Capitalism vs Socialism ....a lesson for Teens and 20's - Page 4 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

General Discussion Anything non-survival related - news and information, current events, general chit-chat stuff.

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-14-2019, 12:10 PM
sonya1's Avatar
sonya1 sonya1 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: out of Florida!
Posts: 5,839
Thanks: 4,135
Thanked 9,323 Times in 3,542 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by txprep View Post
If the population shrank, what would collapse would be the social programs. The economic system would adjust and new jobs would be created. People would work less and the cost of food would drop.

Capitalism can handle a shrinking population just fine. In fact the cost of goods starts to drop.

food, shelter, medical care, and basic clothing are all we need. Everything else are luxuries.
Um...might want to check out Japan....
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to sonya1 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-14-2019, 12:28 PM
sonya1's Avatar
sonya1 sonya1 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: out of Florida!
Posts: 5,839
Thanks: 4,135
Thanked 9,323 Times in 3,542 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by me View Post
Again currently this is a short term issue and only in some countries. As you stated ****hole countries are still experiencing population growth. There is no reason to limit the market to just one or two or a handful of countries. There is no reason not to expand the market for whatever product into other countries.


Where did I ever criticize you for defending socialism? You are criticizing the American economy. I agree that there is a lot to criticize. The ironic thing is most of the problems with the US economy are due to the socialistic programs and policies that have been implemented. They have stifled the free market economy to the point where many now think it is impossible to earn a decent living.

Even though you are justifiably criticizing the bad portions of the economy, you seem to be taking a position that the answer to the bad parts of the economy are more of what is making the economy bad. You seem to be taking the position that a lot people can't earn money so they have to suck off government programs. .

Selling stuff to third world ****holes: that isn't happening. They have no money to buy stuff the U.S. exports, except maybe some dictators will buy weapons. Actually the U.S. doesn't export all that much, even to wealthier countries

I don't think all that welfare should exist either, starting with social security and FDR, but IT DOES. And nobody can make it go away, unless the economy crashes. I am starting NOT at the starting point of the U.S> but NOW. I am talking about the U.S. economy NOW. It's a train wreck waiting to happen any second now

And the only way they keep it going at all is by importing all those illegals and other trashy poor people around the world. That was my point. I don't care what you say but you cannot have economic growth without more consumers. The system is just not set up that way. You have a business, you borrow money to grow it, you need more people to buy your stuff, so you can maybe pay that money back, or justify borrowing more to grow some more. The whole banking system is part of the problem. This is all part of capitalism.


But, I still doubt everyone could find a job making enough money to live, if all entitlement programs ( which are all socialist) were removed and people would have to fend for themselves. Too few production jobs exist in the US today, they all went to China. Too many low paying jobs that don't pay enough to live in in most places. I'm thinking what would happen if you cut out all entitlements is that some people would work and survive, some would turn to crime and survive, and a lot would be on the streets, while the rich got richer ( because they would pay less taxes for all those entitlements)
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-14-2019, 08:56 PM
ralfy's Avatar
ralfy ralfy is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,161
Thanks: 94
Thanked 1,606 Times in 1,139 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonya1 View Post
Selling stuff to third world ****holes: that isn't happening. They have no money to buy stuff the U.S. exports, except maybe some dictators will buy weapons. Actually the U.S. doesn't export all that much, even to wealthier countries

I don't think all that welfare should exist either, starting with social security and FDR, but IT DOES. And nobody can make it go away, unless the economy crashes. I am starting NOT at the starting point of the U.S> but NOW. I am talking about the U.S. economy NOW. It's a train wreck waiting to happen any second now

And the only way they keep it going at all is by importing all those illegals and other trashy poor people around the world. That was my point. I don't care what you say but you cannot have economic growth without more consumers. The system is just not set up that way. You have a business, you borrow money to grow it, you need more people to buy your stuff, so you can maybe pay that money back, or justify borrowing more to grow some more. The whole banking system is part of the problem. This is all part of capitalism.


