What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

5 reasons socialism is inferior to capitalism (1 Viewer)

zed2283

Footballguy
My link

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

Saying that capitalism is better than socialism is like saying that winning a million dollars is better than being in a high impact car crash. In other words, if you have an open mind, a good grasp on human nature and economics, and a passing knowledge of world history, there's absolutely no question that capitalism is superior to socialism.

Unfortunately, this lesson has been lost on a lot of people because our school systems have become so mediocre, there are no pure capitalist and socialist systems, and there are a lot of people who promote socialism for reasons that have nothing to do with economics. Is it surprising, for example, that politicians prefer an economic system that concentrates power in their hands as opposed to a system that makes them less relevant? Would anyone be shocked to find out that there are people who like the idea of making money based on whom they know and where they put their campaign contributions as opposed to slugging it out in the free market?

So with all that in mind, it is worth explaining, once again, why capitalism is absolutely, undeniably, unquestionably superior to socialism.

1) Capitalism produces faster growth than socialism. Ever heard someone say, "A rising tide lifts all boats?" It's very true. Why do you think most poor people in this country have refrigerators, microwaves, and televisions that we think of as basic necessities even though those items are considered to be luxuries in much of the world? For all the Occupy Wall Street talk about the "1%," if you make $34,000 a year after taxes, you are part of the worldwide 1% -- and Americans make up half of the total 1%ers on the planet. You can thank the growth created by capitalism for that. Even nations like China have figured this out and have seen their economies lift off by moving towards capitalism. If China keeps at it long enough, eventually the hundreds of millions of Chinese who're still living in huts and shacks will be able to have the sort of lives and technology even the American poor take for granted.

2) Capitalism works in concert with human nature while socialism works against it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That famous quotation from Karl Marx is at the heart of communism and socialism. It runs completely contrary to human nature. As a general rule, people will work hard for themselves and their families, but it's considered an imposition so large that only God can ask them to pay other people’s bills without resentment. Put another way, the vast majority of human beings care far more about what they're going to eat for lunch today than they do about whether someone they've never met can pay his rent. (PS: And most of the people who claim to be part of that exceptional few are lying).

Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on a philosophy best described by Adam Smith.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Because capitalism works hand in hand with human nature and asks people to serve themselves as they serve others, it creates a much more productive society that gets the maximum out of its citizenry.

3) Capitalism rewards merit. Socialism rewards mediocrity. Who gets rewarded in a capitalist society? People who can produce. If you come up with a hot new product, give people a service they want, or entertain them better than they can find elsewhere, they will pay you handsomely to do it. Some people complain about the people who get rewarded in a free market. Why should Peyton Manning make so much more than a school teacher? Why should a bank CEO make so much more than a teller at the same bank? Capitalism offers a simple solution to that problem: If the market rewards NFL quarterbacks and CEOs more than teachers and tellers, you can become a quarterback or a CEO -- if you're capable. If you can't and you don't like what you get paid as a teacher or a teller, the good news is that you're free to move on to somewhere that better rewards your talents. In this fashion, capitalism encourages people to make the best use of their talents.

Conversely, socialism rewards people for failure. Can't find a job? Great, here's your welfare and your food stamps. You haven't worked in a year and a half? Fantastic, we'll keep incentivizing you not to work by extending your unemployment insurance. Are you a mediocrity who is so unskilled and unambitious that you'll stay at the lowest paying job you can find long-term instead of learning from it and moving on? No problem! We'll raise the minimum wage for you.

If you incentivize success like capitalism does, you get more growth, prosperity, and success. If you incentivize failure like socialism does, you get more sloth, poverty, and failure.

4) Capitalism is freedom while socialism is slavery. Socialists often use envy to trick people into becoming angry at successful people instead of the ones who are really taking away their freedom.

