Which one is honestly better?. Now, i know most if not all of you have a bias on this issue but i think its wise to study the examples we have on which system is better. The systems both have major flaws ( i think we can all agree on that ) but many aspects are good. for the few who don't know much about either one ( Most people here on this website know probably more then the average college student in certain studies ) here's an example. If John gave his brother Alex money to go buy lunch for him and he came back with some money leftover, what would be fair? Socialism says that since John gave Alex that money, Alex has the right to spend it on what he thinks is good and helpful to everyone he knows. Capitalism teaches that even though John gave Alex that money, the change left over belongs to John and John has the right to say who it goes and what it is spent on and not Alex. but remember, the tricky part is who actually owns that money? technically, John gave that money to Alex expecting him to give back the change and John also expected him to acknowledge that it is John's money. There is no right or wrong on this problem, just what your brain thinks is fair. Now of course there is more to it then that, but that is the jist






SOCIALISM

Socialism stems from beliefs like Communism, Marxism, Unionism and Is almost the same as American and British Political parties such Labor, the democrats, and a few others. its main belief centers around the idea that the welfare of the Society is more important then that of the individual ( This idea of the welfare of an entire group is commonly known as Collectivism ) that idea, governs most of what Socialism is based upon. examples of this can be found everywhere in socialistic government. such as the example i gave earlier about John and Alex and the leftover change. Alex wanted to keep that money so he could use it for the good of people he knew. Thus, Alex was trying to use his brother's money for the " good " of everyone around him even if his sibling wanted to keep his money. The problem with this is what if Alex was lying? what if Alex wanted to build himself a house and use the leftover money to help fund it? the problem is there is nothing making Alex do what he said he was going to do. Also, what if John does not want his money spent on other things? what if John needs to pay for his new car. Socialism Argues that it is not Johns Money. The reason? well John did technically give the money to Alex. But John was holding Alex accountable, he thought Alex would give what was left back so John could take care of his own problems with it.





CAPITALISM

Capitalism is different from Socialism because its not its own belief system. Capitalism is just a way of running a nation or checkbook. Capitalism teaches that everyone has the right to keep there money in the John and Alex Example. " Why should John give up his money! its his money! he earned and he should chose what to do with it! ". But capitalism is not a way to generally live your life. keeping all your money, never helping others, it kinda sounds like the Christmas grinch?. Complete Capitalism also does not recognize the need and right for workers to form unions or have reasonable wages. " I am paying them what i think they should get! if they don't like it! well sucks to be them " No matter what, everyone deserves to get a certain amount of money in there jobs. It all comes down to this, who has the right to that money? John or Alex?



this is just my opinion. please discuss i would like to hear your views

Edited 1/22/2016 23:53:44

Socialism, no question.

Both are as equally bad.

I always refer to this great story/experiment to understand the inherent flaws of socialism and communism:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich; a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

It could not be any simpler than that.

There are five morals to this story:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Jai, grades is not the same as money.

With grades, there is very little between satsifactory (80%) and huge (95%+)

With money, there is HUGE AMOUNTS between satisfactory (£50,000 per year) and HUGE (MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND FUCKING MILLIONS)

It would be ridiculous to take marks off of people who are not even far off of the satisfactory lifestyle.

But doesn't it make sense to tax the people who have millions, upon millions, upon even more millions, more than the people who are barely scraping by. These people don't NEED the extra money. Poverty is a huge crisis, even in the developed countries.

I agree with Ox.

The systems both have major flaws ( i think we can all agree on that ) but many aspects are good.

Then, wouldn't the best system just use the good aspects from both and combine them? I don't see why this is so hard.

With grades, there is very little between satsifactory (80%) and huge (95%+)

Eh that's a personal distinction. Some people don't care about the difference between 80% and 95%, while some people work so hard that they treat the difference as if it is huge.

These people don't NEED the extra money.

I don't think its the government's job to tell me how much money I need and how much money I deserve to keep. Also the US constitution does not permit the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Socialism is just not a constitutional economic model in the US.

Stealing is stealing, even if its stealing for the poor. Every developed nation is based on a society of laws and rights. The most fundamental right is that my private property (which includes the money I own) will not be unfairly taken away from me.

Also why do Western Nations stop themselves at Socialism? If Socialism is the most beneficial and useful economic model for a country then why don't European nations just extend the economic model to its complete conclusion and institute a communist economic system? I mean wouldn't that be the most fair? Yet no one who believes in socialism is crying out for the institution of communism.

