The thing is NB, it seems you see things only black or white.
That's because thats the way things are.
Erm... actually, I disagree too.
In something as incredibly complex as an entire economic system, there are thousands of factors, some of which are black, some of which are white.
End result? A checkerboard. Overall color? Sort of grey-ish. That doesn't mean that shades of grey aren't closer to one or the other, but you can't just make a blanket claim that all aspect of socialism are inherently bad and that all aspects of capitalism are inherently good in all circumstances, and that one or the other always works, simply because Capitalism and Socialism aren't one thing, they're entire systems with both good and bad qualities. And unless one is willing to consider the legitimate arguments FOR the other side, then how on earth can you expect to prove your point? Give ground when it's a legitimate claim. Just argue that the advantage is outweighed by something else. Comparative Advantage.
And again, I know this is aimed mostly toward the people I actually generally agree with. So sue me.
Anyway, my views on the discussion so far:
Hmmm... i will have to put my stick on that and agree with what Elf_Lvr said: the problem isn´t all about what are the system you adopt but the individuals that constitute it. Obviously capitalism stimulated the development of certain aspects and socialism others (as in any form of organisation you pick) but the essential point is the human values that creates and maintain it (generaly this values tend to be reinforced by the current system).
Education and formation of critical minds is an essential aspect of a development of a better society (in my point of view) but that´s no coincidence that governaments (here in Brazil for example) put education in the last priority, and i mean qualify education not fisical buildings that makes people reproduce what is said to them as the truth.
Which, in turn,
further contributes to the fact that, as EL described, 90% of people are the greedy, stupid, whatever, that corrupt any system.
Irresponsible and stupid? Yeah, but Congress is worse. I'm more scared of Congress in charge of AIG than the clowns that were there before.
Agreed. These are the idiots who tried to sue OPEC via the US court system. Brilliant, geniuses.
Yes I do trust governments more actually. A proper democratic government is in the employ of the people. They are elected by the people and are taken down by the people therefore they are accountable to the people for their actions. They have to stay popular to survive. I do not trust the people on Wall Street and the people who run the big banks. Your point about Greed is only partly correct as it is the greed and irresponsibility of the big banks which has put American capitalism in the mess it now finds itself in. I cannot for the life of me see why you and some others have such little faith in your elected officials and your government.
See above. "Anyone capable of getting themselves elected should, on no account, be allowed to do the job." "Those who seek power are, by definition, the ones you want to keep it from." Basically, most politicians and elected leaders are conniving [insert swear word]s. why? Because that type of person is particularly attracted to politics. Why? Power.
Sure, we elect our leaders. But that doesn't mean that there's anyone amongst the choices that we actually
like. I don't want McCain to be president. I want Obama to be President even less. And I'm not exactly thrilled about Biden or Palin, either. So who do I vote for? Not the one I want, the one I dislike least. Damage control, as it were.
Now for my little bit on the whole Capitalism vs Socialism.
Cheeze, you'd think from a lot of the pro-capitalism people that Capitalism was the natural state of society. Hahahaha... nope. Capitalism's actually pretty new, as far as world history goes.
Before Capitalism, we had Bullionism, which didn't exactly work well. (Hoard as much gold as possible. The more you have, the more you can tell other people what to do.) Feudalism actually worked really well in many respects, but there was the whole issue of Absolutism. So an egalitarian feudalism, a la medieval Scandinavia and Iceland. (Yes, I did just advocate the Vikings as a model of a good economic/political system.) worked really well until the Church (as in the Roman Catholic organization, not the Christian religion overall) got involved, Iceland got bludgeoned by Norway, and The Roman Catholics "civilized the barbarians," ie, dragged them into a different social system.
So, anyway, back to the argument, we have Imperialism (think Rome), then Feudalism, then Bullionism, then with the introduction of the Joint-Stock companies by the Dutch and the fairly late colonization of the New World by England and France, we begin to develop actual Capitalism. We've got Plantationism (Capitalism and Imperialism combined, AKA slave systems) running rampant for awhile, and more Imperialism.
So now there's a new idea. Socialism.
Yipee. It's the devil.
Seriously. I mean, I agree that capitalism is great, and is based on some wonderful values and whatnot, and that it generally works best.
That doesn't mean that you have to follow it religiously. What's so special about it other than the fact that it works with a minimal trampling of basic rights? Heck, a few modifications of Feudalism, and that would work pretty well too. Why not be an egalitarian feudal society with a fixed constitution, et cetera, like the medieval Norse, and the Anglo-Saxons? Worked pretty well for them. That's neither capitalism nor socialism.
And, I might add, Western Civ does NOT get democracy, trial by jury, or any of the rest of that happy stuff from the Greeks. Or the Romans. We got it from the freakin' Germanic/Norse civilizations. And I can prove that, if you want.
Seriously. WHY NOT?
What makes them so black and white? We're not talking mass murder, here. We're talking economic/political/social systems.
The reason WHY or WHY NOT is whether or not it works, and whether or not it tramples others' rights.
Sorry for the rant, and sorry that it tends to be aimed at the people that I actually agree with, but whatever.
And like heck the US doesn't have monopolies. Do you really think that we can create laws that outlaw them? We can try, but all that does is make things a little harder for them. Seriously. So, say Target goes out of business, and it's just Wal-Mart left. And K-Mart and a few other companies that really don't even count.
Good Heavens. Wal-Mart is a monopoly. What in blazes is the law supposed to to about that? It's not technically a monopoly, but for all intents and purposes.... So you can go try to start your own store without the East India Company swooping down on you with cannons blazing. Doesn't mean you won't be out of business within a year or two at best if you;re up against the pseudo-monopoly. You might have a few customers, but not enough to fight the sheer size of the monopoly, or to give them any competition of significance. Heck, even if you give them significant competition, it'll only be local. NO BIG-PICTURE EFFECT AT ALL.
They don't care!...okay, I gotta go. I've spent waaaaay too long on writing this. I'll come back and complain more later.
Au revoir!
Topic: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack (Read 7921 times)