Finally, why are you scared that I'm nice? Is it too hard to believe that a conservative, free market supporting, evil energy trading monkey with wings like me can be nice when disagreeing with others? I guess all of us GOP, upper middle class types aren't the monsters we're probably made out to be in the local coffee house scene thoughout the Denver, Colorado area .

Colorado's a red state. Although we do enact some surprisingly liberal policies (Denver just legalized pot). I've met and liked plenty of rightys. I actually get along better with them than most of my fellow liberals (which mostly has to do with the fact that I'm in college and there's so many ignorant liberals in college). Are you a social conservative too (not economics obviously...I think we both know that answer...abortion, gay marriage, etc..)?

You're just really nice. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop and you to start flaming all across the board.

 

[FireUltra 98]

My responses per each of your paragraphs Ms. Kelzie

1) I understand Euro state's politics and none of them favor the free market system like the US.

2) In the Midwest we say "we violently agree" with tongue firmly in cheek. Just our way of saying we agree (my weak attempt to be funny).

3) Yes, Police, Fire, rescue Dept's all good social programs . . . we've traveled that path together already.

4) Liberal economists? Where do these things grow?

5) How could I forget the economic and ethnically diverse states of Norway and Sweden. My apologies. These two giants, leaders of socialist life have very few citizens to manage, virtually no unemployment and are the socialist states pulling up the riff raff that is continental Europe in my comments above. Not sure about Sweden, but the state oil company of Norway (Statoil) contributes a hefty sum to the government's budget I'm sure. Which means their economy depends not only on the value of crude oil, but the value of the US dollar for which crude is valued worldwide; therefore, depending on the economic engine that is the US Free market. All kidding aside, Statoil is a giant in the global E&P scene, especially in the North Sea. Statoil isn't on the scale of BP, Exxon, Chevron or Shell, but huge in by its own right.

6) Illinois is a "blue" state. However, once you leave the limousine liberals along the gold coast, north of Chicago and the general populace of Cook County in general, the rest of Illinois is pretty much red. Da'mayor, Governor Blago (who doesn't even reside in the capital city) and Jesse, Inc. dominate our city and state politics. But in my circles, all middle class professionals (even worse - energy company managers, directors and execs -ewwwww!) are what I encouter on a daily basis. Only libs I cross paths with these days are some of my fellow Section 8 Chicago Fire soccer supporters (www.section8chicago.com) and college kids from the numerous schools around the city.

7) I will not flame anyone on these boards over politics, economics or social issues, trust me . . . or at least view my other posts as I travel along these boards. I left the "politics" board on my favorite message-board website because of the volume of negative comments and insults, which is why I sought this board to discuss politics and such. The other board is on www.bigsoccer.com Yes, a soccer board, but it has a lot of traffic.

Now here comes the other shoe . . . .

Oh yeah, I'm a social conservative. I forgot to add that in my original text.

 

[Herophant]

5) How could I forget the economic and ethnically diverse states of Norway and Sweden. My apologies. These two giants, leaders of socialist life have very few citizens to manage, virtually no unemployment and are the socialist states pulling up the riff raff that is continental Europe in my comments above. Not sure about Sweden, but the state oil company of Norway (Statoil) contributes a hefty sum to the government's budget I'm sure. Which means their economy depends not only on the value of crude oil, but the value of the US dollar for which crude is valued worldwide; therefore, depending on the economic engine that is the US Free market. All kidding aside, Statoil is a giant in the global E&P scene, especially in the North Sea. Statoil isn't on the scale of BP, Exxon, Chevron or Shell, but huge in by its own right.



.

Well only about 6% of the norwegian national budget is from oil income. The rest of the oil money go to a savings fund.... Of-course there are some tax income from oil workers but it isnt that big an industry.

Oh and with todays low dollar rate the economic engine that is the US Free marked isnt helping out much, but hey atleast someone profits from the high price of oil....

 

[FireUltra 98]

Well only about 6% of the norwegian national budget is from oil income. The rest of the oil money go to a savings fund.... Of-course there are some tax income from oil workers but it isnt that big an industry.

Oh and with todays low dollar rate the economic engine that is the US Free marked isnt helping out much, but hey atleast someone profits from the high price of oil....

Thanks Herophant.
A few questions for you if you don't mind. Where did your figure of 6% come from, what's the source (I'm interested in reading it)? What does the savings fund provide for, does that money go into some sort of general fund?

