Onion Eater
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 139
- Location
- Scottsdale, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Could you list the advantages (under your theory) that capitalism has over socialism?
And then the advantages socialism has over capitalism?
And what are your thoughts on a compromise, like a social democracy?
Well, what do you know about socialism?I don't know of any.
Compromise???? What's that word mean? It's not in my vocabulary - I'm sure that I've never used it.
merriam-webster said:Compromise
something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
Well, what do you know about socialism?
You sourced Wikipedia -__-
You sourced Wikipedia...
I challenge you to a Reverse Debate, with the topic "should America turn socialist".
I will argue for capitalism, and you will argue for socialism.
I'll even let you pick who goes first.
Do you accept?
I am not a communist, and i agree the Soviet Union was an evil dictatorship that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
But, i still think we should be a socialist nation, we are a republic, and that's why we can do it right.
And what are your thoughts on a compromise, like a social democracy?
And my point was that Wikipedia is an invalid source, do you disagree with that statement?
And then the advantages socialism has over capitalism?
And what are your thoughts on a compromise, like a social democracy?
As the years progressed, social reform came. We became to have minimum wage, child labor laws, unions fighting for rights. What started from a bright red system was starting to fad, and turn purple. Which, unfortunately and pathetically, has cripped prosperity.
That depends on your definition of "prosperity"
I mean if this
is "prosperity"...
If "prosperity" is dozens of people dieing in factory's every year dew to unsafe equipment...
Then yah, you could say it "crippled prosperity".
I'm not sure how to go about arguing with someone who is pro child labor...
It's not that I am pro-child labor. If you want to work, by all means, go for it.
in the early 1900s, capitalism was at it's finest - No unions, no minimum wage, there was child labor. As the years progressed, social reform came. We became to have minimum wage, child labor laws, unions fighting for rights. What started from a bright red system was starting to fad, and turn purple. Which, unfortunately and pathetically, has cripped prosperity.
Now, unless you are prepared to argue that a 12 year old child would work for 13 hours a day for below minimum wage because he wants to, then I don't really see how you have an augment.
Now, unless you are prepared to argue that a 12 year old child would work for 13 hours a day for below minimum wage because he wants to, then I don't really see how you have an augment.
Unless, of coarse, there goods were exported to another country, or they were selling a basic necessity of life. You can't exactly boycott the power company when they own the only plant within 150 miles...Even if the US removed of all child labor laws, would that necessarily result in the picture you posted above?
Now days, we have an advanced means of communication. Any firm employing children in an unfit fashion would most likely be exposed on national television/ Youtube which would result in a public relations nightmare. Very counteractive when trying to win over "buyers"...
Because employers shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of children.If they want to, why should they be stopped?
Even if the US removed of all child labor laws, would that necessarily result in the picture you posted above?
Now days, we have an advanced means of communication. Any firm employing children in an unfit fashion would most likely be exposed on national television/ Youtube which would result in a public relations nightmare. Very counteractive when trying to win over "buyers"...
Mentork was a better debater, he would have slammed you with the "what if a 12-year-old girl 'wants' to work as a prostitute?" argument.
Perhaps the free market raised the living standards of everybody enough that families no longer had to depend on their children's earnings to make ends meet.
Perhaps, due to the wonders of capitalism, the parents alone could support their families and voluntarily sent their children to schools rather than to factories.
What do you propose we do?
Because employers shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of children.
Nobody, and i do mean nobody, wants to work in unsafe conditions for 14 hours a day, they would only do so if they had to. This goes double for children, the only reason an twelve year old would work in a factory is if his mother and father couldn't support the family on there own.
Furthermore kids should be at school, where is he going to get the time to do this?
Metropolis, your argument that 12-year-olds should be allowed to work in factories "if they want to" is also all wet because they did not want to. Their parents made them work; they beat their children if they came home without a paycheck. Anyway, 12-year-olds aren't of the age of consent - if Mentork was a better debater, he would have slammed you with the "what if a 12-year-old girl 'wants' to work as a prostitute?" argument.
However, in the meantime, let's get this thread back on topic: Cutting the Gordian Knot of GE Theory.
Adherance to GE Theory practically defines what it means to be a "mainstream" economist today. I'd like to hear from some of those mainstream economists on whether or not I have actually cut the Gordian knot of GE Theory and whether or not they think it was (is) a good idea to do so.
How is small government going to help people under the poverty line learn to read?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?