Also side by side comparisons between nations dont work the way many of you seem to think they do. 
reasons that capitalism is better than socialism...
- Thread starter Blackking
- Start date
How are you defining the market? The thing is, that's kind of a rigged question, since the market as we know it is set up to promote individualism (not that it always has to be this way.) Modern free market economists are obsessed with the idea of atomistic, rational utility maximizers who think only of themselves, and furthermore, capitalism itself, as I noted in a recent thread to another Conservative poster, destroys community structures and replaces them with individual exchange value. Membership in public organizations, etc, is lower than ever in America, while more Socialist countries do not have that problem, even if they are otherwise diverse (look at Toronto, for example.) Capitalism tries to forcibly bring Social Darwinist individualism into being while claiming it is the natural state of humanity, when it isn't, really.
Still, there are ways we express altruism even now- through donations, through charity, through gifts, even to each other on an individual level. And those are just minor examples. Most true conservatives and leftists both endorse the need for community and community structures- it's only free market capitalists who don't.
Black smoke and cac jokes
Your daps are mine
Being poor in a nation that can afford a cozy safety net is better than being poor in a poor nation. The rich do pay more(as you feel they should), and the majority of people in the bottom bracket(economically) have those amenities.
What exactly do you disagree with?
What are u even talking about? The point is that capitalism doesn't provide a "cozy" safety net, they exploit the poor for economic gains. We're talking about nations that are supposed to prioritize a capitalistic state and thus does not allow any socialistic inputs such as food stamps, uni health care, medicaid, min wage etc.
Having any of the useless products the author mentioned does not create a better lifestyle. A roof, food, and a secure job should define the success of accommodating the poor, not if they have a sony TV, iPhone 5 or an empty refrigerator.
nineteeneightysix
Banned
The system that provides the people with (1) Security (2) Universal health care (3) affordable housing (4) affordable post-secondary education (5) the freedom to pursue self-actualization within the boundaries of the law, is the BEST system...
Socialist-capitalism (CANADA) is BETTER than capitalism....
Look at how well Canada survived the 2008 Economic Collapse...
True capitalism is parasitic...It is FOUNDED on extortion and exploitation...But they always want to sell you that "if you work hard then you can have all this wealth" Kool-Aid...
Really...
So, the MAJORITY of people on EARTH are no good lazy bums...?
Socialist-capitalism (CANADA) is BETTER than capitalism....
Look at how well Canada survived the 2008 Economic Collapse...
True capitalism is parasitic...It is FOUNDED on extortion and exploitation...But they always want to sell you that "if you work hard then you can have all this wealth" Kool-Aid...
Really...
So, the MAJORITY of people on EARTH are no good lazy bums...?
The has never been a time in American history when nothing was being done to offset the misfortune of those experiencing windfall losses.
This notion that if Govt. doesnt do it, it won't get done is baseless....and having a sony tv, iphone etc, doesnt increase quality of life but it does explain in part why the are where they are
priorities.
What system are you comparing it to that wasnt FOUNDED on exploitation, extortion, murder, theft, etc?
Why do people do these either or comparisons? You do know you can employ socialism in certain sectors of the economy and the free market in others? 
America is just using the worst kinds of both for the absolutely worst sectors.
America is just using the worst kinds of both for the absolutely worst sectors.
and capitalism allows this to happen. everyone is free to voluntarily give as much as the want, and American citizens give more than anyone else on the planet, despite the greedy racist narratives that are popular around here. What socialism does, is take forcibly and redistribute. I am against it morally.
Why do people do these either or comparisons? You do know you can employ socialism in certain sectors of the economy and the free market in others?
Some people are morally opposed to either side... which makes it complicated in a democratic system.
nineteeneightysix
Banned
True Communism is the IDEAL system...What system are you comparing it to that wasnt FOUNDED on exploitation, extortion, murder, theft, etc?
Take the human body for an example of a country...You have different physiological systems (jobs) for example cardiovascular, nervous, respiratory and etc...Every system does a job that helps the body remain healthy...
In a healthy body, resources are distributed to the different systems according to their needs...Your little toe doesn't get jealous because the brain gets a lot of resources at any given time...The little toe is just happy to get what it needs to be happy...
If your little toe doesn't get what it needs (because the heart decides it is not that important), the little toe is going to be malnourished...It will get a cut that wont heal, the wound will get infected, the next thing you know, your entire leg is getting amputated...If the infection makes to the blood, lymph or skeletal system, then the entire body is in jeopardy...
This system is NOT based on greed but need and equitable distribution of resources...If you are a doctor, you should be happy to be a doctor for the sake of being a doctor...The attitude of "I should get more money than I will ever need, because I went to med school and you didn't" is RIDICULOUS...
True Communism is IMPOSSIBLE because humans have emotions...
In a Capitalist system, crime is justified...So, 1% of the population is going to hold on to the countries' wealth for generation, while the rest of us just starve...?
Let us say, 3 Million Rich Americans buy ALL the land, what are the children of the remaining 297 Million Poorer Americans going to inherit...?
What will there be left to "work hard for" if the 3 Million Rich Americans are just going to keep all the wealth within their families...?
True Capitalism only makes sense, if you really DON'T GIVE A FCUK...That's why it promotes crime...
The "stack or starve" and "even if it is on your plate, I have to eat" mentality...Self-destructive...
Black smoke and cac jokes
Your daps are mine
The has never been a time in American history when nothing was being done to offset the misfortune of those experiencing windfall losses.
...and having a sony tv, iphone etc, doesnt increase quality of life but it does explain in part why the are where they are
Who's talking about offsetting anything? I provided an example of what should be the criteria for higher quality of life, that's it. I never mentioned USA since the logic doesn't apply to the current system. There are many countries out there that have a creative environment AND securing all the necessities for its' citizens.
Yes, capitalism allows a limited version of this, but only a limited version, since altruism goes far beyond individuals giving to charity. Free marketers don't have any robust or sustainable vision of community whatsoever, which is bad for any civilization in the long term, and terrible for the disadvantaged in the short term, and that's where altruism comes in. Evolutionarily, it's part of what allows us to survive.
Again you are referencing corporatism, not capitalism. Corporatism necessarily entails a state, and cannot exist in an "unfettered" environment.
In unfettered capitalism corporations don't have any special economic rights. They get no special consideration, there's no tax code to manipulate, etc. they get no special advantages. Of course, inevitably, there will be some really big economic players in any economy. But free markets lower barriers to entry, making it easier to compete as a little guy.
All arguments I have seen against this basic fact stem from the false assumptions that either A) what we have today is capitalism or B) capitalism, and corporatism are one in the same.
capitalism isn't perfect, in fact its deeply flawed... its just vastly superior to every other viable option.
The crime being "justified" stuff makes no sense at all
So you would use to force to insure this altruism?... which obviously ceases to be altruism at that point.
So you would use to force to insure this altruism?... which obviously ceases to be altruism at that point.
No, but I would stop using force to prevent it, which is how things work now, and redirect the use of "force" (State power, necessary for any functioning civilization) to prevent its continued usurpation. "Free" markets have to be engineered. Why do you think Hayek supported a brutal dictator like Pinochet? Why do you think self-professed free marketers throughout history have supported interventions to make the market more "free?"