A Quick Lesson On Ecenomic Power.

[SirXVII]

Seeing how some idiotic kids on here get on and blather on about how Stalin is cool and Communism is great or some crock like that. I'm just going to teach you, in the best way that I can, how ecenomic governments work. Then I'll give you the pro's and con's.

1: Capitalism: Capitalism works in the way that a person strives to become rich and thus helps the nation. This is the idea that you can be proud nationally if you just work hard and keep getting money. America is quite possibly the only Capitalist country in the world.
Pros: You get vast amounts of money by expansion.
Banks fill and the economy is high.
Stock Market Booms.
Cons: The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Obvious Ressesions in the stock market.
Sometimes people get way to freakin greedy.

Capitalism was a great idea when the world was going through the Industrial Revolution to the 1945's, but has increasingly shown us how it doesn't work.

I give Capitalism a C+

2. Communism: Karl Marx was a man who looked out the window one day and saw people living under a bridge. He thought, "This is no way for a person to live."So he came up with the Communist Manifesto. It says that all people are angels, but it is possesions that corrupt us. So the best way to live in a perfect world is to get rid of possestions. Here is how this works:
1. A revolution. There must be a revolution as people rise up against their government.
2. Set up a Totaltarian government then take all of their possesions.
3. Nessiary murders. There will people who don't want to give up their possesions so kill them and take them.
4. Socialism. The government will equally disperce goods to everyone according to what they need.
5. Communism. People will one day wake up and realize how wonderful this system is and government will just wither away.

Yeah, sounds crazy doesn't it? Marx also said religion was the opiate of the masses.
Pros: Everyone is equal no matter what.
Sounds good on paper.
Cons: People are corruptable and true communism never happened.
The masses are generally opressed.

Communism gets a D-

3. Democratic Socialism
This system was set up in Europe after WWII. If was for the nations who DIDN'T want Communism and definatly didn't want Capitalism. So they came up with a system called Democratic Socialism. It basically, in my opinion, is the best system. What the government does is take a substantial amount out of a persons paycheck and provide services for people who need it like:
-Substidised housing
-Free Health Care
-Free Education (up to even college, its all payed for)

This is probably the best system out there.

Pros: Services are great.
Free Health Care.
Free Education.
Cons: Paycheck is slimmed down so much.

Democratic Socialism gets a B+.

Anyway that was a run through. Communism is the worst and Democratic Socialism is the best.

There you have it.

[troubles1]

So let us combine all three and make a good one.. You have put some thought into this so what would you belive the perfect govermant would be? I know there is no such thing as perfect but,I think if the US had free helth care ,and educaiton,and changed the way we voted to let the individual vote count instead of the way we do it now, witch is possible becuse of our tecnoligy we have. it would give us a chance to have a third party in office then that would be close.

[SirXVII]

This really doesn't have to do with voting.

Actually, the system that we have (the Electorial College) was set up at the time because people were uneducated and couldn't read. So this was set up as a fallback plan so no one in the US would elect a monarchy or dictator.

We might be a bit more educated, but I think we are quite a while away from being completely educated in politics.

[Begoner]

I think you missed the first lesson on economics -- how it's spelled.

[Cybex]

The thing that annoys me the most about socialism, is the poor people who expoit it. All those people who can get away with living in their council houses watching trisha and taking our money all day.

It's really not fair that we have to pay for people to sit on their arses while they turn up to 1 job interview a month and yell at the interviewer in order to get job seekers allowance. Anyone can find a job, mcDonalds are always looking for people.

[BeFell]

At 9/11/06 11:17 PM, SirXVII wrote: Cons: The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Actually the poor have never been better off. Most economists recognize that while the rich may get a bigger piece of the economic pie as long as the pie keeps growing everyone is better off.

Capitalism was a great idea when the world was going through the Industrial Revolution to the 1945's, but has increasingly shown us how it doesn't work.

Example?

It looks like you're learning buy maybe you should get past those 200 level Econ classes before you set out to educate the masses.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/12/06 04:24 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 9/11/06 11:17 PM, SirXVII wrote: Cons: The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Actually the poor have never been better off. Most economists recognize that while the rich may get a bigger piece of the economic pie as long as the pie keeps growing everyone is better off.