Bill Gates, the richest person on the face of the earth — what can Bill Gates make you do? That is, during the 70s and 80s, the era of busing, could he have made you send your kid to a school that you did not want him to go to? Can Bill Gates deny you the right to dig holes on your property or put up a little shed on your property? He cannot do any of those things, but a lowly town clerk can…destroy your life just by denying you a permit to add an addition to your house. Bill Gates can’t stop you from doing that. I think that politicians and those that want to control our lives get us to focus away from the power that government has over our lives and cast our attention to rich people. -- Walter Williams

For socialists to gain authority over your life, your own power has to shrink. The more the socialists take, the less of their own money the people get to spend. Capitalism reacts to the citizenry, while socialism tries to control and enslave the citizens. Capitalism will give you what you want for the right price, while socialism will give you what it thinks is best for you and tell you that you better like it!

5) The marketplace does a much better job of allocating resources than socialism's central planning. As Ronald Reagan noted, "Millions of individuals making their own decisions in the marketplace will always allocate resources better than any centralized government planning process." How could it be otherwise? Is there any one person on the planet who truly understands all the ins-and-outs of making a television, an airplane, a computer, and a vending machine? No, of course not. So, how can some bureaucrat in a central location, who may have no practical experience with business at all, make wise decisions that impact tens of millions of products and hundreds of millions of consumers? They can't. That’s why some people have to wait more than six months for hip operations under socialized medicine in Britain. It's also why people used to wait in long lines to buy poor quality toilet paper and toothpaste in the Soviet Union.

Conversely, under capitalism, the market reacts almost like a living thing and allocates resources where people want to spend their money. You may think that people aren't using their money "as they should." I might even agree with you in some cases, but the only thing the market "cares" about is finding a way to make a profit giving people what they want. Complain all you want about capitalism, but you won't be waiting for hours to get toothpaste and toilet paper while you do it.

 
You know marketplace worship should have gone out of favor right about the time it nearly cratered the world economy.

 
Capitalism is fine. Wonderful really.

Bad Capitalism is the problem with Capitalism.

Some are allowing the rich and powerful to pervert the laws to the shades of pre-american Europe.

If you didn't have that, then most "socialistic" aspects wouldn't have much appeal.

 
Capitalism is fine. Wonderful really.

Bad Capitalism is the problem with Capitalism.

Some are allowing the rich and powerful to pervert the laws to the shades of pre-american Europe.

If you didn't have that, then most "socialistic" aspects wouldn't have much appeal.
Bingo.People that don't feel like they are getting screwed don't look to other systems for change.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find humor in how Democrats will go to the ends of the earth to defend socialism against capitalism but deny to their dying breath that they are socialists or favor socialist programs and are actually against capitalism.

 
I find humor in how Democrats will go to the ends of the earth to defend socialism against capitalism but deny to their dying breath that they are socialists or favor socialist programs and are actually against capitalism.
Those are all pretty outdated and simplistic concepts, doncha think? Economic systems are complicated and ever evolving. I doubt the people who are equating one political party or another with one economic ideology are really sophisticated enough to help us move forward. So we need people like you to step up your game a little bit and pitch in.
 
I find humor in how Democrats will go to the ends of the earth to defend socialism against capitalism but deny to their dying breath that they are socialists or favor socialist programs and are actually against capitalism.
Isn't it amazing? Saying Capitalism is great but advocating for socialist programs and ideas every day in these forums.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find humor in how Democrats will go to the ends of the earth to defend socialism against capitalism but deny to their dying breath that they are socialists or favor socialist programs and are actually against capitalism.
Right, because you're either 100% socialist or 100% capitalist.
 
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." -- Winston Churchill
Here's another Brit's takehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv5t6rC6yvg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
 
Socialsim means state control of industry. How many socialists are there actually in the United States? Obama and other Dems get accused all the time of being socialists, but this is a pretty idiotic charge IMO. Big difference between socialism and liberalism.

 
Socialsim means state control of industry. How many socialists are there actually in the United States? Obama and other Dems get accused all the time of being socialists, but this is a pretty idiotic charge IMO. Big difference between socialism and liberalism.
By that definition? Plenty.There's direct and then there's indirect control.

 
Socialsim means state control of industry. How many socialists are there actually in the United States?
Suppose I suggested that the federal government should invest large amounts of money in major firms in exchange for parial ownership. In addition, the government should have the ability to dictate how those firms compensate their employees as well as other business practices. Would that qualify as socialism?
 
