Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Recently a class of mine had a pro/con debate on capitalism.

The con side had pleanty of grievences agianst capitalism and i must admit that they all truely exist.

some real facts
1. you cant move up in society without reaching into someone else's bag. ( you get where you are by who you know, or somehow you got blessed with some ability.
2. Insurance system in the U.S is whack
3. restrictions on true bussiness men undermine capitalism
4. the workers that actually make the product recieve very little for the products they make, it all goes to the people at the top.
Ect...

The Point is obviously they could only pick it apart. They never had any alternatives. Im tired of hearing how bad capitilism is when its the best we got, im not saying capitalism cant evolve because it has.

But if you have some amazing new form of government you've been saving for a rainy day please reveal it.
Also make suggestions on how capitalism itself can be improved.

Well, I recently had to do a sizable project on capitalism, and you're right: you can't get up without pushing someone else down. And weath concentrates at the top.

I for one, support socialism. And before anyone gets all "w00t russianz rize again!" or "b00 amerika hatrz" I want to say that I love my damn country. Socialism is a form of government in which everything is shared equally among the people. The problem? People. "No one wants to be rich, just richer than thier neighbors"

At 10/25/06 08:15 AM, Kraichev wrote: I for one, support socialism. And before anyone gets all "w00t russianz rize again!" or "b00 amerika hatrz" I want to say that I love my damn country. Socialism is a form of government in which everything is shared equally among the people. The problem? People. "No one wants to be rich, just richer than thier neighbors"

I do have some problems with that. I personally, like you, support socialism and while i do see that the problem with it stems ultimately from people there will always be a minority who are willing to rather help another than help themselves.

There will never be a perfect system, because people are greedy and will do whatever it takes to get to the top.

Although I am loathe to admit it, capitalism is not perfect (or, at least in the eyes of a poor person)

But, nothing has been proven to be more efficient or better for the people than capitalism. A socialist country cannot hope to compare to a capitalist one in economy, and more than likely standard of living.

At 10/25/06 04:03 AM, hardhat wrote: But if you have some amazing new form of government you've been saving for a rainy day please reveal it.
Also make suggestions on how capitalism itself can be improved.

Well, I don't have a new form of goverment, but capitalism has a long way to improve. I think the way to go is a social capitalism, a system where the rich pay nice taxes, so that the goverment can afford free education, health and good salaries for the middle class and the poor, who, with these new reforms, can enter the middle class.

But that's just my opinion.

The rich already pay 50% in taxes how much should they pay?

I support a system in which a democratically-elected government is in control of the means of production and decides which goods to produce. So, for example, no $500,000 sports cars are going to be produced when there are people starving because of lack of food. Also, there would be stringent maximum and minimum wages to help alleviate the severe problems resulting from a very high concentration of wealth in very few people. Wages would be determined by a non-partial formula (ie, $10000 + 100 * % of people who are able to perform your job well). Competition, which horribly mis-allocates information resources, will be replaced by a much more equitable cooperation model. I don't have enough time to expound at length upon such a model, but that's the essence of it.

At 10/25/06 03:41 PM, BornToKill wrote: Although I am loathe to admit it, capitalism is not perfect (or, at least in the eyes of a poor person)

But, nothing has been proven to be more efficient or better for the people than capitalism. A socialist country cannot hope to compare to a capitalist one in economy, and more than likely standard of living.

Though, in a capitalist country, the standard of living maybe high, but a large portion of people won't make it there. There's only a chance you'll acheive that standard of society, and make it successfully. It also seems there's nothing there for the poor in a capitalist society.

At 10/25/06 07:59 PM, Begoner wrote: I support a system in which a democratically-elected government is in control of the means of production and decides which goods to produce. So, for example, no $500,000 sports cars are going to be produced when there are people starving because of lack of food. Also, there would be stringent maximum and minimum wages to help alleviate the severe problems resulting from a very high concentration of wealth in very few people. Wages would be determined by a non-partial formula (ie, $10000 + 100 * % of people who are able to perform your job well). Competition, which horribly mis-allocates information resources, will be replaced by a much more equitable cooperation model. I don't have enough time to expound at length upon such a model, but that's the essence of it.