Edited 1/23/2016 00:22:13

Eh that's a personal distinction. Some people don't care about the difference between 80% and 95%, while some people work so hard that they treat the difference as if it is huge.

But would you not agree, that the wealth gap is undoubtedly larger than any grade gap between "satisfactory" and "huge"? The wealth gap is ridiculous, but the grade gap will never get larger than 100%.

I don't think its the government's job to tell me how much money I need and how much money I deserve to keep.

No, it is for one person to decide. But if somebody is barely surviving, and somebody else can encrust their 4 million dollar sofa with diamonds, then there is a clear problem with the wealth distribution. The person with the 4 million dollar sofa can afford to be taxed a little bit more, but the person who can barely get enough to eat is not in a position where they can have a good- not even that- survivable life!

Also the US constitution does not permit the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.

I don't give a fuck what the constitution says... "Unconstitutional" is another word for "archaic".

Socialism is just not a constitutional economic model in the US.

"not constitutional". mhm. that's what I thought.

Stealing is stealing

There are people who CAN'T EAT. And you will say "let them starve. These people deserve to have 30 carat diamond rings, and these people don't deserve to eat, because STEALING IS STEALING."

The most fundamental right is that my private property (which includes the money I own) will not be unfairly taken away from me.

Oh c'mon, you can't accept just a bit more tax for the stupidly rich?

Also, there was no such professor. It's just one of those internet chain stories, of which you can find tons of examples, none of which prove anything.

Jai story Is actually pretty accurate. But Ox, socialism doesn't stop at rich. Socialism will eventually take away all if the rich people's money and level the playing field. But then what? For new people you can't help because you took everyone else's money. So now what? You have to take from the average citizen. I don't give a Crap about whether or not a socialist thinks someone else needs my money. It's not your place, the government's place, or there place to tell me what my money is good for.

Edited 1/23/2016 00:49:02

Congratulations, you just provided arbitrary and hyper-politicized definitions for two socioeconomic systems based on zero historical, political, or economic analysis beyond your own puerile understanding of how things work and maybe a couple of edgy YouTube videos summarizing reddit comments that summarize Ayn Rand novellas. Would you like your diploma mill degree in PoliSci shipped to you by UPS or FedEx? (There's a surcharge of $500 if you'd like it in paper.)

TL;DR: The best compliment I can give you is that you're not actually retarded

Edited 1/23/2016 01:03:27

You say a lot of very complicated and extremely well thought insults ( you honestly have that much time? ) Yet you do not actually mention anything worth your insults and very immature behavior. Care to indulge on that?

Socialism has a record of failure. I am a meritocrat and I believe that socialism is morally unjustifiable. Stealing is stealing and if people are too lazy to produce something of value or offer a service than they deserve their fate due to their own apathy or inability. From an economic standpoint socialist economic policies such as price controls, free healthcare, rent controls and subsidization have a history of failure and create shortages, black markets, bribes for quicker service, price inflation, lower quality standards and bankruptcy. Ox, your tears, they feed me. Cry more about inequity. I recommend you read Thomas Sowells' basic economics Ox.

Edited 1/23/2016 01:11:56

But if somebody is barely surviving, and somebody else can encrust their 4 million dollar sofa with diamonds, then there is a clear problem with the wealth distribution.

Perfect equality is an unattainable utopianist vision. Economic inequality is a natural state. Life is fundamentally about differences between people - in skills, education, health, morals, and success. You can't legislate equality. And I'm not saying to let people starve. Almshouses, charities, shelters, unemployment aid, social security, medicare, medicaid, subsidized housing, tax breaks, subsidized healthcare - socialism has created enough "safety nets". The government is always asking a little more from everyone - first its just 1% and then its 10% and then its 20%.

I don't give a fuck what the constitution says... "Unconstitutional" is another word for "archaic".

You realize the extremism of this statement right? Come on Ox. A constitution is what separates a democracy from tyranny or anarchism. A constitution is what allows me to go to temple every Sunday and pray to a God most socialists I know would want to see abolished. A constitution is what allows me to even say that socialism is an unfeasible economic system. A constitution is what allows me to run for public office. A constitution is what allows me to not be at the mercy of police brutality. Don't let extremism cloud your mind. A constitution is the foundation of every nation and you should not take for granted the immense sufferings our forefathers faced to achieve the type of order, peace, and stability we've achieved under a constitutional government. A nation without a constitution would be inherently more violent and more unfair and more dangerous than the wealth gap you are against. Let me also remind you that the definition of archaic is: very old or old-fashioned. The definition of unconstituional is: not in accordance with a political constitution, especially the US Constitution, or with procedural rules. You see they are two different words with two very different meanings.