Socialsim means state control of industry. How many socialists are there actually in the United States?
Suppose I suggested that the federal government should invest large amounts of money in major firms in exchange for parial ownership. In addition, the government should have the ability to dictate how those firms compensate their employees as well as other business practices. Would that qualify as socialism?
I'm not gay, but dude...if I were...
 
Socialsim means state control of industry. How many socialists are there actually in the United States?
Suppose I suggested that the federal government should invest large amounts of money in major firms in exchange for parial ownership. In addition, the government should have the ability to dictate how those firms compensate their employees as well as other business practices. Would that qualify as socialism?
Why don't we skip the labels and debate the merits of your suggestions instead?However, if the crux of this thread is to debate what constitutes "socialism" in this country, then please ignore my question and carry on with the silliness.
 
A flat tax with no deductions would cure most of our political evils
It will?It'll cure deficit spending? It'll cure politicians letting themselves be bought in order to secure their office?It'll cure politicians using their political power then to divert tax money in pork barrel back to those who bought them, and to their constituents for the purposes of retaining their power?It'll stop gerrymandering and other forms of corruption designed solely to retain power?It'll stop people from doing things like allowing in our food by products previously deemed fit only for animal consumption, followed by the bureaucrats who make such rulings being given positions on the boards of companies that benefited from their decisions?It'll cure one party who wants to give so much in social aid that there is no reason for people to ever leave the government teat, and another party who are so opposed to basic decency in social programs that rather than come up with a well-constructed health plan themselves, they would rather oppose it completely until people are fed up enough that they'll accept whatever bloated monstrosity the first party comes up with?Is it going to cure the single biggest political evil we face... where our voters continue to blindly take the side of one party or the other in a way that would make a sports fan blush, and will go to any length to criticize the other party, but (unlike a sports fan) will almost never hold the party they support accountable? Instead defending any dumb, unethical, or even outright illegal action their favorite party commits, enabling such behavior rather than being the ones who most demand rational, ethical behavior from the party they support?
 
Why don't we skip the labels and debate the merits of your suggestions instead?
Why would we do that?
:fishing: and a poor job of it at that.
No really. Why would we do that?
Because labels like "socialism" detract from the real debates of whether ideas, solutions and practices find a balance of workability and freedom-enhancement. It's BGP talk, not for sane, intelligent people and you're plenty smart enough to understand. That's why I think you're just baiting me.Now, if you're referring to the ideas that Ivan tossed out there, please accept my apologies. Because of the way he worded his question at the end, I didn't even read them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because labels like "socialism" detract from the real debates of whether ideas, solutions and practices find a balance of workability and freedom-enhancement. It's BGP talk, not for sane, intelligent people and you're plenty smart enough to understand. That's why I think you're just baiting me.Now, if you're referring to the ideas that Ivan tossed out there, please accept my apologies. Because of the way he worded his question at the end, I didn't even read them.
I disagree. Using labels helps us in our discussions because it gives us verbal shorthand to get to the point.And the discussion was proceeding as such with Tim saying that we don't have socialism here because there's not government control of industry. That's not entirely true, as Ivan pointed out (albeit in a manner not of your liking) whereas there are numerous ways of controlling industry that aren't as overt as what the typical socialists of the past practiced but are no less controlling in the end and thus worthy of the label Socialist.And it's apparently rather important to the left as they deride people for using the term, at least in their view, incorrectly (see: The Tea Party).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because labels like "socialism" detract from the real debates of whether ideas, solutions and practices find a balance of workability and freedom-enhancement. It's BGP talk, not for sane, intelligent people and you're plenty smart enough to understand. That's why I think you're just baiting me.Now, if you're referring to the ideas that Ivan tossed out there, please accept my apologies. Because of the way he worded his question at the end, I didn't even read them.
I disagree. Using labels helps us in our discussions because it gives us verbal shorthand to get to the point.And the discussion was proceeding as such with Tim saying that we don't have socialism here because there's not government control of industry. That's not entirely true, as Ivan pointed out (albeit in a manner not of your liking) whereas there are numerous ways of controlling industry that aren't as overt as what the typical socialists of the past practiced but are no less controlling in the end and thus worthy of the label Socialist.And it's apparently rather important to the left as they deride people for using the term, at least in their view, incorrectly (see: The Tea Party).
This is simply more obfuscation. Arguing whether something is socialistic in nature or not should not be the basis of the debate. Because we always wind up at a dead end. I'm beginning to think that the labels, or "verbal shorthand" as you amusingly refer to them, are just a way for sports-minded guys to feel like they are rooting for their team to win.
 
