Re: Socialism and Capitalism

On Jul 19, 7:00 am, Fred <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Alex Russell wrote:
> > Topaz 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.
>
> >>       Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
> >> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. 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. And they consider it good to pay
> >> the humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
>
> >>      According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
> >> will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
> >> compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
> >> the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while
paying
> >> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
> >> sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
> >> of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
> >> there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
> >> need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
> >> the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
>
> >>        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?
> >> What if there were laws that made sure working people got a
reasonable
> >> share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
>
> >>     In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
> >> all
> >> the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
> >> automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
> >> capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
> >> jobs.
>
> >>       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? If
> >> there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
> >> everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
> >> welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
> >> civilization.
>
> >>             We have many laws that  make things better for people.
> >> There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
> >> hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
> >> Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
> >> to be as  greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
> >> getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
> >> Capitalism is bad for people.
>
> >>http://www.ihr.org/
    http://www.natvan.com
>
> >>http://www.thebirdman.org
  http://www.nsm88.com/
>
> >>http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
>
> > While you have made some interesting points, capitalism does not
demand
> > that you be a greedy, uncaring dick-head. It is just that lots of
people
> > ARE greedy uncaring dick-heads and they don't need any particular
> > economic system to make them that way. Under socialism they would be
> > free-loaders.
>
>         Capitalism doesn't demand that people be that way, but it does
reward the
> practise with wealth and power.

  No more, and indeed considerably less than any other system I know.
To the extent that a system is capitalistic it is impossible to use
wealth
and power to take things away from people poorer and less powerful
than
you.  The mixed economy seems to specialise in that.

>  True, you don't have to take it, but some
> of the people out there are psychopaths and they will take it.

  And they won't  be psychopaths under other systems?

>  Those who don't take it, loose under capitalism.  It's the system that
> gave rise to the saying, "Nice guys finish last."
>
  You're simply claiming things without evidence.  In fact "nice guys
finish
last" suits interventionism far better because under it people have
things
taken away by the not-nice guys.

> > Profit is a necessity, not a noble goal. Capitalism often generates
much
> > more wealth than socialist systems which means there are more
resources
> > to help the needy.
>
>         But the needy never get them.

  Right, that's why the US has the greatest amount of money given to
charity
in the world?  That's why capitalist societies have the least poverty?

>  There are millions of homeless children
> going to bed in the streets every night.   Many of them in the U.S.

  Bull****.  There are not millions of homeless children in the US.
If there
were it would be the fault of child labor laws not capitalism.

>  Not one,...NOT ONE, of those children lives in Cuba... for instance.
>


> > You mention laws to help prevent people from getting 'ripped off'.
Many
> > of these laws wouldn't be needed if people were a little smarter
> > (actually read and understood contracts before they sign - don't just
> > trust the smiling salesman), and stood up for themselves. Lots of
people
> > are sheep. That is why they need unions to cajole them into not
> > accepting unfair working conditions.
>
>         Gandhi said the worst form of violence is poverty.  People need
to be
> organised to have any power when confronted with those who have
tremendous
> financial power.  "'Everybody for himself.' said the elephant as he
danced
> among the ducks."
>
> > Some form of capitalism (even the USA has a mixed economy) has proven
in
> > practice to work best at generating wealth, and that it why it is so
> > popular. Mixed forms are popular because of the issues you brought up.
>
>         Mixed forms are popular with people in capitalist societies in
general
> because pure capitalism has too many victims.  They need to bring in a
> little socialism to make it look human.  We are social animals.
>
> --
> Peace,
> Fred
> (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

  Has anyone ever swum to Cuba to avoid poverty?