But, I still doubt everyone could find a job making enough money to live, if all entitlement programs ( which are all socialist) were removed and people would have to fend for themselves. Too few production jobs exist in the US today, they all went to China. Too many low paying jobs that don't pay enough to live in in most places. I'm thinking what would happen if you cut out all entitlements is that some people would work and survive, some would turn to crime and survive, and a lot would be on the streets, while the rich got richer ( because they would pay less taxes for all those entitlements)
Selling stuff to "****hole" countries has been going on for several decades:

The rise of the global middle class

By the early 1990s, several U.S. companies were partly owned by investors from the same countries.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to ralfy For This Useful Post:
Old 08-15-2019, 06:05 AM
Israel Putnam's Avatar
Israel Putnam Israel Putnam is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: W. Central PA
Posts: 7,704
Thanks: 4,342
Thanked 12,184 Times in 4,918 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
Your story is about an avowed socialist and not about socialists in general. It is also partly about socialism, as the ideology refers to resources shared by a community.

In contrast, capitalism is more of an economic system than an ideology, with profit as the main goal. That means monetizing many things, including organ donations. With competition, it involves maximization of profits.
Again, another non reply to my post, thanks.

Donating a kidney to his own father would not involve money.
Refusing to donate to his father shows what bull**** socialism is since itís followers preach being compassionate.

My point was and is, socialists are hypocrites, like Bernie and his two houses and his flying first class.
Hypocritical that the leading socialist in this nation demands we all cut back to help out others while heís living high on the hog.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 08:08 AM
ralfy's Avatar
ralfy ralfy is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,161
Thanks: 94
Thanked 1,606 Times in 1,139 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Israel Putnam View Post
Again, another non reply to my post, thanks.

Donating a kidney to his own father would not involve money.
Refusing to donate to his father shows what bull**** socialism is since itís followers preach being compassionate.

My point was and is, socialists are hypocrites, like Bernie and his two houses and his flying first class.
Hypocritical that the leading socialist in this nation demands we all cut back to help out others while heís living high on the hog.
First, that's a hasty generalization.

Second, where did you get the idea that socialists aren't supposed to be capitalists? Socialists are not against capitalism but bourgeois ownership of the means of production. That's why there's state capitalism.

Third, where did you get the idea that Bernie is a socialist? He's a pinko like the rest.

Fourth, the implication that he is a hypocrite means that he should stop claiming that he's a socialist and admit that he's a capitalist. In which case, he should support payment rather than have organ donation.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 09:16 AM
sonya1's Avatar
sonya1 sonya1 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: out of Florida!
Posts: 5,839
Thanks: 4,135
Thanked 9,323 Times in 3,542 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
Selling stuff to "****hole" countries has been going on for several decades:

The rise of the global middle class

By the early 1990s, several U.S. companies were partly owned by investors from the same countries.
I am talking about now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

US imports more stuff than exports, and most exports go to EU

If the US made more stuff here and didn't have to import all that crap from China, we wouldn't have to export anything to any ****hole countries like Mexico
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 06:49 PM
ralfy's Avatar
ralfy ralfy is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,161
Thanks: 94
Thanked 1,606 Times in 1,139 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonya1 View Post
I am talking about now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

US imports more stuff than exports, and most exports go to EU

If the US made more stuff here and didn't have to import all that crap from China, we wouldn't have to export anything to any ****hole countries like Mexico
That should be the case given the Triffin dilemma. In order for the U.S. to do the opposite, the dollar will have to drop.