Pretty sure the US Government is the worst ever, except for all the others, which are most likely even worse.

 
Socialism not working doesnt mean that capitalism does. Both are equally poor at accounting for human nature - capitalism simply celebrates the greed that socialism attempts to suppress, meaning more gets done. I am as convinced that free markets provide the most wealth as i am that community provides for the most people - doesnt mean either will occur on a consistent & continual basis. I'm quite sure there's an equilibrium between wealth & welfare, but we wont see it til our species passes its myth-bound adolescence.

 
This is simply more obfuscation. Arguing whether something is socialistic in nature or not should not be the basis of the debate. Because we always wind up at a dead end. I'm beginning to think that the labels, or "verbal shorthand" as you amusingly refer to them, are just a way for sports-minded guys to feel like they are rooting for their team to win.
That's just your opinion and it seems to be because Ivan pretty simply showed that we actually do have socialistic elements in our marketplace and that makes you uncomfortable.
 
I find humor in how Democrats will go to the ends of the earth to defend socialism against capitalism but deny to their dying breath that they are socialists or favor socialist programs and are actually against capitalism.
:tumbleweed:
:goodposting: I'm amazed how some people can take extremely complicated systems and topics and boil them down to one line of idiocity
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know marketplace worship should have gone out of favor right about the time it nearly cratered the world economy.
Capitalism actually corrects those that abuse the system and that process is still occurring. That process is slowed by interference, which is also still occurring in the name of political gain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roadkill...after thinking about it a bit (had to take a breath after your attack dog opening) I do see what you're saying. I disagree, but I understand.

 
Socialsim means state control of industry. How many socialists are there actually in the United States? Obama and other Dems get accused all the time of being socialists, but this is a pretty idiotic charge IMO. Big difference between socialism and liberalism.
Oh? What did the government just do with health care? They get there one step at a time.
 
A flat tax with no deductions would cure most of our political evils
It will?It'll cure deficit spending? It'll cure politicians letting themselves be bought in order to secure their office?It'll cure politicians using their political power then to divert tax money in pork barrel back to those who bought them, and to their constituents for the purposes of retaining their power?It'll stop gerrymandering and other forms of corruption designed solely to retain power?It'll stop people from doing things like allowing in our food by products previously deemed fit only for animal consumption, followed by the bureaucrats who make such rulings being given positions on the boards of companies that benefited from their decisions?It'll cure one party who wants to give so much in social aid that there is no reason for people to ever leave the government teat, and another party who are so opposed to basic decency in social programs that rather than come up with a well-constructed health plan themselves, they would rather oppose it completely until people are fed up enough that they'll accept whatever bloated monstrosity the first party comes up with?Is it going to cure the single biggest political evil we face... where our voters continue to blindly take the side of one party or the other in a way that would make a sports fan blush, and will go to any length to criticize the other party, but (unlike a sports fan) will almost never hold the party they support accountable? Instead defending any dumb, unethical, or even outright illegal action their favorite party commits, enabling such behavior rather than being the ones who most demand rational, ethical behavior from the party they support?
Nail, meet hammer. :goodposting:
 
Roadkill...after thinking about it a bit (had to take a breath after your attack dog opening) I do see what you're saying. I disagree, but I understand.
I must've opened up too strongly then. But I really don't like to think in terms of socialism and capitalism because the natural inference, even if it differs from person to person, is that one of them is good and one of them isn't. I'd rather approach an idea without categorizing it at a level of one of those two ideologies. The idea either works to a degree or it doesn't on its own merits.
 
