Topic: Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here. - page 12. (Read 21360 times)

"This has already happened." This what? I already responded to your single go to "Marcora laws". This is not empirical data that Socialism will stimulate the economy. First of all because the country is not Socialist. Second, even if it was, Socialism can coast on the fruits of the previous Capitalist system for some time until it fails.

This is the lie Socialists are best at selling. This is why I said Socialists are like an 18 year old with a credit card. Sure you can live off of a credit card and not produce as much as you consume for a little while, but eventually the debt comes due and your lie collapses.

It should be simple to grasp

1. Government has to take that money from workers by force
2. Businesses are already created with that money
3. Economic activity is already stimulated because we are operating under Capitalism
4. Workers are already paid and consume more from the economy

This has already happened.  I already gave you empirical data on the success of Marcora law in Emelia-Romagna.  Yes it stimulated the economy.  Yes people became happier.  Yes that region with 30% GDP coming from worker cooperatives is more resilient during economic crashes that affect the rest of the country.  No they did not collapse into inevitable dictatorship.

It should be simple to grasp
1.government spends money
2. businesses are created with that money (buying goods and services from other business)
3. business hire workers who produce goods and services (economic activity)
4. workers are paid, taxes are paid, and those workers go and consume more from the economy

You can say whatever you like, that doesn't make it true. You don't even bother explaining how Socialism will "stimulate economic activity", you just accept it as a given and everything magically works out. Once again, more theories are useless unless you have empirical data to back up your arguments.

Once again you talk for me. Why even have a debate if you are going to just make up arguments for me yourself and argue them. I never said anything about the gold standard, you did. For about the 800th time, you are the one advocating a change, the burden of proof is on you to support your argument.

"it is unrealistic that every vacant property would be simultaneously off the market to a point where new businesses could not obtain leases."

What the fuck are you even rambling on about?

In this thread I will say that the government can spend money as long as it stimulates more economic activity and direct you to the "MMT: Modern monetary theory" thread  for a more detailed explanation and discussion about how your gold standard era understanding of money is outdated in the context of the USA. 

I am aware of hoarding and tax loopholes.  Tax loopholes should be closed.  I am also aware that although speculative investment happens, it is unrealistic that every vacant property would be simultaneously off the market to a point where new businesses could not obtain leases.   

As usual, it couldn't be that you are wrong, no I simply have a "oversimplified understanding of monetary policy". Its not that you provide little to no support for your arguments, it is just that I need to look it it from the position of your mental gymnastics to understand it.

Lets put aside over 100 years of your ideology actually resulting in the systematic removal of property rights, then redefine the laws of economics so that inflation magically now doesn't reduce buying power because "the economy is already running at full capacity" whatever the fuck that means. Your next statement is just word salad in a sad attempt again to give yourself a facade of authority by jibbering off some economic buzzwords in a nearly meaningless order that are in direct contradiction to what would happen under the inflationary solution you propose.

You then proceed to make vast baseless generalizations and postulations without referencing anything at all to back up your rambling senseless attempt at justifying this failed ideology. The existence of debt does not invalidate Capitalism or support the idea of Socialism. I also don't like corporate handouts any more than I like Socialist handouts. Just because they can get away with it does not validate your own ideology.

Creating a larger monetary base is MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN TO DECREASE BUYING POWER. This isn't something you can deconstruct your way around. Its not that big of a deal until Socialism burns up the remnants of the resources created under the previous Capitalist system, then it is a huge fucking problem. Sooner or later you run out of people to rob.





Oh he is being unrealistic? That is cute. In the real world companies holding large amounts of real estate that is not in use get tax cuts that effectively reduce their property taxes to zero. Yeah, you are right, who ever heard of speculative investment in real estate right?

How about margin call i think it's quite unique the concept of margin call, however, sorry to bother you the half of it concept is written comedy correct me if i'm wrong though, i drop a link below maybe some will watch it.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2DqFRsPrns

Unrealistic hypothetical. In the real world, large amounts of real estate sits idle.   Real estate developers don't operate businesses. Thats just not the way our specialized economy is set up.  Landlords just want reliable tenants.  They gain nothing by letting their property sit idle while they continue to pay taxes on it.  Once the cooperatives starts accumulating money, they can put profits into a fund to buy their own building. 

People aren't going to take the 5 dollar jobs.  Its an illegal wage and those businesses would fail anyway.