There is nothing to stop the U.S. from making "more stuff" and not importing, so why hasn't it done so? It has do to with free market capitalism. Read my previous posts in this thread for more details.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-18-2019, 06:26 AM
me me is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,623
Thanks: 1,129
Thanked 3,052 Times in 1,385 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonya1 View Post
Selling stuff to third world ****holes: that isn't happening. They have no money to buy stuff the U.S. exports, except maybe some dictators will buy weapons. Actually the U.S. doesn't export all that much, even to wealthier countries
Really?? I've been to many ****hole third world countries and American branded products are in high demand. Many of those products are not made in the US and exported. Many of those products are made in countries closer to the end user that have favorable trade agreements with the other countries. Those products are still owned and headquartered in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonya1 View Post
I don't think all that welfare should exist either, starting with social security and FDR, but IT DOES. And nobody can make it go away, unless the economy crashes. I am starting NOT at the starting point of the U.S> but NOW. I am talking about the U.S. economy NOW. It's a train wreck waiting to happen any second now
Here we agree the economy is a train wreck waiting to happen. However it has gotten better over the last three or four years with the removal of many overly restrictive regulations.

Welfare does nothing but destroy a person's self worth and desire to fend for themselves. The implication of going on welfare is that you are unable to take care of yourself so the government has to do it. Most of the people receiving welfare are doing so because of poor choices early in their life. I think many of these people, but not most, would happily give up their miserable life for one where they are able to provide for themselves and their families. I think most of these people are in need of some simple training that would provide them with the ability to earn a living, but don't know where or how to obtain that training. The rest are happy having everything given to them. The second group is the group that will have to be forced off the dole. This can be accomplished by limiting the number of years a person can receive welfare. Most of the training that would be needed would only take a few months up to a year to receive. We are not training the next physics star we are training someone to perform gainful work. The ore people we have who can do that the more people we have with the ability to make more expensive purchases and further grow the economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonya1 View Post
And the only way they keep it going at all is by importing all those illegals and other trashy poor people around the world. That was my point. I don't care what you say but you cannot have economic growth without more consumers. The system is just not set up that way. You have a business, you borrow money to grow it, you need more people to buy your stuff, so you can maybe pay that money back, or justify borrowing more to grow some more. The whole banking system is part of the problem. This is all part of capitalism.
No the only way to grow a company is to increase the efficiency or/and the customer base. Those customers can be anywhere. There is a limit to how efficient a company can be just as there is a limit to the number of customers there are in the world. Just to make a simple point one of the largest companies, although it might be the largest now, in the world is Amazon. They are everywhere and they have grown very wealthy. I recently read an article that their share of the marketplace is less than 10% I want to say it was something like 3-4%. There are a lot of customers out there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sonya1 View Post
But, I still doubt everyone could find a job making enough money to live, if all entitlement programs ( which are all socialist) were removed and people would have to fend for themselves. Too few production jobs exist in the US today, they all went to China. Too many low paying jobs that don't pay enough to live in in most places. I'm thinking what would happen if you cut out all entitlements is that some people would work and survive, some would turn to crime and survive, and a lot would be on the streets, while the rich got richer ( because they would pay less taxes for all those entitlements)
Just because you doubt it doesn't make it true. There are plenty of jobs out there right now that aren't being filled because people don't have the requisite skills. The more people put in those jobs the less money needed for welfare programs. The more people placed in those jobs the more tax money being raised and the less tax money being spent. The more people placed in those jobs the more people buying things they couldn't before, which in turn increases the demand for more employees in other areas. No as our economy is right now we can't put all of those people to work, but increasing the employment means increasing the economy which further increases the number of employees. Not to mention nothing says a person must get a job to make money.

Two more quick examples: A good friend of mine wound up raising himself as a teenager. Mom and dad had died and he was living with his grandmother who had to go back to work. She was gone for several days at a time. If he needed money he figured out a way to earn it. He started doing small construction jobs in his area, because he had a basic understanding of construction methods. After his first job he was never without work again. As he built more, his abilities and quality greatly improved. He ended his career by building seawalls. He recently sold his company for tens of millions and is now retired. He needed money and he went out and earned it. He didn't wait for someone to give him a job, he figured it out for himself and built a large company in the process. Thee will always be jobs that are too small for a large company to do. The cost of the job to the consumer is a rounding error on their bottom line.