In regards to the US dollar, my point wasn't directed toward the current market's value of the US dollar, it was the support behind the value - our economic engine which is continually invested in by many global investors. I understand the value of the dollar and its affect on oil profits (I do work for an energy company), and one contributor to the higher oil prices is the relative weakness of our dollar. However, on the flip side, the low value of the dollar does help other segments of our economy allowing for more to exports.

Thanks for your reply and if you have the answers to my questions above I would be most grateful.



Thanks

 

[Herophant]

Thanks Herophant.
A few questions for you if you don't mind. Where did your figure of 6% come from, what's the source (I'm interested in reading it)? What does the savings fund provide for, does that money go into some sort of general fund?

In regards to the US dollar, my point wasn't directed toward the current market's value of the US dollar, it was the support behind the value - our economic engine which is continually invested in by many global investors. I understand the value of the dollar and its affect on oil profits (I do work for an energy company), and one contributor to the higher oil prices is the relative weakness of our dollar. However, on the flip side, the low value of the dollar does help other segments of our economy allowing for more to exports.

Thanks for your reply and if you have the answers to my questions above I would be most grateful.



Thanks

Sure thing.

I apologise it would seem I was mistaken, not 6% but 7% of the budged is funded by oil revenues.


One thing you should know about the Norwegian economy. In the 90s after paying down all our debts the government decided that all income from oil should be placed in a fund, the purpose of this fund was to create stable revenue from different investments after the oil is gone. So the savings fund named “Statens Petroleumsfond” or in English the state petroleum fund exists to fund the government – for all its purposes – after the decline of oil. However Norwegians do use some of their petroleum related income.

Income/expenses assessment for the Norwegian state in 2005
Income (not from the state petroleum fund) 863 067 mill kr
Expense 920 513 mill kr
Money from the state petroleum fund 69 634 mill kr

So 7% of Norway’s assumed 2005 expenditures originate from oil income.


Proposed budget in Norway 2006
Income (not from the state petroleum fund) 920 513 mill kr
Expenses 997 488 mill kr
Money from the state petroleum fund 76 975 mill kr

So 7% of Norway’s 2006 budget is comes from oil income.


Source (the proposed budget for 2006, sadly in Norwegian as i could not find it in english)
http://www.statsbudsjettet.dep.no/2006/dokumenter/html/gulbok/kap04.htm


As for the economic impact of the US i aint going to argue against its positive impact on the norwegian economy as a great oil exporter. However i dont belive that Norway is being "caried" in any way by more capitalist economies.

Oh and before you bring it up, there are of-course tax income from people working in the oil industry. But i dare say it isnt to big.

 

[FireUltra 98]

Thanks for your reply. The only Noweigan I know is Ronesborg FC and Odd Greenlad - soccer stuff.

So as I read your post, the money generated by Statoil is not that significant. This is where I differ with you. I think the state oil company and its various state owned subsidiaries (gas delivery, pipelines, exporting) do provide a sizable chunk of the state's income, a controlled capitalism model to support goverment programs (not all that different from Mexico, Venezuela, etc). I will not deny that Norway has quite possibly the highest quality of life due to their relatively small population (under 5 million) and comparitvely huge volume of natural resources available to them. This would be a great set up for any nation as long as both of those stats stay constant.

Obviously, we do not have that model in the US, where population is growing by leaps and our natural resources are heavily outweighed by the demand for them (exceppt for grains - corn, soy, etc- where we are a gloabl net exporter). This is not a bad thing, in fact I think it's a good thing. Our net trade deficit is a global benefit to other nations.

Since I cannot read Norweigen, I looked in the CIA World Fact Book. Not nearly as detailed I'm sure as the website you provided, but generally paints the same picture.

"The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector (through large-scale state enterprises). The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on its oil production and international oil prices, with oil and gas accounting for one-third of exports. Only Saudi Arabia and Russia export more oil than Norway. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994; nonetheless, it contributes sizably to the EU budget. The government has moved ahead with privatization. With arguably the highest quality of life worldwide, Norwegians still worry about that time in the next two decades when the oil and gas will begin to run out. Accordingly, Norway has been saving its oil-boosted budget surpluses in a Government Petroleum Fund, which is invested abroad and now is valued at more than $150 billion. After lackluster growth of 1% in 2002 and 0.5% in 2003, GDP growth picked up to 3.3% in 2004."