Your idea was tried. It didn't work, Begoner. Wise up, sir. Look at how well the countries practicing that pale in comparison to the good ol' US of A. Capitalism has proven time and time again to beat socialism.

At 10/25/06 04:03 AM, hardhat wrote: Recently a class of mine had a pro/con debate on capitalism.

The con side had pleanty of grievences agianst capitalism and i must admit that they all truely exist.

some real facts
1. you cant move up in society without reaching into someone else's bag. ( you get where you are by who you know, or somehow you got blessed with some ability.

People who say that are wrong. My dad was picking potatoes until he was 18, then he worked and went to college at the same time, became a doctor. And now his networth is over $2 million. He did it strictly himself. He didn't use any connections or outside help.

2. Insurance system in the U.S is whack

Most educated people would disagree with that. People who can afford health insurance are expected to pay for their own insurance, this means they can customize their own insurance rather than pay into a government system that DECIDES FOR THEM. This frees up money to be recirculated into the economy which grows the economy and leads to there being more tax revenues to be allocated towards health insurance for people who actually need it.

The poor people in our country can apply for medicaid if they show that they work and aren't on drugs. It's a myth that poor, disabled people can't get medical insurance. Only the people who AREN'T disabled and just choose NOT to work, or are drug addicts are rejected.

3. restrictions on true bussiness men undermine capitalism

Whoever said that just made a complete contradiction of their whole purpose. People who criticize capitalism usually are angered that businessmen AREN'T restricted...

4. the workers that actually make the product recieve very little for the products they make, it all goes to the people at the top.

Thats because the people who make the products are unskilled and uneducated. In the US you get rewarded with better salaries if you are better educated and more business-savy. This country is based on individual responsiblity, the fact that workers get paid low-wages is because they signed up for it, nobody forced them to get a low-paying job.

If someone wants to succeed they need to hold their own weight, get an education, or learn how to be a savy businessperson. Our country is based on individual responsibility, with minimum government intervention. Thats how it should be. Socialism just allows a government to restrict true freedom of their people and to make decisions for them.

Capitalism isn't perfect. But no government can be perfect and still allow its citizens to be free. People are imperfect therefore there will never be a Utopia unless it is FORCED on people or everyone in the world becomes a perfect Christ-like person with no desire for their own well-being.

Also make suggestions on how capitalism itself can be improved.

The only thing I can think of is that education needs a slight revamp. Our schools have been teaching trivial politics and nonsense rather than actually preparing students for the outside world. People aren't taught how to manage money or how to succeed in the business world, all around our country the education is over-ran by liberals who teach students to be against society and focus on how society sucks, rather than how to succeed in society.

At 10/25/06 10:48 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The only thing I can think of is that education needs a slight revamp. Our schools have been teaching trivial politics and nonsense rather than actually preparing students for the outside world. People aren't taught how to manage money or how to succeed in the business world, all around our country the education is over-ran by liberals who teach students to be against society and focus on how society sucks, rather than how to succeed in society.

Don't forget cramming a egalitarian agenda down students' throats. That bullshit just pisses me off.

The problems I see with socialism is there needs to be a large group of people willing to hold back corruption and put others before themselves. It isn't part of human nature to do that.

The nice thing about capitalism is that it works great with human nature and everyone benefits because people are self-interested. Not to mention it still partically works in corruption when in socialism corruption can seriously mess up the entire system.

At 10/25/06 04:03 AM, hardhat wrote:

People who say that are wrong. My dad was picking potatoes until he was 18, then he worked and went to college at the same time, became a doctor. And now his networth is over $2 million. He did it strictly himself. He didn't use any connections or outside help.

Your father is a Happy exception. My father, a very industrious man, and a damn hard worker, spent the first 10 years of his life out of high school trying to get into collage. He could never have enough money to support himself AND pay for school - it was even worse when he fell in love and got married. By now, he's all but given up on higher education - higher education gave up on him. And, sadly, cases like his are the rule more than the exception. I could tell you more tales, but I think you get the point.

