US is now more socialist than capitalist

Mottleydude said:
DUH. There Public property and OUR income is distributed to them in a socialist manner. You can argue lame points all you want to. Both of these institutions are, in fact, socialist institutions. Just as labor unions are socialist institutions.
Click to expand...
Yea, right. We "own" the military. That's a good one.

A standing army is paid for via taxation. But that alone does not make it socialist. The salary a U.S. soldier receives is EARNED you braindead fuck. It is not part of a socialist redistribution of wealth to EARN a salary, even if it is the government who pays the salary. In fact they are horrendously underpaid considering their primary job is defending the right of submoronic imbeciles like you to spout idiotic trash.

And while labor unions have a relationship with the distribution of wealth, they are neither organized nor controlled by government. So again (not surprising) you are dead flat wrong.

Clue: calling a rock a duck will not make it quack. There is not an economist in the world that will agree the military, nor government operated school system are socialist organizations.

Are you truly this completely ignorant of basic economics, or do you just like to argue stupid stances?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Are you serious? Our military makes the world "free and democratic", meaning "open for business". And our schools train the technocrats of the corporocratic future-ocracy, and also the mindless consumer.
Click to expand...
Ahh, can I assume you are the resident conspiracy nut?

:shock: Quick, hide! The black helicopters are landing!!!
 
Good Luck said:
Yea, right. We "own" the military. That's a good one.

A standing army is paid for via taxation. But that alone does not make it socialist. The salary a U.S. soldier receives is EARNED you braindead fuck. It is not part of a socialist redistribution of wealth to EARN a salary, even if it is the government who pays the salary. In fact they are horrendously underpaid considering their primary job is defending the right of submoronic imbeciles like you to spout idiotic trash.

And while labor unions have a relationship with the distribution of wealth, they are neither organized nor controlled by government. So again (not surprising) you are dead flat wrong.

Clue: calling a rock a duck will not make it quack. There is not an economist in the world that will agree the military, nor government operated school system are socialist organizations.

Are you truly this completely ignorant of basic economics, or do you just like to argue stupid stances?
Click to expand...

So what if the US appoints all the poor in the US as "soldiers", has them run around every saturday, digging holes and filling them back in, and gives them 100K a year.

Hey, they EARNED it.
 
Watermark said:
So what if the US appoints all the poor in the US as "soldiers", has them run around every saturday, digging holes and filling them back in, and gives them 100K a year.

Hey, they EARNED it.
Click to expand...

I think that is not a fair comparison. It is clear that the military provides a service. Being a federal employee is not the same thing as receiving federal money.
 
Watermark said:
So what if the US appoints all the poor in the US as "soldiers", has them run around every saturday, digging holes and filling them back in, and gives them 100K a year.

Hey, they EARNED it.
Click to expand...
The average soldier does a hell of a lot more than dig holes to fill in. We train for war, even when there is no war. We risk our lives even in peacetime, as training for war is not the safest of occupations. Combat pilots take a heavy toll every year due to training accidents. And not every parachute opens as designed. The military does its best to make combat training as safe as possible. But unless we train at least somewhat realistically, we ain't gonna be ready when the real deal comes along. And training realistically means risk. Many die, and many more are disabled yearly, even when there is no war.

And when there is war, even an unpopular one, we go out and do the dirty work we were trained to do. And we sometimes die doing it. And we sometimes come back with legs and arms, eyes and hands maimed or missing.

And we do it to make certain the future is free so little pipsqueaks who have zero concept of duty or honor can write their blithering idiocy and pretend they have something to say.

And we most certainly are not part of a socialist organization.

Even peacetime soldiers, including reservists, deserve the respect of the public at the very least.
 
midcan5 said:
That original post made no sense, you are either very young and immature or spamming us. No offense meant but you need to do some reading if you are being serious. I hope this is not an indicator of education today.
Click to expand...

Glad to have an economic authority like yourself around. Thank you for making me completely disinterested in responding to anything you say.
 
Diuretic said:
Where to start?