Socialism not working doesnt mean that capitalism does. Both are equally poor at accounting for human nature - capitalism simply celebrates the greed that socialism attempts to suppress, meaning more gets done. I am as convinced that free markets provide the most wealth as i am that community provides for the most people - doesnt mean either will occur on a consistent & continual basis. I'm quite sure there's an equilibrium between wealth & welfare, but we wont see it til our species passes its myth-bound adolescence.
Do you have a newsletter?
 
Roadkill...after thinking about it a bit (had to take a breath after your attack dog opening) I do see what you're saying. I disagree, but I understand.
I must've opened up too strongly then. But I really don't like to think in terms of socialism and capitalism because the natural inference, even if it differs from person to person, is that one of them is good and one of them isn't. I'd rather approach an idea without categorizing it at a level of one of those two ideologies. The idea either works to a degree or it doesn't on its own merits.
That sounds reasonable. But when you take the idea one of the first things you have to ask is "has it been tried before"? And if it has been tried and shown to be a bad idea, then the new idea should be viewed with skepticism and perhaps even derision.So when you look at the hypothetical (which, of course, isn't hypothetical at all) that Ivan posited it looks and quacks like a socialistic duck, doesn't it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Socialism not working doesnt mean that capitalism does. Both are equally poor at accounting for human nature - capitalism simply celebrates the greed that socialism attempts to suppress, meaning more gets done. I am as convinced that free markets provide the most wealth as i am that community provides for the most people - doesnt mean either will occur on a consistent & continual basis. I'm quite sure there's an equilibrium between wealth & welfare, but we wont see it til our species passes its myth-bound adolescence.
Do you have a newsletter?
I'm waiting for the book but I'm afraid it might blow up my Kindle.
 
Socialism not working doesnt mean that capitalism does. Both are equally poor at accounting for human nature - capitalism simply celebrates the greed that socialism attempts to suppress, meaning more gets done. I am as convinced that free markets provide the most wealth as i am that community provides for the most people - doesnt mean either will occur on a consistent & continual basis. I'm quite sure there's an equilibrium between wealth & welfare, but we wont see it til our species passes its myth-bound adolescence.
Do you have a newsletter?
No, but i hand out shoe-insert flyers in front of a store in Jamaica Plain on Saturday mornings & sometimes i write florid descriptions of my flashbacks & political views on the back.
 
4) Capitalism is freedom while socialism is slavery. Socialists often use envy to trick people into becoming angry at successful people instead of the ones who are really taking away their freedom.

Bill Gates, the richest person on the face of the earth — what can Bill Gates make you do? That is, during the 70s and 80s, the era of busing, could he have made you send your kid to a school that you did not want him to go to? Can Bill Gates deny you the right to dig holes on your property or put up a little shed on your property? He cannot do any of those things, but a lowly town clerk can…destroy your life just by denying you a permit to add an addition to your house. Bill Gates can’t stop you from doing that. I think that politicians and those that want to control our lives get us to focus away from the power that government has over our lives and cast our attention to rich people. -- Walter Williams

For socialists to gain authority over your life, your own power has to shrink. The more the socialists take, the less of their own money the people get to spend. Capitalism reacts to the citizenry, while socialism tries to control and enslave the citizens. Capitalism will give you what you want for the right price, while socialism will give you what it thinks is best for you and tell you that you better like it!
In a purely capitalistic system Bill Gates could do all those things. Your examples are basically illustrating that Bill Gates can't easily manipulate industries controlled by the gov't - you know, Socialism.If you think a purely capitalistic system would work well you are a fool. If you think a system based purely on Socialism would work you are a bigger fool.

Socialism, as a whole, is far inferior to capitalism but let's not pretend that pure capitalism is the end all be all of systems and any restrictions on capitalism are necessarily bad.