Most educated people would disagree with that. People who can afford health insurance are expected to pay for their own insurance, this means they can customize their own insurance rather than pay into a government system that DECIDES FOR THEM. This frees up money to be recirculated into the economy which grows the economy and leads to there being more tax revenues to be allocated towards health insurance for people who actually need it.

Ok, some points of contention. Insurance isn't nearly the beast people make it out to be, and a centralized insurance has many flaws, such as being told to go to a hospital hours away for a trivial injury if you want your government to insure you. However, your main issue with the whole thing is giving up any degree of control to the government - admirable, and reprehensible, depending on the reasons. I'll have to look into what you said about the money being recirculated back to the people - it doens't make much sense, knowing our system.

The poor people in our country can apply for medicaid if they show that they work and aren't on drugs. It's a myth that poor, disabled people can't get medical insurance. Only the people who AREN'T disabled and just choose NOT to work, or are drug addicts are rejected.

False. My uncle has been refused medicaid for seemingly no reason on several occasions. He's been working at the same factory his whole life, and the only drugs in his system are a couple beers every friday. I gather that your family has a fair amount of money from your first point - have you ever had to apply for medicaid? It's a long, confusing, pile of paperwork, and you may get refused, and not even know why. And even if you get it, it's like pulling blood from a stone to get and compensation for hospital bills.

Whoever said that just made a complete contradiction of their whole purpose. People who criticize capitalism usually are angered that businessmen AREN'T restricted...

Capitalism is a businessman's government, in fact. Free entrprise - w00t!

Thats because the people who make the products are unskilled and uneducated. In the US you get rewarded with better salaries if you are better educated and more business-savy. This country is based on individual responsiblity, the fact that workers get paid low-wages is because they signed up for it, nobody forced them to get a low-paying job.

If someone wants to succeed they need to hold their own weight, get an education, or learn how to be a savy businessperson. Our country is based on individual responsibility, with minimum government intervention. Thats how it should be. Socialism just allows a government to restrict true freedom of their people and to make decisions for them.

Movie quote - "It's no concern of MINE wether your family has...[food]. Maybe you should have thought of that BEFORE you became pesants!"
You seem to have a deep seated disgust for poor people - something that is both offending and pitable. No one asks to be poor. Granted some people put themselves there. (As you said earlier, drug addicts, welfare hounds ect. ) But many are people working as hard as they can to get above in a system that keeps them from rising any higher in society. As a student with a 3.7 GPA, I was still refused to collages that students in the next county (A richer community, actually over the tracks, as it were) were regularly being accepted to with the same GPA as me, and some lower. Why? Becaise my school is crappy, and my neighborhood is a cesspool of violence and crime. Other students and I are paying the price.

It's really easy to say things like that when your family is weathy, huh? How's the view from the top?

Capitalism isn't perfect. But no government can be perfect and still allow its citizens to be free. People are imperfect therefore there will never be a Utopia unless it is FORCED on people or everyone in the world becomes a perfect Christ-like person with no desire for their own well-being.

Also make suggestions on how capitalism itself can be improved.

The only thing I can think of is that education needs a slight revamp. Our schools have been teaching trivial politics and nonsense rather than actually preparing students for the outside world. People aren't taught how to manage money or how to succeed in the business world,

Yes, what our society needs is MORE focus on money.
Bull.
History teaches us where we've been. Politics teach us where we're going. If no one bothered to teach you your rights, would you know them? Would you notice when they dissapeared? We need to teach politics, so average Joe has an opportunity know when he's getting boned by Uncle Sam.

all around our country the education is over-ran by liberals who teach students to be against society and focus on how society sucks, rather than how to succeed in society.

Comrade, this is democracy. If everyone says the system sucks, than it sucks. As the people, we have full say in the matter. It's not being un-american - quite the opposite. By speaking against the men in washington, by questioning the status quo, we are exercising our most basic right, on which this country was based - free speech. Forgive us expecting our government to serve us, as it was desiged to do, made to do, and is PAID to do! When did the American government become it's own entity?!
Simple - it did not. I'd go on, but I'm running low on my word count. I leave you with this, my friend.