Saying things doesn't make them true. The only way that income for "average joes" has somewhat stayed the same in the post seventy or so years is because there are more wage earners to a family. More people are working two jobs, more couples both have jobs. "Better off" is relative, but I'd say working your tail off just to get by isn't "better."

Don't take this post as an endorsement of the topic-starter. Hell, I haven't even read his post in detail. I just thought I'd mention something that you must know befell, but are intentionally leaving out.

[Begoner]

Actually the poor have never been better off. Most economists recognize that while the rich may get a bigger piece of the economic pie as long as the pie keeps growing everyone is better off.

The poor are better off in socialist systems, regardless of the rate at which the pie grows. In the US, the pie keeps on growing, yet the cream filling always goes to the rich while the poor are continuously stuck in poverty. The poor are only better off than they were in past centuries due to the increased quality of life, not because of an easier economic time.

[Cybex]

At 9/12/06 04:39 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Saying things doesn't make them true. The only way that income for "average joes" has somewhat stayed the same in the post seventy or so years is because there are more wage earners to a family. More people are working two jobs, more couples both have jobs. "Better off" is relative, but I'd say working your tail off just to get by isn't "better."

I'll try not to offend anyone as i say this, but think having to work your tail off to get by is completely reasonable if you showed no sign of wanting to learn at school. Generally, if you want to learn, you can become more acedemic and in theory get a better job.

If you didn't want to learn as a child, why should you get paid just as much as the people who have been working their tails off all through childhood as well? Perhaps having to work your arse off every day should be a lesson to teach your children (as it was with my parents) that childhood education is very important and effects greatly how well off you will be in later life.

[poxpower]

At 9/11/06 11:17 PM, SirXVII wrote: Seeing how some idiotic kids on here

noooo you've found the politics forum :o

America is quite possibly the only Capitalist country in the world.

...
Yes. Of course. Makes perfect sense.

Capitalism was a great idea when the world was going through the Industrial Revolution to the 1945's, but has increasingly shown us how it doesn't work.

Capitalism was a great idea over 400 years ago...
Hell, at its base, its been an awesome idea since cells could divide.

Blah.

Its the same as always. If you're lucky and rich, you won't want to part with it. Only rich people and poor people want "communism" or other such shit, the middle-man just wants as much shit as he can get for as cheaply as he can get it.
Good example: Wal-Mart. Everyone shops at Wal-Mart. EVERYONE

[Ronald-McDonald-LoL]

lol Communism. Now i know what people mean when they say this crap

[Cybex]

At 9/12/06 04:53 PM, poxpower wrote: Its the same as always. If you're lucky and rich, you won't want to part with it. Only rich people and poor people want "communism" or other such shit, the middle-man just wants as much shit as he can get for as cheaply as he can get it.
Good example: Wal-Mart. Everyone shops at Wal-Mart. EVERYONE

I agree totally, and i think thats the way it has to be. Everyone's greedy and think about what's best for themselves. Because of this you're never going to please everyone. We might as well keep arguing and changing things for as long as the human race lives.

[SirXVII]

At 9/12/06 04:53 PM, poxpower wrote:
Its the same as always. If you're lucky and rich, you won't want to part with it. Only rich people and poor people want "communism" or other such shit, the middle-man just wants as much shit as he can get for as cheaply as he can get it.
Good example: Wal-Mart. Everyone shops at Wal-Mart. EVERYONE

Yes, Republicans get a hard-on everytime they hear Capitalism. I did forget to mention the con on Democratic Socialism that sometimes it makes people lazy. Example: France.

Yes, we do live in a world where EVERYONE wants everything as cheap as possible which is why Wal-Mart is making so much money. I think Wal-Mart is a country on its own.