The "initial operating costs" include the lease on the building.   Everything is being bought.  Nothing is being stolen and I never suggested that.  Please stop trying to make this about the Soviets.  Creating money does not necessarily decrease buying power.  You seem to have an oversimplified understanding of monetary policy.  Yes if you increase money supply without increasing economic output then you decrease buying power, but in this context, that only happens once the economy is already running at full capacity. Running at full capacity means all of the economy's resources are already put to use and you have more money chasing fewer goods.   When the money is being used to put people to work and create businesses, you won't see this effect until no more resources (employees, buildings, or raw materials) are available to be purchased.   You should fear deflation just as much as inflation and having resources sit idle is not a good thing for the economy.  Also, the our purchasing power has been in steady decline for decades.  Have you never noticed the debt?  People only mention it as a doomsday scenario when we talk about using the new money to help people instead of using it to help large corporations.   Its really not that big of a deal if the economy is doing well.


Yes the reform policies I am suggesting would take place within the current system.  Thats the point. Its within reach.  Current tax code is not very cooperative friendly and actually makes them pretty much illegal in a lot of states.    Those would need to be updated as well to treat worker cooperatives as nonprofits.  There aren't many lawyers who have the training to deal with cooperative disputes either.  Very unfavorable right now yet there are still very successful worker cooperatives because the model is so superior.

Resources already exist, and they already have owners. Goods come from NATURAL RESOURCES as well as labor. You can not print resources no matter how much money you print. Also if you knew anything about economics you would know simply creating new money results in inflation by debasing its buying power. This is nothing but a form of theft from current note holders of the currency you create more of.

You claim you are for protecting people's property rights, yet you advocate for an ideology that will do so with zero explanation of how they will come into control of these resources without stealing the rights of others. Some one still owns that supermarket property before the workers magically acquire it. If you are suggesting they pay for it, then nothing in your hypothetical is prevented by the current standing system of Capitalism. Not only is Socialism not needed, it is really just what everyone else calls "Capitalism".

You don't really need a lot of government supervision. If you use a PMA (private membership association), you can do a lot without government interference.

However, Woodman's Market of Janesville and Appleton Wisconsin has been employee owned for decades. They have even expanded out of state:
We don't really need government.

I don't think we should take people's property at all.

Resources already exist.  
Goods and services come from labor.
Money is created with a key stroke.  

1. The supermarket in a community closes down
2. All workers are out of a job
3. Workers form a solid cooperative business plan
4. Government approves business plan and grants cooperative initial operating costs
5. Supermarket functions with workers sharing the small profits on top of their fair pay.

Notice the supermarket was not stolen from anyone but now the workers own it.  Steps 3-5 could be repeated for new businesses.  Steps 1-5 could be repeated when businesses a community needs close down.

Eventually you end up with an economy that addresses the needs of the community and is completely owned by workers who also live in that community.

Yes, entitled to does have a specific meaning. I didn't change anything, you invented an argument for me and I clarified my position to refute you speaking for me.
I see so, if the taking of other people's property rights is slower that makes it ok? Well that is different!

You haven't explained government financing AT ALL. You stated government will give subsidies and entitlements to groups as if those resources just appear with a pen stroke. I haven't skipped over anything. YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHERE THESE RESOURCES WILL COME FROM. Just claiming you have is not good enough. Government handouts have nothing to do with Capitalism (except that Capitalism pays for them), and just because they are beginning to be corrupted with Socialist policies is not proof they are working or a good thing.

*Entitled to* has a specific meaning. You have now changed the quote to fit what you meant which is fine, you clarified it, but don't act like I made up the original quote or you saying it was already true.

Capital can be purchased.  New capital is always purchased.  Land can be purchased.  Anything currently owned by one person can be purchased by a group of people.    Yes if you wanted to instantly transform into a socialist economy and quickly move towards communism, then the government needs to take pre-existing capital but socialists in my school of thought realize that fast transitions are not feasible. 

I already explained government financing but you skipped over it.   The government finances capitalism all of the time.  TARP, the auto bailout, and amazon is getting 2 billion dollars to build an HQ2 they were already going to build. 

Yes, I said people already have the right to work their own land and raise their own animals. Everything else is bullshit you made up to try to speak for me because the only way you can argue with me is by literally making shit up, pretending I said it, then arguing against that instead of my actual arguments.

Socialism ABSOLUTELY DOES require taking property rights by force. You claim everyone is entitled to all this capital, but you never seem to be able to explain how all this capital they are entitled to just comes into existence magically. SOCIALISM REQUIRES THE STATE TO TAKE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO GIVE IT TO OTHERS THEREFORE IS INHERENTLY TOTALITARIAN.