Ponder the meaning of "For the People, By the people"

Trivial Politics indeed.

This is going to sound kind of cold-hearted, but some people are just going to get fucked over. Unskilled workers get it the worst because they're easily replaceable. The unskilled worker knows that there are hundreds of people who would be willing to work harder for less, which is why you're going to see farmhands and factory workers sweating bullets over the immigration situation while the doctors, lawyers, and others with degrees sitting easy.

I agree about what was said about education needing to be reformed somewhat. While history, and the arts are important, students do need to be groomed for life in a money orientated society. It wouldn't hurt for young adults to learn about saving, investing, and budgeting their money. A lack of education of the financial system is why some of the lower class workers can't exploit it. They also need to be taught about credit so they don't end up ensnared in a large amount of debt at a young age. It may seem like common sense to us, but some people spend money with their credit cards like they don't have to pay it back. Think of it like sex ed, but instead kids learn how to not get fucked financially

Then, as was also already mentioned, you have the social detritus. People who lack the desire to elevate themselves. People who don't want to work their way to the top, but are always looking for a way to get rich quick. These are people who simply don't deserve assistance from people who have worked hard for their paycheck. And even these people can recieve emergency treatment for free. A Hospital can't legally turn away a person from urgent care, regardless of their ability to pay for services.

Capitalism may not be perfect or even fair for everyone, but it is far from being as bad as some people make it out to be.

Your idea was tried. It didn't work, Begoner. Wise up, sir. Look at how well the countries practicing that pale in comparison to the good ol' US of A. Capitalism has proven time and time again to beat socialism.

My idea was never tried. Countries which practise an extremely diluted form of socialism, like Ireland, Iceland, and Sweden, are performing much better than the US, however. Capitalism has proven, time and time again, to mercilessly exploit the poor while helping the rich. Look at the disgusting situation in the US, for example -- 5% of people control 95% of the wealth. There is no such gaping chasm between the rich and the poor between countries which employ a more equitable economic model. However, even in such "liberal paradises" like Sweden, there is a large distinction between the rich and poor. That difference needs to be eroded.

Because people who are stupid ad lazy deserve to be equal to me? Lol

At 10/26/06 03:51 PM, Begoner wrote:

Your idea was tried. It didn't work, Begoner. Wise up, sir. Look at how well the countries practicing that pale in comparison to the good ol' US of A. Capitalism has proven time and time again to beat socialism.

My idea was never tried. Countries which practise an extremely diluted form of socialism, like Ireland, Iceland, and Sweden, are performing much better than the US, however. Capitalism has proven, time and time again, to mercilessly exploit the poor while helping the rich. Look at the disgusting situation in the US, for example -- 5% of people control 95% of the wealth.

Lets see a source. More widely accepted sources count it as 5% control 50% of the wealth.

There is no such gaping chasm between the rich and the poor between countries which employ a more equitable economic model. However, even in such "liberal paradises" like Sweden, there is a large distinction between the rich and poor. That difference needs to be eroded.

That sounds an awful like communism.

Lets face the facts, socialism breeds inactivity and capitalism exploits the poor. Take your pick.

At 10/26/06 03:51 PM, Begoner wrote: My idea was never tried.

Correction: your form of socialism has been tried, it just didn't become what you wanted. That should give you alittle heads up on how realistic it is.

Countries which practise an extremely diluted form of socialism, like Ireland, Iceland, and Sweden, are performing much better than the US,

Oh yeah, I guess that's why they wield as much influence, wealth, and power. Better watch out, US, or these European countries are going to knock you off your perch with their sheer furiosity.

however. Capitalism has proven, time and time again, to mercilessly exploit the poor while helping the rich.

Correction: capitalism has proven time and time again to help people become rich and not have its titty in the mouths of the poor. Infact, without this capitalism you seem to so detest the US government wouldn't have any means to finance all these social programs.

Look at the disgusting situation in the US, for example -- 5% of people control 95% of the wealth.

Actually, the top five percent don't even control fifty percent of the wealth. It helps your arguments when you don't pull statistics out your arse.