Recently a large company announced expansion in a city about an hour and a half from where I live. I will not see any direct link to increasing my wealth from this company any time soon. However with that said, the cities in close proximity to the area that company locates will. This will increas demand for employees further increasing the compensation for those in demand jobs out to my location since I am at the far edges of the commuting distance. The increased number of employees will also increase demand for housing, pushing those prices higher. As those prices go higher it will force people closer to my area. The ripple effect will eventually make it out to my location, probably well after I have left. This effect can be seen when you look on realtor maps. Generally, about every 5 miles away from the main population center results in a drop in housing price of about $10k. In the population center you find a lot of row houses, townhouses, and condos. In my area there literally are none of these. Everything is a single family house or apartments. If you took my house and moved it to the population center it would easily increase 10x in price due to having a small parcel of land and the size. With all of this prosperity you would think everyone has a job. That is not so there is still a small number of people who are unemployed (less than 2%) and complain that there aren't any jobs in the area. There are plenty of jobs, they just haven't developed the skill necessary to perform those jobs. My area is not an anomaly when it comes to that.

I have read articles, probably monthly, saying the exact same thing I have maintained in this thread.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to me For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2019, 07:09 AM
Timbersawz's Avatar
Timbersawz Timbersawz is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,308
Thanks: 1,147
Thanked 2,276 Times in 825 Posts
Default

Socialism left to its own devices unchecked leads to the corrupt monopolistic power of the few and en-slavery of the rest

Capitalism left to its own devices unchecked leads to the corrupt monopolistic power of the few and en-slavery of the rest

Thats why in the evolution of modern societies tends to be a balance of both with constant complaints that either has to much influence and its ruining everything. If either was capable of working by itself, it would somewhere on this planet, but they are both equally ruinous without the balance of the other.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-18-2019, 07:19 AM
me me is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,623
Thanks: 1,129
Thanked 3,052 Times in 1,385 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbersawz View Post
Socialism left to its own devices unchecked leads to the corrupt monopolistic power of the few and en-slavery of the rest

Capitalism left to its own devices unchecked leads to the corrupt monopolistic power of the few and en-slavery of the rest

Thats why in the evolution of modern societies tends to be a balance of both with constant complaints that either has to much influence and its ruining everything. If either was capable of working by itself, it would somewhere on this planet, but they are both equally ruinous without the balance of the other.
I disagree with your remedy. Both will have the end result if not monitored. Although with socialism that is the end goal. With free markets, socialism is a drag in the economy. The only thing that makes a free market economy work efficiently is an educated population. If people cannot intelligently and freely choose the product they want, then poor business practices and product quality will not be punished. You can have regulation without resorting to socialism.

A good example is GMOs. I don't care one way or the other if my food has GMOs in them. Others are not so cavalier and won't touch a GMO without the requisite 40 days in the desert to cleanse themselves. Let the consumers decide if they are fine with them or not. The government can require disclosing whether GMO's were used to make the product without resorting to socialism.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-18-2019, 05:28 PM
ForgedInTheFlame's Avatar
ForgedInTheFlame ForgedInTheFlame is online now
Fix Bayonets!
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 5,000
Thanks: 18,643
Thanked 7,475 Times in 3,305 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbersawz View Post
Socialism left to its own devices unchecked leads to the corrupt monopolistic power of the few and en-slavery of the rest

Capitalism left to its own devices unchecked leads to the corrupt monopolistic power of the few and en-slavery of the rest

Thats why in the evolution of modern societies tends to be a balance of both with constant complaints that either has to much influence and its ruining everything. If either was capable of working by itself, it would somewhere on this planet, but they are both equally ruinous without the balance of the other.
Socialism only comes second in evil to Islam. It's a slippery slope that will ruin each and every country, and must be suppressed quickly, unapologetically, and violently.