A blending is required. What constitutes that mix is where the discussion should begin.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roadkill...after thinking about it a bit (had to take a breath after your attack dog opening) I do see what you're saying. I disagree, but I understand.
I must've opened up too strongly then. But I really don't like to think in terms of socialism and capitalism because the natural inference, even if it differs from person to person, is that one of them is good and one of them isn't. I'd rather approach an idea without categorizing it at a level of one of those two ideologies. The idea either works to a degree or it doesn't on its own merits.
That sounds reasonable. But when you take the idea one of the first things you have to ask is "has it been tried before"? And if it has been tried and shown to be a bad idea, then the new idea should be viewed with skepticism and perhaps even derision.So when you look at the hypothetical (which, of course, isn't hypothetical at all) that Ivan posited it looks and quacks like a socialistic duck, doesn't it?
Obviously, we look at history when we make a decision. Though it must be noted that past failures of ideas don't always guarantee that they won't be more appropriate for the future.I thought Ivan's questions deserved a lot of thought. But categorizing the "hypothetical" as socialism or non-socialism is pretty much the least interesting part of answering them.

 
4) Capitalism is freedom while socialism is slavery. Socialists often use envy to trick people into becoming angry at successful people instead of the ones who are really taking away their freedom.

Bill Gates, the richest person on the face of the earth — what can Bill Gates make you do? That is, during the 70s and 80s, the era of busing, could he have made you send your kid to a school that you did not want him to go to? Can Bill Gates deny you the right to dig holes on your property or put up a little shed on your property? He cannot do any of those things, but a lowly town clerk can…destroy your life just by denying you a permit to add an addition to your house. Bill Gates can’t stop you from doing that. I think that politicians and those that want to control our lives get us to focus away from the power that government has over our lives and cast our attention to rich people. -- Walter Williams

For socialists to gain authority over your life, your own power has to shrink. The more the socialists take, the less of their own money the people get to spend. Capitalism reacts to the citizenry, while socialism tries to control and enslave the citizens. Capitalism will give you what you want for the right price, while socialism will give you what it thinks is best for you and tell you that you better like it!
In a purely capitalistic that Bill Gates could do all those things. Your examples are basically illustrating that Bill Gates can't easily manipulate industries controlled by the gov't - you know, Socialism.If you think a purely capitalistic system would work well you are a fool. If you think a system based purely on Socialism would work you are a bigger fool.

Socialism, as a whole, is far inferior to capitalism but let's not pretend that pure capitalism is the end all be all of systems and any restrictions on capitalism are necessarily bad.

A blending is required. What constitutes that mix is where the discussion should begin.
Brain....can't....handle...combining....attributes....of....two....different.........things....<collapses in exhaustion>
 
This is simply more obfuscation. Arguing whether something is socialistic in nature or not should not be the basis of the debate.
In a thread about "Capitalism vs. Socialism," don't you think it's worthwhile to at least get a general understanding of what those terms mean?
 
Kind of curious, how many people think these should be rights, actual constitutionally guaranteed rights, things the government must do for each and every citizen.

Not that President Obama has advocated these things as rights, or all of them, he hasn't, but he has said that there are things that government must do, as opposed to our system of government which says there are things that federal government is limited and prohibited from doing. Now when these things becomes constitutionally mandated, which Obama has not called for btw, to me that is one definition of socialism.

Rights:

  • Right to rest and leisure, in the form of a maximum 7 hour work day, 35 hour work week
  • Right to total care in old age and disability, not just health care but all housing and treatment, including nurses
  • Right to health care
  • Right to education
  • Equality of women in all things, income, everything
  • Equality of all races, genders, orientations and nationalities, in all things, including income and protection against any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt
  • Right to access to the media, including the internet, internet and the ability to publish in any form, meaning publicly funded tv, radio, news networks, newspapers and websites and subsidized internet
  • Right to a job; the government must offer or subsidize jobs to all persons
  • Right to a living wage, sufficient to meet basic needs
  • Right to sustenance, including food and water
  • Right to shelter
  • Right to transportation
  • Right to all property to fulfill the above, all property and income is ultimately subsidized by public works
  • Right to asylum to all persons who cannot obtain any of the above in their home nation
Anybody for all these?

Any conservatives agree with any of them?

Any liberals or progressives disagree with any of them?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What we have is an all too strong alignment between government and business (especially finance) - call it what you will... statism, fascism, socialism-light. Ain't much capitalism to be had these days (except for the small business owner).

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top