The US - and forgive me for trying to tell you about your own country, I don't mean it to sound like that, you're welcome to critique mine any time you wish (but usually people can't be bothered) - has a capitalist economy.

The government programmes that Bill refers to are insurance.

If they weren't there, cushioning the effect of capitalism on the individual (not the corporations or the elites) then the people would revolt because frankly they would have nothing to lose. That would be disastrous.

As for socialism in government. There is nothing socialist about the US, well as far as I can see anyway. The closest you get is the socialisation of the effect of corporate losses. The taxpayer is currently propping up a failed economic system. The taxpayer may well save it this time but it's yet another example of why capitalism is close to collapse as a viable economic system.

The way ahead is market socialism.

Capitalism has been a dynamic force and has given humanity much benefit but you can see now that the constant cycles of boom and bust must be removed. The cycles seem to be stretching in their effect, the booms are greater and hence the busts deeper. As well, capitalism is eating the planet's resources. Look at the stupidity of growing food for use in combustion engines. We're taking one of the most basic human needs and using it to move our fat arses from A to B. When they're looking at us in a hundred years time they'll know exactly what the famous internet acronym WTF? really means.

While I don't support command economies (I've been in countries that were in the Soviet bloc when the Stalinists were in charge and trust me it's a horrible sight) because they don't work I do believe - as BAC has cogently pointed out - that a mix of socialist and capitalist approaches, usually called market socialism, will work. Laissez-faire capitalism is dying at its own hand. I would dearly like to hold the gun for it while it pulls the trigger, but I'll vote to keep it on life support while we're making transitional arrangements.
Click to expand...

The U.S. does not have a capitalist economy. It has a MIXED economy--a balance of capitalism and socialism. To suggest there is nothing socialist about the U.S. is ridiculous. I've named off at least a dozen--some more socialist than others--but socialistic programs nonetheless. And the arguments against their implementation were preceisely because they were "socialist"--god forbid we have a socialist program. Next thing you know we'd start purging political dissidents to Alaska.

You will find many economists to suggest that "laissez-faire" capitalism is a redundant term, in that pure capitalism needs no government intervention. It is individualistic based, and the collective of individuals ultimately will ensure a fair market system--not the government.

Folks, don't misunderstand my simple statement. I'm not saying we're a socialist country, or a capitalist country. Economists all agree we are a mixture. I'm simply suggesting that the balance has shifted to the more socialistic side, but while still maintaining capitalist principles.
 
Good Luck said:
You mistake regulation for control. Regulation simply places boundaries on what a business can and cannot do. Most regulations are reasonable, such as making certain that a chemical plant does not poison the environment. Minimum wage laws are a laughable boondoggle of liberals. The vast majority of jobs pay above minimum wage. Where I live the going rate for unskilled jobs (ie: fast food and the like) are already significantly higher than the still-to-come minimum wage increase, and have been so for several years. Market has determined wages and are ignoring minimum wage laws.

Meanwhile, within the boundaries set by regulation a business is free to do whatever it wants to assure maximum return on investment. Businesses compete with each other for clients and/or consumers. In a socialist or semi-socialist economy the government/people would have far more say in the operation of businesses than simply how much they pay in wages, or if they can perform dangerous activities.

As for the truly socialist aspects of our current society, they are always in trouble. Social Security and Medicare are high profile political issues because both liberals and conservatives have come to realize that they are unsustainable over the long term. Part of this is due to the significant increase in expected life span since the programs were instigated. Part is because the government has typically mismanaged the funds. If a corporation were to do with it pension funds what the government has done with SS funds, the CEO and CFO would be tossed in the pokey for a long, long time.

Similarly, safety net programs, often referred to as welfare, are often underfunded, over used, misused, defrauded, and grossly mismanaged. But that is the bane of socialism. The very concept of socialism demands a large, bloated bureaucracy run by government. Unfortunately people in government are rarely there from pure altruistic motivations. So asking them to run an altruistically conceived program results in a program filled with people whose primary concern is what they can glean out of it for themselves.

