What is your economic philosphy?

[Willoughby]

What is "slightly more socialism?"

I not sure it is really socialist just that i believe that in areas where the private sector are crap the state should take over. i have not actual problem with the state contolling areas of life as look as they do it well...

 

[LaMidRighter]

That's easy enough. Free market supply side economics. No socialism please.

 

[alphamale]

But unrestrained capitalism is a rather harsh, uncivilized and barbaric practice. It is a practice of Darwinism at it's finest. It also enables the rich, who represent the strongest members of society, to squelch and destroy the voices and aspirations of those much less fortunate than themselves. I believe in a mixed economy, at least everybody has the opportunity to better themselves. I think their are some things about the US economy that needs to be reformed.

This is pure-anti-capitalist babble. Quit the cant and start supplying some proof for your amazing statements.

 

[alphamale]

Unrestrained capitalism, just like unrestrained socailism, is a receipe for tyranny and oppression.

Sweeping condemnation of capitalism. Where's the proof?

 

[alphamale]

That is not very nice..play nicely
I think that a mixture of both is the best system, maybe with a slighty more socialism

When are you anti-capitalists going to supply some evidence? Or is that just some sort of religious faith you've picked up?

 

[ManOfTrueTruth]

Sweeping condemnation of capitalism. Where's the proof?

Rockefeller, JP Morgan and their influence of buying and owning politicans and turning them into their puppets is a good example. The Soviet Union and Stalin is another example of unrestrained socialism. In pure unrestrained capitalism, power, remains in only the hands of the richest few while everybody else has no rights or voice and are dehumanized. I think a system that has both capitalism and socialism is the moderate solution, rather than some radical solution like pure unrestrained capitalism or pure socialism.

 

[alphamale]

Rockefeller, JP Morgan and their influence of buying and owning politicans and turning them into their puppets is a good example.

You have no clue. Those people bought their infuence within in the context of the american democracy, where economic favors are bought and sold in the political process that makes it possible. REAL capitalism assumes a free society, not a democracy, where the free market reigns supreme, and their are no politicians buying and selling favors and distorting the market, imposing regulations, granting favors, launching eminent domain attacks, restricting trade, etc etc etc.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Rockefeller, JP Morgan and their influence of buying and owning politicans and turning them into their puppets is a good example.

That has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with corruption. It would be just as easy to buy off government under a socialist idealogy, as in the oil for food program, France and Germany(heavily socialist) and others were bought off by Sadam Hussein(despot).

The Soviet Union and Stalin is another example of unrestrained socialism.

This is because the only way to sell these idealogies is to eliminate choice, those who want the other option naturally cannot be allowed to exist under the circumstances.

In pure unrestrained capitalism, power, remains in only the hands of the richest few while everybody else has no rights or voice and are dehumanized.

And under socialism/communism the few are the ONLY ones with wealth and choice, in fact, the beautiful thing about capitalism is that when the government only legislates when necessary AND proper, and only taxes for essential needs more people move up, like the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, the Hiltons, et. al.

I think a system that has both capitalism and socialism is the moderate solution, rather than some radical solution like pure unrestrained capitalism or pure socialism.

It won't work, all a mixture would offer is lateral movement individually, those who have money will continue to have money, those who want to advance will be taxed back to their original starting point. How do I know this, because this is what is happening currently in the U.S.

 

[Willoughby]

The idea that unreigned capitalism does not work probably extents back to the work of Hobbes, Machevelli etc.
Hobbes has an extraordinarily reductive view of human beings, not unlike Machiavelli's—they are power hungry, acquisitive, destructive, competitive animals, restrained only by fear and desire for pleasure.
These ideas have been picked up by modern policy makers, economists, politicans etc and put together with evidence the general opinion is that its not a very nice way to live.
Of course you are looking for facts/proof but alas this evidence doesn't exsist because no one has been stupid enough to try a fully capitalist system

 

[alphamale]

The idea that unreigned capitalism does not work probably extents back to the work of Hobbes, Machevelli etc.
Hobbes has an extraordinarily reductive view of human beings, not unlike Machiavelli's—they are power hungry, acquisitive, destructive, competitive animals, restrained only by fear and desire for pleasure.

Right, and only in a capitalist system, with a clear right to one's property, are such impulses restrained. It is amusing to hear someone use human nature as an argument against capitalism/free society, when it is only in statist societies, including democracies, that society has in fact institutionalized the "legal" mechanisms (taxation, eminent domain, olympianist judiciaries, majority rule) with which their desire for power and theft may be effected.

Of course you are looking for facts/proof but alas this evidence doesn't exsist because no one has been stupid enough to try a fully capitalist system

That's right, and for the results of that failure, I refer you to any history of the last 100 years.

 

[Comrade Brian]

It would help to define the terms. For some, socialism means social support programs, for others, socialism is an economic system in which the state owns the production.

Socialism is neither.

By "socialism means social support programs", implies that it is still capitalist. "Socialism is state-owned" too, is also wrong. The only difference from that and a "capitalist" society, is that instead of a majority of private property being owned by certain individuals, it is owned by the state. It still operates under the wage-system and such and such. And as a prerequisite for socialism is the abolishment of the wage-system, therefore it is not socialism. I find the appropriate name for such statist societies to be "state-capitalism".

Socialism at the roots, is commonly-owned property.

The Soviet Union and Stalin is another example of unrestrained socialism.

Oh yes, comparing the country was never socialist. Much less during Stalin's period.

I think a system that has both capitalism and socialism

Won't work, socialism and capitalism are inherently antagonistic of each other, as I stated above one works under a wage-system, the other abolishes it. It would be hard combining that. Also another example, capitalism is essentially private-property, socialism essentially common-property.

Of course you are looking for facts/proof but alas this evidence doesn't exsist because no one has been stupid enough to try a fully capitalist system

They had been tried and failed, primarily from malcontent from workers.

 

[Billo_Really]

Get yours, Keep mine!

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'm sorry, let's just kiss your ***. America is perfect. America has no faults. America is the shining light of the universe. America does no wrong. We should not try to improve and make America better because America is already perfect.

Any faults the United States has is because of it's socialist perversion. Whenever it becomes socially acceptable to steal, things fall apart.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

the gap between rich and poor continues to widen unabated.

And I hope it never grows smaller...because the bottom end of being poor is having nothing, but the top end of being rich is infinite.

So. As long as people continue to get wealthier, so long as the standard of living in this country climbs, the pathetic gap between bottom quintile and the top quintile will always widen.

And that's the best damn thing in the world.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

This country was founded on the concept of individual freedom.

Freedom means both being able to make choices, and enjoying the consequences of them.

Socialism is the death of freedom. It takes property from people before they even earn it, and it forbids them from controlling it as they see fit.

Name any "good" you can imagine from any socialist regime, and I'll show you people being robbed.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What is "slightly more socialism?"

Slightly more pregnant...with a Down Syndrome baby.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You have no clue. Those people bought their infuence within in the context of the american democracy, where economic favors are bought and sold in the political process that makes it possible. REAL capitalism assumes a free society, not a democracy, where the free market reigns supreme, and their are no politicians buying and selling favors and distorting the market, imposing regulations, granting favors, launching eminent domain attacks, restricting trade, etc etc etc.

Very good analysis.