Countries with socialized medicine can still be capitalist. What exactly, then, are you trying to criticize here? I now live in a capitalist country, Canada, where getting the cream is much easier than it was in a socialist country, the Czech Republic. The reason why more people in Canada might have access to medicine than in the US has nothing to do with capitalism per se, since they are both capitalist countries. Don't change the subject.I believe Canada has a single payer system and negotiated for lower drug prices with US manufacturers. I believe that Bush negotiated that US manufacturers could add the losses in profit to the drug prices to US sold drugs. Kinda robbing Peter to pay Paul. Explain to me how it is possible that Canadians pay MUCH lower drug prices for US made drugs than US citizens do in their own country of manufacture? A benign dictatorship is not necessarily a bad thing. Likewise a benign Capitalist system is a good thing. But just as a a bad dictatorship is a bad thing, so is unrestricted (greedy) Capitalism a bad thing. Se my post #15 to see how the US Capitalist system has been perverted. 1% owns 40% of the nations wealth? Something is wrong here. I believe i read somehwere that the 14 trillion dollar US debt sits in private tax free off-shore US accounts. I find that objectionable.
MikeYohe wrote [ CuthbertJ - Please tell us why a profit-centered (capitalism) versus people-centered (socialism) economic system is good.] I’m not sure if I’m interpreting this correctly. I think Capitalism is a disease so I’m not sure why I’d want to show it’s good. I’m also not saying a socialist system as practiced anywhere today is the ideal system. I think if we just define socialism as people-centered, then we should do whatever we can to move to that type of system. I think of it in really simple terms: a child with cancer, obviously no fault of their own, should have complete access to every possible treatment, cure, hospital, etc. without regard to how wealthy their parents are, and without regard to cost. In a capitalist system, this isn’t the case, because curing that child is not profitable. Same with education. When the profit motive is in place, then someone decides which cases are worth it or not based on monetary concerns. And that’s wrong.
MikeYohe wrote [ CuthbertJ - Please tell us why a profit-centered (capitalism) versus people-centered (socialism) economic system is good.] I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly. I think Capitalism is a disease so I'm not sure why I'd want to show it's good. I'm also not saying a socialist system as practiced anywhere today is the ideal system. I think if we just define socialism as people-centered, then we should do whatever we can to move to that type of system. I think of it in really simple terms: a child with cancer, obviously no fault of their own, should have complete access to every possible treatment, cure, hospital, etc. without regard to how wealthy their parents are, and without regard to cost. In a capitalist system, this isn't the case, because curing that child is not profitable. Same with education. When the profit motive is in place, then someone decides which cases are worth it or not based on monetary concerns. And that's wrong.So what you are saying is that you have a RIGHT to another persons skill, time, and learning at the expense of others? By what moral ground do you hold this true? As for the original question a free market system is the most moral because it does not rely on FORCE to make people do things. The concept that you have a right to enact force on me or my business to make it fall in line with what you wish is amoral to the extreme. If I act unethically and cause people harm with a bad product that I knew was dangerous then I am legally liable for my negligence and should be held so. But preemptive force is not right by any means.
I don't believe we need to worry about becoming a socialist country just yet. Just look at this little tidbit about the distribution of wealth in the US http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?c=reccon1:gulp: That's what I call a cold slap of reality in the face.
Add to that a few real world lessons from Naomi Klein
Naomi Klein - Charlie Rose Interview - YouTube
Naomi Klein - Charlie Rose Interview
The anatomy of the Shock Doctrine
and I wonder what does this notion of “capitalism” mean anyways?