In most cases unemployment does not even meet the definition of socialist since it is in the form of free-enterprise insurance, paid for by the employer. The only socialist aspect is the government requirement that it be provided by employers. Where socialism steps in is when unemployment insurance benefits run out. At that point the government has the option of funding additional benefits. Some states do, some don't.

As for using various forms of taxation as a definition of socialism, that is simply incorrect. ALL governments need money to operate. That money comes from the public. What determines socialism or not is how the revenue is used, not the fact that the revenue is gathered.

Unfettered capitalism is, indeed, capitalism. But it is only one form of capitalism, not, as you imply, the only definition of capitalism. Regulated capitalism (as long as those regulations are reasonable, and do not perform the duty of distribution of wealth) is also capitalism. To date, the degree to which regulations and taxes result in wealth redistribution are relatively minimal. As such, we are still by far primarily a capitalist economy.
Click to expand...

Aren't regulation and control interchangeable? Don't regulations control and control is brought through regulation? Sure the majority of jobs pay over minimum wage. Granted, many states however have higher state minimum wages than the federal government, but also the amount of jobs that are now paying closer to the minimum wage is ever-increasing.

Yes, unemployment compensation is payed for by the employer--as demanded by the GOVERNMENT. Which is socialist in nature--government intervention in the means of production. The money paid in unemployment is money that could be invested elsewhere--and is prevented.

I'm not suggesting there is only one kind of capitalism. It is a system that has undergone interpretation and scrutiny. Pure capitalist, which I refer to, is without government intervention--and is, of course, utopian. But the ultimate argument against any socialistic program, is that the government shouldn't be involved--the argument for pure capitalism in which the government.....is not involved! That is why many scholars refer to laissez-faire capitalism as redundant.
 
Laissez-faire is redundant, it should be changed to baissez-nous capitalism, because that's what's happening.
 
PresidentialScholar said:
Aren't regulation and control interchangeable? Don't regulations control and control is brought through regulation? Sure the majority of jobs pay over minimum wage. Granted, many states however have higher state minimum wages than the federal government, but also the amount of jobs that are now paying closer to the minimum wage is ever-increasing.

Yes, unemployment compensation is payed for by the employer--as demanded by the GOVERNMENT. Which is socialist in nature--government intervention in the means of production. The money paid in unemployment is money that could be invested elsewhere--and is prevented.

I'm not suggesting there is only one kind of capitalism. It is a system that has undergone interpretation and scrutiny. Pure capitalist, which I refer to, is without government intervention--and is, of course, utopian. But the ultimate argument against any socialistic program, is that the government shouldn't be involved--the argument for pure capitalism in which the government.....is not involved! That is why many scholars refer to laissez-faire capitalism as redundant.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as PURE CAPITALISM. It's always inside a greater security context and set of rules created by a state or sets of states. The greatest capitalists learn to use the power of state to enhance their own business positions, we call that fascism. In a way, that's pure capitalism.
 
Watermark said:
Can't rightly say.
Click to expand...

I can.

America has morphed into a plutocracy where the will of the corporation is more important than the will of the people. The corporate interests come first. The war in Iraq is a glaring example doing what is in the interests of corporations .. because from the corporate perspective, the war on Iraq has been a TREMENDOUS success. They've made more money than any corporations in the history of Man and they raped the American taxpayer like a two-dollar whore in the process.

Most of the corporations who made off like bandits met with Dick Cheney IN PRIVATE to discuss their nefarious plans and when some demanded to know who attended these meetings and what was discussed, Cheney told America, fuck you. ... and the wimpy went away.

One day it will be widely accepted that the most prophetic movie ever made was "The Matrix" because it is exactly where Americans exist today.

As resources continue to shrink, America will become more socialist .. and that is the good news.
 
Toppy gets upset when anyone dares to question the ability of the corporations to run our government properly...
 
We are great because of our corporations not inspite of them.
even used software saleman contribute to corps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top