[poxpower]

At 9/12/06 05:14 PM, Jesus wrote:
I agree totally, and i think thats the way it has to be. Everyone's greedy and think about what's best for themselves. Because of this you're never going to please everyone. We might as well keep arguing and changing things for as long as the human race lives.

dude I fucking love your sig haha.
That Jesus looks like its drawn by Alex Ross or something, which makes me laugh at the idea of Alex Ross drawing Jesus with beefy arms in minute detail.

At 9/12/06 05:18 PM, SirXVII wrote:

Yes, Republicans get a hard-on everytime they hear Capitalism. I did forget to mention the con on Democratic Socialism that sometimes it makes people lazy. Example: France.

Everything makes people lazy.
Tv makes people lazy, cars make people lazy, chairs make people lazy. Every invention we've ever made was to make sure we could be just a little lazier or enjoy ourselves just a little more. From the moment the first primitive human throw a rock at an antilope, we've been on the downslope of lazyness, and I'm damn happy about it.

Only an idiot would want to work hard.
Unless its for money.

Which I guess means that you're either lazy, and idiot or capitalist. That's our lot in life.

There is no "better system", there's only better people.
You want to know the "best system" ? The best system is having a good king who has good advisors who know what's best for the people.

When the FUCK is that ever going to happen? Because its not happened a single time yet in a big nation. And there's been a LOT of kings and a LOT of big nations.

[BeFell]

At 9/12/06 04:39 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 9/12/06 04:24 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 9/11/06 11:17 PM, SirXVII wrote: Cons: The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Actually the poor have never been better off. Most economists recognize that while the rich may get a bigger piece of the economic pie as long as the pie keeps growing everyone is better off.

Saying things doesn't make them true.

Fair enough, have you ever thought of applying that statement to your own reasoning.

The only way that income for "average joes" has somewhat stayed the same in the post seventy or so years is because there are more wage earners to a family. More people are working two jobs, more couples both have jobs. "Better off" is relative, but I'd say working your tail off just to get by isn't "better."

Yes indeed reading a Steinbech novel is like reading a modern account of being poor in America. Of course you have to forget things like ample food, home ownership, multiple cars per family and cable tv but other than that you can't tell the difference.

You can whine and complain about people being worse off all you want but the FACTS indicate it just isn't true. Dramatic increases in output through worker and marketplace efficiencies have created such an abundance of resources that the main concern of the average American is not dropping dead from a heart attack caused overconsumption.

You can probably point to cases where children are not getting enough to eat but I can guaranfuckingtee these cases usually have more to do with negative drug addicted parents than a hostile economy. The fact is in our current economy there is no exscuse for not having enough to eat and some kind of roof over your head, compare that to 70 years ago.

As far as your ramblings about both parents working, if I'm not mistaken there was something that occured 30 or so years ago where women Chose to enter the workplace. It would not be unreasonable for a family to survive on a single income (many do as apparent by the fact that there are more single parent households than ever before) but who really wants to give up that high defenition television, third car and vacation budget?

[Cybex]

At 9/12/06 05:27 PM, poxpower wrote: From the moment the first primitive human throw a rock at an antilope, we've been on the downslope of lazyness, and I'm damn happy about it.

Really? I see your point that the more we invent, the less jobs we have to do, but the downside of that is the more we invent, the less jobs we can do. For instance, the number of people who have had their jobs taken by machines at car manufacturors companies is very high.

Machnines are like a non-lazy version of humans and they're taking all our work. And yet we can't stop creating them. We need them to progress, but we can't have them if we want a job.

[BeFell]

At 9/13/06 02:17 AM, Jesus wrote:

At 9/12/06 05:27 PM, poxpower wrote: From the moment the first primitive human throw a rock at an antilope, we've been on the downslope of lazyness, and I'm damn happy about it.

Really? I see your point that the more we invent, the less jobs we have to do, but the downside of that is the more we invent, the less jobs we can do. For instance, the number of people who have had their jobs taken by machines at car manufacturors companies is very high.

Machnines are like a non-lazy version of humans and they're taking all our work. And yet we can't stop creating them. We need them to progress, but we can't have them if we want a job.

Have you looked at the unemployment rate lately? If your assertion is correct and machines mean less jobs shouldn't we have high unemployment?