CuthbertJ, I think what you have here is “Greed". Greed is not only found in Capitalism, but in all forms of government and big business. Just look at our congress if you want to see Greed. Or look at the management of the Socialist country of China.So what is your remedy? Either too much capitalism or too much socialism is bound to fail. What do you propose to fix the problem? Lois
So what is your remedy? Either too much capitalism or too much socialism is bound to fail. What do you propose to fix the problem?There's obviously no quick fix to the economic situation we're in but a mixed economy is the only way to reverse the trend on the video. the central government with a limited power to control unbridled profits, a minimum wage that automatically raises with the cost of living, a ceiling on campaign spending by corporate lobbyists, a graduated income tax, penalties for moving manufacturing out of the country, merit pay for workers, and stronger unions working under NLRB guidelines to name a few. But we've covered this ground many times on this forum. I do agree with Lois that too much of any economic philosophy will cause the system to ultimately fail: pure socialism as espoused by Robert Owen is unworkable as shown by his failed communities (e.g. New Harmony, Ind.) and pure lassez-faire capitalism resulted in legal slavery and the rise of aggressive labor unions leading to the bloody conflicts of the Guilded Age. There has to be a balance between the two or an eventual conflict and collapse of the system will result, and yes given the same conditions it can happen again. Cap't Jack
Countries with socialized medicine can still be capitalist. What exactly, then, are you trying to criticize here? I now live in a capitalist country, Canada, where getting the cream is much easier than it was in a socialist country, the Czech Republic. The reason why more people in Canada might have access to medicine than in the US has nothing to do with capitalism per se, since they are both capitalist countries. Don't change the subject.I don't know who you were responding to here, but socialized medicine not a matter of socialism vs. capitalism. It's possible and, in fact, preferable to have a socialist programs within a capitalist economy. Socialized medicine should be at the top of the list. LL
The topic of this thread is capitalism vs. socialism, not socialized medicine vs. single-payer health care. You should either stick to the topic or start a new conversation elsewhere.
The topic of this thread is capitalism vs. socialism, not socialized medicine vs. single-payer health care. You should either stick to the topic or start a new conversation elsewhere.Should there be a rule that topics can't evolve? But who will bell the cat? Lois
Sure it can evolve, but not through punctuated equilibrium. 
+1. Great post. I would add that a mixed economy should be an intermediate goal, and movement towards purer socialism as technology allows. I know it sounds hokey, but I think the goal should be something like portrayed in Star Trek: a society where there is no need for money or for the goal of life to be accumulating wealth. The goal is to better oneself and others through education and self-improvement.So what is your remedy? Either too much capitalism or too much socialism is bound to fail. What do you propose to fix the problem?There's obviously no quick fix to the economic situation we're in but a mixed economy is the only way to reverse the trend on the video. the central government with a limited power to control unbridled profits, a minimum wage that automatically raises with the cost of living, a ceiling on campaign spending by corporate lobbyists, a graduated income tax, penalties for moving manufacturing out of the country, merit pay for workers, and stronger unions working under NLRB guidelines to name a few. But we've covered this ground many times on this forum. I do agree with Lois that too much of any economic philosophy will cause the system to ultimately fail: pure socialism as espoused by Robert Owen is unworkable as shown by his failed communities (e.g. New Harmony, Ind.) and pure lassez-faire capitalism resulted in legal slavery and the rise of aggressive labor unions leading to the bloody conflicts of the Guilded Age. There has to be a balance between the two or an eventual conflict and collapse of the system will result, and yes given the same conditions it can happen again. Cap't Jack
MikeYohe wrote [ CuthbertJ - Please tell us why a profit-centered (capitalism) versus people-centered (socialism) economic system is good.] I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly. I think Capitalism is a disease so I'm not sure why I'd want to show it's good. I'm also not saying a socialist system as practiced anywhere today is the ideal system. I think if we just define socialism as people-centered, then we should do whatever we can to move to that type of system. I think of it in really simple terms: a child with cancer, obviously no fault of their own, should have complete access to every possible treatment, cure, hospital, etc. without regard to how wealthy their parents are, and without regard to cost. In a capitalist system, this isn't the case, because curing that child is not profitable. Same with education. When the profit motive is in place, then someone decides which cases are worth it or not based on monetary concerns. And that's wrong.So what you are saying is that you have a RIGHT to another persons skill, time, and learning at the expense of others? By what moral ground do you hold this true? As for the original question a free market system is the most moral because it does not rely on FORCE to make people do things. The concept that you have a right to enact force on me or my business to make it fall in line with what you wish is amoral to the extreme. If I act unethically and cause people harm with a bad product that I knew was dangerous then I am legally liable for my negligence and should be held so. But preemptive force is not right by any means.Oh geez an Ayn Randian Objectivist in a gorilla suit. Nice. The Free Market IS nothing more than FORCE in action...economic force doing just as much harm as real physical force. In fact I'd say the Fascists of the world have realized physical force is wasteful and that Economic Force enabled in a Free Market economy is the way to go. As for your RIGHT to another persons skill Rand regurgitation...in the real world rational people realize no one stands alone. Therefore it's in each's best interest to assist others with all their might. I donate to St Judes to help children and their families not because someone is forcing me, but because I can. In your world you'd turn that around and say "what right do those children have to my money?". Barbarian.