There is no such gaping chasm between the rich and the poor between countries which employ a more equitable economic model. However, even in such "liberal paradises" like Sweden, there is a large distinction between the rich and poor. That difference needs to be eroded.

Translation: people don't have a right to their wealth and should just be the government's bitch. I don't know about you, but I'm actually liberal do believe in the concept of freedom of choice.

In capitalism, there are many corporation with a monopoly on a particular market, which leads to the poor getting screwed. In socialism there's one big monopoly called the government that screws the little guy even more.

Communism- If you get money for doing nothing, why do anything?

And if its your JOB to WORK...then the government is intruding on your rights. So a police-enforced workforce is not democracy.

Capitalism- If you dont get money for not doing anything, why are you doing nothing?

You can work, get food, buy a house, raise a family. All you have to do is want to get a good education in high school, go to college if your profession requires it, and do your spiel.

Personally, I miss trade schools. They were essentially colleges for mechanics. People say that being a mechanic is a low job, but somebody has to do it. And id rather go to a guy who went to learn his trade them some illegal immagrint named Santos Dejesus who learned how to take tires off of a car when he pawned car parts in the Baja when he was 14.

Correction: your form of socialism has been tried, it just didn't become what you wanted. That should give you alittle heads up on how realistic it is.

Please give an example of a country which has implemented my economic model. The USSR comes close, but it was a totalitarian state and I am a proponent of increased democracy.

Oh yeah, I guess that's why they wield as much influence, wealth, and power. Better watch out, US, or these European countries are going to knock you off your perch with their sheer furiosity.

Not many countries spend so much on their military as the US does -- they'd prefer giving all their citizens access to an acceptable standard of life instead of spending money to kill Arabs. Also, no European countries have a population that is remotely close to that of the US -- how are they supposed to compete in absolute terms? In relative terms, however, the US has been knocked off their perch and has landed in the double-digits.

Infact, without this capitalism you seem to so detest the US government wouldn't have any means to finance all these social programs.

The strength of an economy depends on the amount of products it can manufacture -- capitalism doesn't assemble PCs, people do. A socialist can make a hamburger just as well as a capitalist can. The proceeds from the production can be used to finance social programmes.

I don't know about you, but I'm actually liberal do believe in the concept of freedom of choice.

Oh, yeah, you're "liberal" enough to believe that the poor should have the "freedom" to choose between medication and food. They have the "freedom" to decide between starving to death or dying of a disease. Well, I don't want to give them that choice -- I want to feed them and cure their affliction. If that's not liberal, so be it.

In socialism there's one big monopoly called the government that screws the little guy even more.

Except that the "little guy" has just as much power in government as the "big guy." The government is held accountable to the people -- if they are getting screwed, the government will be replaced.

At 10/27/06 03:18 PM, Begoner wrote: Please give an example of a country which has implemented my economic model. The USSR comes close, but it was a totalitarian state and I am a proponent of increased democracy.

Let's see, the USSR after Gorbachev(spelling?). Hmm, I wonder where they are today.

Not many countries spend so much on their military as the US does -- they'd prefer giving all their citizens access to an acceptable standard of life instead of spending money to kill Arabs.

The role of world police falls on us. Considering almost all countries within NATO rely on US military(with an exception of Britain and perhaps France).

Also, no European countries have a population that is remotely close to that of the US -- how are they supposed to compete in absolute terms? In relative terms, however, the US has been knocked off their perch and has landed in the double-digits.

Let's see, in land mass the US(With Alaska) are virtually the same size. Within this comparison Europe has a much larger population than the US, and yet they still lag significantly behind. Also, the US is growing because of its business-friendly idea. Manly individuals and companies in Europe are coming over to the US because of the socialist elements in their native countries; where they're tax to the teeth.

The strength of an economy depends on the amount of products it can manufacture

What a crock of shit. Whether you realize it or not, people tend to pay more for quality over quantity. For example, I can can $20 for a cheap electric razor or $200 for a steel electric one. Also, by wittling down the amount of a product already in high-demand artificially increases the demand for it. So despite what your zero-sum espousing socialist pamphlet told you, Begoner, they're many factors and strategies to economics.