On a sort of related note (well I guess only to me) I was offered to look at a trading job with Statoil's US office. Never did follow up on it because it meant moving to Conn.

Thanks again Herophant for your insight!

 

[Herophant]

Thanks for your reply. The only Noweigan I know is Ronesborg FC and Odd Greenlad - soccer stuff.

So as I read your post, the money generated by Statoil is not that significant. This is where I differ with you. I think the state oil company and its various state owned subsidiaries (gas delivery, pipelines, exporting) do provide a sizable chunk of the state's income, a controlled capitalism model to support goverment programs (not all that different from Mexico, Venezuela, etc). I will not deny that Norway has quite possibly the highest quality of life due to their relatively small population (under 5 million) and comparitvely huge volume of natural resources available to them. This would be a great set up for any nation as long as both of those stats stay constant.

Obviously, we do not have that model in the US, where population is growing by leaps and our natural resources are heavily outweighed by the demand for them (exceppt for grains - corn, soy, etc- where we are a gloabl net exporter). This is not a bad thing, in fact I think it's a good thing. Our net trade deficit is a global benefit to other nations.

Since I cannot read Norweigen, I looked in the CIA World Fact Book. Not nearly as detailed I'm sure as the website you provided, but generally paints the same picture.

"The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector (through large-scale state enterprises). The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on its oil production and international oil prices, with oil and gas accounting for one-third of exports. Only Saudi Arabia and Russia export more oil than Norway. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994; nonetheless, it contributes sizably to the EU budget. The government has moved ahead with privatization. With arguably the highest quality of life worldwide, Norwegians still worry about that time in the next two decades when the oil and gas will begin to run out. Accordingly, Norway has been saving its oil-boosted budget surpluses in a Government Petroleum Fund, which is invested abroad and now is valued at more than $150 billion. After lackluster growth of 1% in 2002 and 0.5% in 2003, GDP growth picked up to 3.3% in 2004."


On a sort of related note (well I guess only to me) I was offered to look at a trading job with Statoil's US office. Never did follow up on it because it meant moving to Conn.

Thanks again Herophant for your insight!

Well I am sad to say that my insight turned out to leave much to be desired…


Just found the budget in English and it’s a bit more simplified. Turns out the total state income I was talking about was including oil revenue, just not revenue from the state petroleum fund. Furthermore the expenses included the transfer of all oil income to the state petroleum fund. In short, both my income and expenses were about 300 billion NOK(Norwegian kroner) to high. Therefore the actual use of money from the state petroleum fund thereby oil income is about 11%


So I am going to agree with you that to some extent the social programs of Norway wouldn’t be possible without the oil, as 11% of the budget comes directly from oil income, and that kind of government spending must be good for the rest of the economy in terms of increased demands for goods and services. Nevertheless I do claim that Norwegians doesn’t owe their standard of living to oil alone. If I get the time I think I will try to find out how many people are working in the oil industry.

Again I am sorry for my mistakes, it hurts my pride, but I would rather look stupid than to be a liar.

English source
http://www.statsbudsjettet.dep.no/2006/english.asp?id=76#m

 

[FireUltra 98]

No need to apologize here Herophant, I'm not pointing any fingers. We didn't flame eachother and presented our views respectfully.

I'll see you around the boards I'm sure.


Thanks!

 

[Kelzie]

My responses per each of your paragraphs Ms. Kelzie

If you wouldn't mind, would you use quotes? It's hard to see what you're refering to.

1) I understand Euro state's politics and none of them favor the free market system like the US.

I will agree with that. And yet some of their economies have the same growth rate as the US.

2) In the Midwest we say "we violently agree" with tongue firmly in cheek. Just our way of saying we agree (my weak attempt to be funny).

Huh. I've never heard of that.

3) Yes, Police, Fire, rescue Dept's all good social programs . . . we've traveled that path together already.

You didn't answer. Are you arguing for no aid to the poor?

4) Liberal economists? Where do these things grow?

I'm not sure what you mean.