Oh geez an Ayn Randian Objectivist in a gorilla suit. Nice. The Free Market IS nothing more than FORCE in action...economic force doing just as much harm as real physical force. In fact I'd say the Fascists of the world have realized physical force is wasteful and that Economic Force enabled in a Free Market economy is the way to go. As for your RIGHT to another persons skill Rand regurgitation...in the real world rational people realize no one stands alone. Therefore it's in each's best interest to assist others with all their might. I donate to St Judes to help children and their families not because someone is forcing me, but because I can. In your world you'd turn that around and say "what right do those children have to my money?". Barbarian.{clapping}
MikeYohe wrote [ CuthbertJ - Please tell us why a profit-centered (capitalism) versus people-centered (socialism) economic system is good.] I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly. I think Capitalism is a disease so I'm not sure why I'd want to show it's good. I'm also not saying a socialist system as practiced anywhere today is the ideal system. I think if we just define socialism as people-centered, then we should do whatever we can to move to that type of system. I think of it in really simple terms: a child with cancer, obviously no fault of their own, should have complete access to every possible treatment, cure, hospital, etc. without regard to how wealthy their parents are, and without regard to cost. In a capitalist system, this isn't the case, because curing that child is not profitable. Same with education. When the profit motive is in place, then someone decides which cases are worth it or not based on monetary concerns. And that's wrong.So what you are saying is that you have a RIGHT to another persons skill, time, and learning at the expense of others? By what moral ground do you hold this true? As for the original question a free market system is the most moral because it does not rely on FORCE to make people do things. The concept that you have a right to enact force on me or my business to make it fall in line with what you wish is amoral to the extreme. If I act unethically and cause people harm with a bad product that I knew was dangerous then I am legally liable for my negligence and should be held so. But preemptive force is not right by any means.Oh geez an Ayn Randian Objectivist in a gorilla suit. Nice. The Free Market IS nothing more than FORCE in action...economic force doing just as much harm as real physical force. In fact I'd say the Fascists of the world have realized physical force is wasteful and that Economic Force enabled in a Free Market economy is the way to go. As for your RIGHT to another persons skill Rand regurgitation...in the real world rational people realize no one stands alone. Therefore it's in each's best interest to assist others with all their might. I donate to St Judes to help children and their families not because someone is forcing me, but because I can. In your world you'd turn that around and say "what right do those children have to my money?". Barbarian. Actually NO. Your situation fails because you are WILLINGLY donating money. Yes its right that its in our best interests to help others because we gain from it. What is not right is to tell the doctor yes you must take someone in because we say so. We need to have an exchange of value. That is what I advocate. If I am happy giving my talent with computer repair to a local ymca for free because I enjoy helping kids what I give up in time I gain from seeing my work make people happy. However if you say that I must help these kids because they need a pc to do home work no that is not right. Nor is it right to say that your need has any bearing on what I must do. Would it be nice, sure. Would it be the decent thing to do, most likely. BUT you have no right to demand anything from me unless you are willing to give something I deem of sufficient value in exchange. Its that simple.
However if you say that I must help these kids because they need a pc to do home work no that is not right. Nor is it right to say that your need has any bearing on what I must do. Would it be nice, sure. Would it be the decent thing to do, most likely. BUT you have no right to demand anything from me unless you are willing to give something I deem of sufficient value in exchange. Its that simple.That's why we need more taxation. For all of the people who don't want to help others we just levy more taxes to pay people to do it. It's a great system. It's been working for over a century now. You just don't seem to understand the fundamentals of rights. The majority makes the Rights. Might makes Rights. The way you throw the word around is like an elderly woman at the Drivers License Bureau screaming they have no rights to take her drivers license away, even though she's half blind and senile. That's the context you are using the word "rights" in. Have fun with that.
