Re: Socialism and Capitalism

On Jul 18, 8:05 pm, Topaz <mars1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:12:36 -0700 (PDT), jetgraphics
>
> <jetgraph...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
> >distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
> >profit.
>
> This is propaganda and spin. If that was all there was to it,
> Capitalism would be fine. But in reality capitalism is the opposition
> to anything a government might do to help its citizens.

  I simply cut and pasted my response to what you have to say below
from the last post in which you said exactly the same thing.  Do you
every have an original thought?  Do you even ever have an original way
to express your unoriginal thoughts?


>       Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.

  Nor does any social system, only people put value on things.

> Capitalism is based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that
> made potato chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y
> amount of salt, and Z number of human beings for labor. The human
> beings have no more value than the potatoes or the salt.

  So who wants to be loved by Smith's Crisps Inc.?  I am valued by
my friends and family what do I care what value my employer puts on
me other than as a means to a wage?

> And they consider it good to pay they humans as little as they
> possibly can to increase their profits.

  And the workers consider it good to have humans them pay as much
as possible to increase their income.

>      According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
> will work for the least pennies per hour.

  No they do compete because people want to sell the same thing.

> They say everyone must compete with the people in Mexico and China
> to see who will work for the fewest pennies.

  No you can compete on quality of labour instead.  In fact most
companies prefer that.

> If a company makes billions in profit while paying
> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine.

  Who would work for starvation wages?  Talk sense man the whole
point of working is not to starve.

> At least the
> sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
> of starvation that is fine too.

  And if you stop these people competing with us do you think less
will
starve?

> You can always get more people. If
> there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
> need to die off.

  No they don't.

> Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
> the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.

  Well let's see, he employed people, making them better off than
otherwise, he offered his food at prices so low those buying food
for charities could find no cheaper, he reinvested his money
generating
more jobs, income, and op****tunity for others and he never cheated or
attacked anyone.

>        The apologists for  the Scrooges correctly point out that
> people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
> Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
> start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?

  Why would someone start a business requiring billions in investment
to return a profit in a decade (if then) if the profit was only
millions?

> What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
> share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?

  No, providing that "reasonable" was defined as "no more and no less
than was agreed in a freely consented to contract".

>       Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
> people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
> when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue?

  Enough, based on history.

> If there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
> everything while most people would not pay one thin dime.

  Most people pay for charity, trust me I'm in the business.

> We have welfare so people all pay their fair share.

  And we know it's a fair share because the people with guns say so.
Whether or not you think the layabout that openly states she won't
work if given a job deserves anything you pay.

> It is part of having civilization.

>             We have many laws that  make things better for people.

  And many, many others.

> There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
> hours.

  Which is great because those who want to work more than forty
hours can't because it's too expensive, which means people like
you do the work instead, despite being not as good.

> There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.

  No law is neccesary or sufficent to do that.

> Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
> to be as  greedy as possible.

  Nobody can stop an emotion so clearly no laws are needed to allow
people to be as "greedy as possible".  Capitalism is for doing away
with
laws so that we can all act in our own interest.

> There are laws that keep people from getting ripped off when they buy
> a house.

  Yes, they are called the laws against fraud and are an essential
part
of capitalism.

> Capitalism is against that.

  Actually laws against fraud are one of the two types of laws
capitalism
is for.

> Capitalism is bad for people.

> >You
> >would deny those workers the choice of clean, safe (but low-paid)
> >factory work and push them into dirty, unsafe (and even lower-paid)
> >agricultural work.  Capitalists give them the choice.

>   No country should have capitalism. The third world may never be the
> same as Western nations. But they can improve their lot immensely. For
> one thing they could scrap the debt-money system:

  And replace it with capitalism.