5) How could I forget the economic and ethnically diverse states of Norway and Sweden. My apologies. These two giants, leaders of socialist life have very few citizens to manage, virtually no unemployment and are the socialist states pulling up the riff raff that is continental Europe in my comments above. Not sure about Sweden, but the state oil company of Norway (Statoil) contributes a hefty sum to the government's budget I'm sure. Which means their economy depends not only on the value of crude oil, but the value of the US dollar for which crude is valued worldwide; therefore, depending on the economic engine that is the US Free market. All kidding aside, Statoil is a giant in the global E&P scene, especially in the North Sea. Statoil isn't on the scale of BP, Exxon, Chevron or Shell, but huge in by its own right.

So what? That certainly doesn't mean that socialist countries don't work.

6) Illinois is a "blue" state. However, once you leave the limousine liberals along the gold coast, north of Chicago and the general populace of Cook County in general, the rest of Illinois is pretty much red. Da'mayor, Governor Blago (who doesn't even reside in the capital city) and Jesse, Inc. dominate our city and state politics. But in my circles, all middle class professionals (even worse - energy company managers, directors and execs -ewwwww!) are what I encouter on a daily basis. Only libs I cross paths with these days are some of my fellow Section 8 Chicago Fire soccer supporters (www.section8chicago.com) and college kids from the numerous schools around the city.

Fair enough. All cities are liberal. Colorado just happens to have less of an urban population I'm guessing.

7) I will not flame anyone on these boards over politics, economics or social issues, trust me . . . or at least view my other posts as I travel along these boards. I left the "politics" board on my favorite message-board website because of the volume of negative comments and insults, which is why I sought this board to discuss politics and such. The other board is on www.bigsoccer.com Yes, a soccer board, but it has a lot of traffic.

We try to keep it civil. If you see anyone acting up, there's a report post button on the bottom left of every post. It's an exclamation point in a triangle. Us mods will review and act on it.

Now here comes the other shoe . . . .

Oh yeah, I'm a social conservative. I forgot to add that in my original text.

Ah well. Nobody's perfect.

 

[FireUltra 98]

Thanks for your replies. I've been away from the boards attending some very exciting meetings (insert rolling eyes:roll: ).

You two seem to be very conscientious college students. You guys make some good points; however, I'm afraid I just don't agree with you regarding our differences. We obviously agree about police, fire, emergency care, etc. But welfare and similar social programs are a burden I would rather not have my goverment involved in. Despite some of the pitfalls noted in this thread about capitalism, I believe the free market is the single best system to create wealth, mobility and risk taking environment that creates jobs. I'm not at that concerned with social programs outside the the afore mentioned.

When you guys get out of school, you should work for the government, I know I'd be happier with it if you did. Plus, I'm not sure you could live with yourselves making money for greedy companies or in the name of wealth :lol: .

Thanks again and see around the boards I'm sure.

 

[Kelzie]

Thanks for your replies. I've been away from the boards attending some very exciting meetings (insert rolling eyes:roll: ).

You two seem to be very conscientious college students. You guys make some good points; however, I'm afraid I just don't agree with you regarding our differences. We obviously agree about police, fire, emergency care, etc. But welfare and similar social programs are a burden I would rather not have my goverment involved in. Despite some of the pitfalls noted in this thread about capitalism, I believe the free market is the single best system to create wealth, mobility and risk taking environment that creates jobs. I'm not at that concerned with social programs outside the the afore mentioned.

When you guys get out of school, you should work for the government, I know I'd be happier with it if you did. Plus, I'm not sure you could live with yourselves making money for greedy companies or in the name of wealth :lol: .

Thanks again and see around the boards I'm sure.

I have already relied on the government to feed me. Have you? I know it's very convenient to toss the "college kids" label out there, but I get very insulted when people try to say my sister and I should have starved instead of getting food stamps.

My mom works for the government. I plan on it too. Are you trying to say there is something wrong with that?

 

[FireUltra 98]

I have already relied on the government to feed me. Have you? I know it's very convenient to toss the "college kids" label out there, but I get very insulted when people try to say my sister and I should have starved instead of getting food stamps.

No. Not sure how the "college kids" label and your family situation are related.

My mom works for the government. I plan on it too. Are you trying to say there is something wrong with that?

No, though I wouldn't promote a career in government to my children. That's not to say my children wouldn't work for the government if they chose to so, I just wouldn't promote it to them.


I think you're taking my comments too personally. I called you "conscientious college students" and paid you a compliment, I did not dismiss you as "college kids". Doesn't mean we can't disagree. You obviously benefited from welfare programs, I have not. I have the opinion that welfare is not a essential social program, you do. That's where we are and what we believe, period.