Free market capitalism is the answer, and will make this country great again.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-18-2019, 06:45 PM
ralfy's Avatar
ralfy ralfy is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,161
Thanks: 94
Thanked 1,606 Times in 1,139 Posts
Default

The result of free market capitalism is the opposite. That is, starting with a free market, some become stronger and eventually take over as increasing amounts of wealth are concentrated among a few.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to ralfy For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2019, 10:41 PM
Harmless Drudge's Avatar
Harmless Drudge Harmless Drudge is offline
Weed 'em and reap
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: A once-free nation
Age: 41
Posts: 29,253
Thanks: 234,567
Thanked 121,583 Times in 24,091 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
The result of free market capitalism is the opposite. That is, starting with a free market, some become stronger and eventually take over as increasing amounts of wealth are concentrated among a few.
Not true. In a free market, you see the top exceed the bottom by a wider margin, but not necessarily a wider percentage, but that's not the relevant metric. The relevant metric is which system sees people being rewarded according to accomplishment, as well as which provides the best overall well-being.

That is to say, you are comparing the rich to the poor within the same system, but you should be comparing the poor in one system to the poor in the other. The poor in the United States, for example, are wealthier than most people in the world. Certainly richer than the poor in socialist countries. In fact, there are no real poor here. The biggest problem our poor have is obesity. They literally eat too many calories, a phenomenon unheard of in human history.

That is to say, I'd rather have two cows while the rich guy has a million cows, than have one cow when the rich guy has only a hundred cows. Yes, in the first case, he has almost a million cows more than I, but in the second case, I have half as many cows, despite being less unequal in wealth.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Harmless Drudge For This Useful Post:
Old 08-19-2019, 03:36 AM
Timbersawz's Avatar
Timbersawz Timbersawz is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,308
Thanks: 1,147
Thanked 2,276 Times in 825 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForgedInTheFlame View Post
Socialism only comes second in evil to Islam. It's a slippery slope that will ruin each and every country, and must be suppressed quickly, unapologetically, and violently.

Free market capitalism is the answer, and will make this country great again.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
Free market capitalism only works until companies progress to become monopolies and/or breaking the rules, then they require govt intervention to tether there distruction and instill the means for it to be more "free" (oh the irony.)
Its naive utopia thinking to not expect greed and corruption to turn up as it ALWAYS does.

Study business and you will find corruption, theft and harm done to people in every industry.

Both capitalism and socialism are equally corruptible and potentially evil and require each other to strike a workable balance because they are both subject to human greed.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Timbersawz For This Useful Post:
Old 08-19-2019, 06:42 AM
me me is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,623
Thanks: 1,129
Thanked 3,052 Times in 1,385 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbersawz View Post
Free market capitalism only works until companies progress to become monopolies and/or breaking the rules, then they require govt intervention to tether there distruction and instill the means for it to be more "free" (oh the irony.)
Its naive utopia thinking to not expect greed and corruption to turn up as it ALWAYS does.

Study business and you will find corruption, theft and harm done to people in every industry.

Both capitalism and socialism are equally corruptible and potentially evil and require each other to strike a workable balance because they are both subject to human greed.
You hit on greed twice. I agree. The big difference is when a company/person becomes overly greedy in a free market economy they are normally "punished" with fewer sales to the point that they lose wealth. In a socialist economy the "greedy" are not punished. With that said a definition of greedy needs to be understood otherwise we can easily be talking about two different things. To me the definition of greedy is a person/company that is making a product that is completely lacking in quality while at the same time has essentially established a monopoly.

I've heard of many conservatives being referred to as greedy because they would rather teach a person how to do something than to give it to them free. That is not greed. That is actually being the most kind and sharing person out there.

I will say that in an economy where there are a lot of technical innovations, where it is cost prohibitive for a person to make what they need to survive and thrive, there does need to be some government regulation to prevent monopolies. Government regulation to prevent monopolies does not equal socialism.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to me For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net