-- capitalism doesn't assemble PCs, people do. A socialist can make a hamburger just as well as a capitalist can. The proceeds from the production can be used to finance social programmes.

Firstly, people don't assemble PCs: the management's machinery does. About a socialist making a hamburger, sure I can believe that, because making hamburgers is unskilled labor. Any dumbass can slap a patty on a bun; however, what socialism undermines is skilled labor because the government rewards only the status quo. No creativity is adequately as capitalism.

Why the fuck should I strive day and night to make a new innovation when I will only get to keep a small fraction of it success and the government, who did absolutely nothing to ensure my success, destribute my the rest to people who are basically just unskilled laborers and couldn't contribute anything great?

Whether you realize it or not, people are only strive because they know someday they'll be ridiculously rich. Even if you do give out some incentives to inventions, Begoner, that'll mean some people are more successful than others and may even become rich, and thus your idea for a utopia is null and void because not eveyone is equal anymore.

Oh, yeah, you're "liberal" enough to believe that the poor should have the "freedom" to choose between medication and food. They have the "freedom" to decide between starving to death or dying of a disease. Well, I don't want to give them that choice -- I want to feed them and cure their affliction. If that's not liberal, so be it.

argumentum ad consequentiam . And yesm giving people the right to choose is a liberal practice.

Except that the "little guy" has just as much power in government as the "big guy." The government is held accountable to the people -- if they are getting screwed, the government will be replaced.

Two more problems. I remember how you said you'd want to give people there due if they contribute greatly. Well, this leads to the problem that some people are going to be richer than others and will have more sway than the little guy. If you try to say "Well, I won't allow them to become that rich then." In that case they wouldn't even bother to give to their nations whatever it was if they will not be rewarded for the fruits of their labor. And then your nation falls behind other nations because these inventions were never conceived. Your nations inventionally goes under because it is unable to keep up with the change of other nations and finally, your socialist utopia is no more.

I had another point about how arcane a political system would be, but I've adequately defended my point.

democratic socialism...

Please give an example of a country which has implemented my economic model.

Sparta. State owned everything, and loaned it out to you (helots are not "slaves", they are "state property", big difference....)

Sparta's wealth was non-existent. Look at the ruins of Sparta compared to Athens. You would much rather have been an Athenian, despite the economic problems of their capitalist system......

At 10/29/06 03:15 PM, BanditByte wrote:
Firstly, people don't assemble PCs: the management's machinery does.

One point. Machinery is programmed by people. Machinery prints the chips. People assemble PCs, with clips and/or screws. Otherwise people couldn't service them, and Dell couldn't do it's custom PCs.

Sematics, I know, but there you go.

Balance is what's required. Ruthless Capitalism destroys society. Ruthless Socialism destroys your capital.

I think a system is required in which there are high taxes, but those taxes are put into providing basic needs. A free health service, including dental, disability, and eyecare. Free education for all. The wealthiest are taxed the heaviest, but they can still enjoy the fruit of their labours.
The unemployed get some welfare, but only little, yet are put on a national register of job-seekers. This system then finds them any jobs available. If there are no jobs, jobs are made (that last point may sound like the German system during pre-WWII nazi rule, but that got the autobahns built), to improve the country. These people could also get training for skilled jobs, as part of the education system.

There's my ideas. Pick it apart if you wish.

Socialism is a pathetic attempt to deny/reform human nature.

Which is likely to more productive:

1. A system that works against human nature, expecting all to do their fair share, despite the fact that all their basic needs are provided for them.

or

2. A system that works with and exploits human nature to the benefit of all, granted said benefit is not equally distributed

as Winston Churchill said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

At 10/29/06 06:32 PM, Leonardo-Da-Finchy wrote: There's my ideas. Pick it apart if you wish.

Too bad I don't feel like it.

bump

The role of world police falls on us. Considering almost all countries within NATO rely on US military(with an exception of Britain and perhaps France).