However if you say that I must help these kids because they need a pc to do home work no that is not right. Nor is it right to say that your need has any bearing on what I must do. Would it be nice, sure. Would it be the decent thing to do, most likely. BUT you have no right to demand anything from me unless you are willing to give something I deem of sufficient value in exchange. Its that simple.That's why we need more taxation. For all of the people who don't want to help others we just levy more taxes to pay people to do it. It's a great system. It's been working for over a century now. You just don't seem to understand the fundamentals of rights. The majority makes the Rights. Might makes Rights. The way you throw the word around is like an elderly woman at the Drivers License Bureau screaming they have no rights to take her drivers license away, even though she's half blind and senile. That's the context you are using the word "rights" in. Have fun with that. By your logic then anyone with a gun has the right to take what they want from you. That if I get enough people to over take a government I could treat you as my slave because I have MIGHT thereby I have the right to do that. That is theft plain and simple. Its the concept that you do not have the right to own what you make or earn and that is morally bankrupt. Your concept is that the world owes you a thing which it far from true. If we lived by your standards then black people wouldnt have gained rights and gay people wouldn't be gaining them now. No what you are proposing is the opposite of what a right is. The only real rights we have is to live by our own reason and to be free of force. Thus you are actually advocating force over reason which is something that civilized people have fought against for some time now.
By your logic then anyone with a gun has the right to take what they want from you.It may give them the ability, but not the right. We have laws against that, it's called crime. So by law, no one has a right to commit crime. You know why? The majority of people don't want crime!
That if I get enough people to over take a government I could treat you as my slave because I have MIGHT thereby I have the right to do that.Yes. Then you could establish new rights and laws.
That is theft plain and simple. Its the concept that you do not have the right to own what you make or earn and that is morally bankrupt.Sure you do. You just have to pay taxes. Go to another country that doesn't have taxes if you don't like it here.
Your concept is that the world owes you a thing which it far from true.Where did I say that? Define "world"? How could a "world" owe me anything?
If we lived by your standards then black people wouldnt have gained rights and gay people wouldn't be gaining them now.Right! Yeah people's rights have steadily increased by and large, and we have and are living under the standards I mentioned. You know why? The majority of the people want it that way. They're not just my standards.
No what you are proposing is the opposite of what a right is. The only real rights we have is to live by our own reason and to be free of force. Thus you are actually advocating force over reason which is something that civilized people have fought against for some time now.I bet you that you can't go back and find a single proposal I made in this thread. See if you can find one...try to stump me. Where did I make a proposal? Meanwhile you stick with the kook squad and bellow about "The only real rights we have is to live by our own reason and to be free of force."
VYAZMA what you are saying is that the whole of the US constitution is null and void. Because guess what they whole document was written to protect the MINORITY from the MAJORITY. The tyranny of the mob is just as bad as that of a king. You see by your logic the 90% could tomorrow sentence the remaining 10% to death for no reason and this would be ok because the majority wants it. By your logic the deaths of millions at the hands of popularly elected leaders is moral because the majority wanted it.
We dont live under the mob rule that you claim. We actually were found here in the US to protect the individual NOT the majority. Funny thing the income tax was never supposed to be a lasting measure but we foolishly allowed it to happen. The income tax is nothing more then a theft of my earnings to give to pond scum that refuse for whatever reason to earn it themselves. If they cant do it, too bad, its not my issue. Your insane view that you have the right to my earnings is made even more laughable by the fact that you would use other people to do it. You have not the guts to rob a man to his face but want a goon squad to come take it. That is all the IRS and the cops that enforce their rules are. Thieves with a cloak of legitimacy. Because Id love you to give me a single logical reason that another persons need binds me to aid them in any way.
VYAZMA what you are saying is that the whole of the US constitution is null and void. Because guess what they whole document was written to protect the MINORITY from the MAJORITY. The tyranny of the mob is just as bad as that of a king. You see by your logic the 90% could tomorrow sentence the remaining 10% to death for no reason and this would be ok because the majority wants it. By your logic the deaths of millions at the hands of popularly elected leaders is moral because the majority wanted it. We dont live under the mob rule that you claim. We actually were found here in the US to protect the individual NOT the majority. Funny thing the income tax was never supposed to be a lasting measure but we foolishly allowed it to happen. The income tax is nothing more then a theft of my earnings to give to pond scum that refuse for whatever reason to earn it themselves. If they cant do it, too bad, its not my issue. Your insane view that you have the right to my earnings is made even more laughable by the fact that you would use other people to do it. You have not the guts to rob a man to his face but want a goon squad to come take it. That is all the IRS and the cops that enforce their rules are. Thieves with a cloak of legitimacy. Because Id love you to give me a single logical reason that another persons need binds me to aid them in any way.Your post here was somewhat engaging up until "pond scum". I have a right to your earnings and you have a right to mine. Aren't those 'individuals" the Founding of America was bound to protect, the pondscum you speak of? They are to me. I'm glad we are protecting those individuals from the ravages of capitalist disenfranchisement.