There are people who CAN'T EAT. And you will say "let them starve.

There are even greater sufferings that man inflicts on man in the course of their life. Torture, rape, murder, war...the evil conscious of humankind can produce abject horror. Hover I don't stand for poverty and I don't want people to starve. Like most conservatives and capitalists I believe in the voluntary donation of excess wealth. Give to charity and give to the poor and give to those organizations that help them up to their feet. Give! Give as much as you can give! But give voluntarily. That is the essence of our disagreement. I'm lower middle class...yet my family still pays a 20% tithe to our temple. Why? Because it feeds the poor in India. Because it provides for housing and shelter who don't have it. I'm afraid that to tax the rich means to demonize wealth. And to demonize wealth is to fall into a pit of non-effort. Wealth creators provide us jobs. Capitalism is the source of wealth...and I don't think anyone would accuse socialism of being the source of wealth.

Congratulations, you just provided arbitrary and hyper-politicized definitions for two socioeconomic systems based on zero historical, political, or economic analysis beyond your own puerile understanding of how things work and maybe a couple of edgy YouTube videos summarizing reddit comments that summarize Ayn Rand novellas. Would you like your diploma mill degree in PoliSci shipped to you by UPS or FedEx? (There's a surcharge of $500 if you'd like it in paper

I am continually concerned and shocked by the increasingly acerbic and pretentious nature of Knyte's comments. It seems that he is ever more willing to attack people and denounce them and shout insults at them without a single shred of decency or politeness. Is even simple argumentation not possible without caustic sarcasm and scathing civility?

Edited 1/23/2016 01:22:13

well, I see what ox is saying about the fact that something should be done for the poor......but that's why there's something called charity and welfare ( however, welfare is a socialist idea )

Charity can't do everything. Neither can donations. More money must be found, and taxing the rich is the way to go about this.

Jai you seem to think that I would believe in constantly taxing the people at the top, and constantly giving to people at the bottom. I believe in a steady slope from bottom to top. But I am disgusted by the wealth difference from the very bottom to the very top. If we just manage to find something, beyond charities and donations (because they're NOT WORKING ALONE), that allows us to have people aren't starving, who aren't just barely scraping by in a 1 bedroom flat, who aren't homeless, who aren't dirt poor. Then most socialists would be happy. Socialism isn't communism, and there is a point where we stop taxing the rich. But we've not reached that point yet. For now, fuck the rich.

Edited 1/23/2016 01:29:58

Well said ripper. It is really very simple. No matter how much you socialists bitch about rich people having more than poor, the rich ALWAYS create the jobs and opportunities for the poor; without the rich, no one else could become rich. Maybe they don't use all the money for good causes, maybe they got a couple million dollar cars, but without their money, the poor would have the square root of jackshit. Zero-sum economics (the idea one person getting richer means another getting poorer) is idiotic. It is simply WRONG. As the rich get richer, they use some (if not all) of that money to make themselves and the poor even richer. As soon as you confiscate 50% or so of investments and 50% of income and 50% of business spending, they stop investing and stop doing business. That means less people making jobs and getting paid. Socialism furthermore is, by nature, fundamentally opposed to freedom, and encourages the growth of the state. And as the state grows, it requires even more money. Eventually, the money runs out, and everyone gets fucked over. If you took all the money of the Forbes 400, you would have.......*drum roll*.............................$2.29 trillion. The federal governments budget for 2016 is............$3.3 trillion. So, if everyone on the Forbes 400 gave all their wealth - not money, but all their wealth, including properties and investments - we couldn't even operate the government completely for a year. High taxes have, and this is a fact, slowed economic growth in the past. And while much of that money went to the rich, much of it also went to the poor.


In short,
Wealth creation results from low taxes, and wealth creation, even if uneven, benefits society as a whole.

Oh dear god, another American. I don't know if I should kill myself, or you, with my huge rocket launcher. Oh wait, I can't buy that here in Scotland, because we have some fucking sense!

"Oh dear god, another American. I don't know if I should kill myself, or you, with my huge rocket launcher. Oh wait, I can't buy that here in Scotland, because we have some fucking sense!"
Nice comeback. Refuted all my points with logic, facts, and clarity. Oh, wait..........nvr mind.