There is a big difference between capitalism and just being a greedy cont. About as big as a difference of being a socialist and a using motherfooker.

The system in the middle is called a working society.

1.  It was you who said this is ALREADY being achieved.  Please explain how it is being achieved.

2. Socialism doesn't require taking property rights of some to go give to others.  Some socialist systems use that means to the end of worker ownership, but the one I subscribe to only distributes new wealth to the workers who generated it.  Over time, it is the workers who accumulate wealth. 

When you have absolute beliefs about things and say something always happens, it leads you to being close minded regarding said issue.  The idea that you just happened to be born at a time where society has reached a point where everything functions optimally and cannot be improved is naive.

That pretty much sums it up. Strong people are pro individualism. Weak people demand collectivism, but still want to pretend they are strong.

They are both the same capitalism and socialism - it just depends on if your an arsehole or not. (not directed at anyone)

There are plenty of rich socialists and capitalists and plenty of poor socialists and capitalists.

Plenty of giving socialists and plenty of giving capitalists.

Plenty of selfish socialists and plenty of selfish capitalists.

I can see only one difference (in general) and its the wannabe's - wannabe capitalists struggle to be socialists or even want to even entertain the fact, because they cant be fully capitalist because they are failing at it terrible and cant believe they need help.

Oh, I see so people are entitled to land, animals, and capital now? Who's property rights do you have to violate to provide this capitol to these people by force? Don't tell me no force is involved, because if it was voluntary it would be called charity. Socialism requires taking property rights of some to give to others. This is not even debatable, it is a law of economics. Because of this Socialism will inevitably degrade into totalitarianism as the pool of people who can be robbed shrinks ever smaller until the working class begins eating itself. The only disconnect is in your brain stem where you claim you can entitle people to capital without taking rights from others.

This is far too complex of an issue for me to know which has the highest probability for ensuring the best standard of living for the greatest amount of people in the fairest way. I was thinking about it just the other day.

I would (from where i got to in my wondering) say capitalism is "better". However, if left unchecked I think both lead to a reset and chaos at some point because the majority reach a point of critical discontent in end.  

I could be wrong but I still think capitalism is the most natural human way to approach it. There is no substitute for freedom and natural input and output expectation.

The only issue is to me it "capitalism" seems a bit like monopoly. Once the winners start to emerge their domination only increases until they would own everything.

Perhaps socialism has never had an opportunity to flourish without it's core design being mutated by unavoidable human traits such as greed, fear etc. So socialism may fair better with a race that could operate happily without those traits. It is by trying to work against natural human traits (some that are net positive for communities and some negative) that I think socialism creates a less natural life for humans. So although when taken to extremes both systems fail and need reset in the end the path there is less enjoyable the socialist route for many. Not all because those that are in a position to compete least well will I think offset their lack of freedom for a potentially more positive existence in other ways. Does that mean I think socialism fits well for losers. No not at all perhaps those that are less well designed to compete are actually in some ways less developed than those that do not have the "selfish singular" traits that contribute to competing well and that have that drive for singular success. Not all very wealthy people seem that smart, nor started off wealthy, ...right time right place and luck can account for some but it's strange some of the very smartest people are also quite poor too. Their competitive nature does not seem as strong as some of the mediocre or even below standard individuals. Perhaps socialism stunts creativity though which could be huge driver for individual success?  I don't know really just working it through ...

It's seems to me humans are always going to suffer internal conflict that is insoluble to a degree. I think there could be innate drives that were more beneficial in our early evolution that will take a long time to adapt to being part of a more massive social machine. We know that co-operation is the only way forward to bigger things and security but those things that ensure great co-operation may be in conflict with more ancient hard wiring. So perhaps the more advanced we become (if being advanced is losing a lot of human emotions and traits and operating on more like complex probability of assured success models) the perhaps the balance will swing to the socialist ideology. It is strange because when I studied (briefly and with my usual inability to concentrate without going off in huge tangents) marx for a while I really liked and agreed with what he said in principle. I was explaining to some religious friends that it is possible that it was a control system to maintain the unfair status quo. It was an interesting discussion but I didn't push that theory since I was out numbered at the time.

Then again perhaps i don't exactly understand fully the concept of capitalism nor socialism and I should read up more on many many things rather than to sit there trying to fathom these things for myself. Then again did plato have the internet or bunches of smart people to ask like I have now.  When you read some of these ancient philosophers (not plato) their ideas seem quite ludicrous as much of what i say to people probably is. Still sometimes reading how things are or how smart people believe them to be can take the fun out of it.