None of the countries within NATO rely on the US military. Hell, they'd be better off if the US had no military. There is no more Soviet Union to attack Europe, and there is no enemy against which NATO countries need to be protected. Also, there is no role of "world police." We have given ourselves that title by invading soveriegn countries, supposedly for the good of the world. That doesn't make it true. The real world police is the UN -- yes, it's not very effective, but at least it's not detrimental to the world as a whole like the US is.

Let's see, in land mass the US(With Alaska) are virtually the same size. Within this comparison Europe has a much larger population than the US, and yet they still lag significantly behind.

Actually, if that's the way you are going to calculate it, Europe is significantly ahead of the US. Europe, as a continent, has a GDP of $15.7 trillion dollars. The EU alone has a GDP of $13.5 trillion dollars. In comparison, the US has a GDP of $11.75 trillion dollars. Also, the US has a lower quality of life than many European countries, and that's the only real measure of the success of a country. Again, the total wealth does not matter if it is distributed extremely inequitably. For example, 1% of the world's population controls 99% of its wealth. There's a lot of total wealth there, but the bottom 99% don't have access to it so they can't benefit from it. The same principle applies on a smaller scale to the US.

What a crock of shit. Whether you realize it or not, people tend to pay more for quality over quantity.

Well, obviously, that is factored in. I'm not saying that a country which makes 100 bars of soap is economically equivalent to a country which makes 100 space shuttles. I am simply referring to the fact that a country's GDP is based on its total domestic production.

Any dumbass can slap a patty on a bun; however, what socialism undermines is skilled labor because the government rewards only the status quo. No creativity is adequately as capitalism.

I fail to see how socialism undermindes skilled labour. The government rewards people based on their success in a particular field -- if someone develops a cure for cancer and thus breaks the "status quo," that individual is certainly going to get rewarded. The quality of the work is what earns money, not the adherence to a strict set of ideas. Creativity is equally rewarded in both systems as long as it produces something worthwhile. Also, doctors are paid more than janitors, so there is obviously an incentive to seek a job as a skilled laborer.

Why the fuck should I strive day and night to make a new innovation when I will only get to keep a small fraction of it success and the government, who did absolutely nothing to ensure my success, destribute my the rest to people who are basically just unskilled laborers and couldn't contribute anything great?

Because you'll get more money than you would otherwise. Why the fuck should I strive day and night to perform my job well when I will only get to keep a small fraction of the profits my employer derives from my work? Why the hell shuold I work hard only to be exploited by my boss, who will earn money based on the quality, while I only receive a miniscule bit of the proceeds? How do you think there are so many CEOs getting so rich while the common people earn next to nothing in comparison? Does that negate the iniative to work? No, of course not. Neither will a more socialist model.

Even if you do give out some incentives to inventions, Begoner, that'll mean some people are more successful than others and may even become rich, and thus your idea for a utopia is null and void because not eveyone is equal anymore.

I don't have a grudge against rich people and I certainly don't want to make everyone equal. I simply want to give everyone a fair shot at the pie and allow people to live a comfortable life. If you assiduously apply yourself to your job and become immensely wealthy, good for you -- I certainly don't want to steal your wealth. However, I also feel that everyone should be given a more or less equal opportunity to be successful -- nobody should be subjected to under-funded inner-city schools where they have little chance to become anything but unskilled laborers.

Well, this leads to the problem that some people are going to be richer than others and will have more sway than the little guy.

What do you mean? One person, one vote. The richer people will be able to contribute more to a campaign fund than the poorer people, of course, but that won't significantly distort the will of the people. Anyway, in the US, the capitalist system so incredibly warps the will of the people that it's ridiculous -- only the rich get to compete in state-level elections. Why do you think that the majority of Americans, who would benefit from more liberal (not classically liberal, mind you) economic policies don't have a voice in government? Because no candidate wants to make life better for the common people at the expense of the rich who are contributing to their campaign funds; there's no way they'd get elected on such a platform.

At 10/29/06 06:45 PM, ironzealot wrote: Socialism is a pathetic attempt to deny/reform human nature.

You’re getting socialism and capitalism mixed up buddy.