Capitalism vs. Communism

[Sibirsky]

The even more funny thing is is the fact that:

1) the taxes of the poor are also lowered
2) So they can buy more
3) Demand of more products means more jobs
4) Demand of more products means more jobs; thus more demand for workers; thus higher salary.

1) The taxes of the poor=Lower. The Taxes of the rich=Higher.
2) They don't need to buy new crap.
3) Not always.
4) Not always.

2. So? Let them spend their money as they wish. Besides, that will improve the economy.
3. How will you make things to sell without creating jobs?
4. If jobs are created at a reasonable pace, incomes will rise.

[Britennene]

Indeed, they do. But Social Welfare has a bigger affection. It gives them food, shelter and clothing. In charity they can just spend their money to booze. Most don't, but there are ones who do. Truly compassionate will pay taxation to welfare and give money to charity. That would have an even bigger affection.

Charities can and do provide food, shelter and clothing.

In the case of direct cash transfer payments in welfare, or cash handouts by charities, those people deserve to spend that money as they see fit.

Oh, and many charity raises go to wrong pockets.

And that is a much bigger problem with the government. Tens of billions of dollars are lost due to fraud. Due to incompetence. Due to bureaucracy. Due to inefficiency. Due to corruption. Due to cronyism.

They'll fall down to poverty once again if they use the money on alcohol. And Charities most usually just send money to the people. Only a few charity programs raise money for housing and shelter.


For that, we can blame corruption. Bureaucracy is the #1 enemy of communism.

[Zortaw]

The even more funny thing is is the fact that:

1) the taxes of the poor are also lowered
2) So they can buy more
3) Demand of more products means more jobs
4) Demand of more products means more jobs; thus more demand for workers; thus higher salary.

1) The taxes of the poor=Lower. The Taxes of the rich=Higher.
2) They don't need to buy new crap.
3) Not always.
4) Not always.

1) That is not 'equal'
2) I bet that if a person can buy a new flat screen tv of '51 inch that he will buy it
3) Yes, always
4) Yes, always

[Sibirsky]

Which would be force. You seem to confuse government and charity.


No I don't.

I am poor. And I know plenty of others who are poor yet are very talented.

Government=/=Social Welfare. The government takes Taxation to give to Welfare Programs. This is very minimal in USA.

Hundreds of billions of dollars is minimal?

It's not force to take 20-30% off someone's income, since they got that money straight from the government.

What? This doesn't make sense. I don't make my money from the government. Taking any amount that is not voluntary is force.

You're poor? Then how do you own a computer? Then why do you speak of the talentless?

I am relatively poor. Computers are cheap these days. You can get a brand new one for under $200.

I was speaking of the talented when pointing out that equality is not desirable, and pointing out that some people deserve higher pay than others.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

1) The taxes of the poor=Lower. The Taxes of the rich=Higher.
2) They don't need to buy new crap.
3) Not always.
4) Not always.

3) Yes, always
4) Yes, always

Ah, no. Not always. In fact, rarely. Usually more demand just means higher nominal prices and wages. The only reason more demand would mean more jobs and income now is because the Federal Reserve is passively keeping monetary policy tight. Demand management is entirely the job of the central bank. If there's not enough demand, they're not doing their job.

[Sibirsky]

Charities can and do provide food, shelter and clothing.

In the case of direct cash transfer payments in welfare, or cash handouts by charities, those people deserve to spend that money as they see fit.


And that is a much bigger problem with the government. Tens of billions of dollars are lost due to fraud. Due to incompetence. Due to bureaucracy. Due to inefficiency. Due to corruption. Due to cronyism.

They'll fall down to poverty once again if they use the money on alcohol. And Charities most usually just send money to the people. Only a few charity programs raise money for housing and shelter.

Maybe so. It's not our job to control their lives.

For that, we can blame corruption. Bureaucracy is the #1 enemy of communism.

We can blame government. Corruption is inherent in it, to a small degree.

[Keronians]

Yes, you make a choice every several years.

That cost would be equally high in councils. A bureaucracy is still needed.

You make a choice every several years on enormous bundles of goods and services, without knowing their quality or cost. And you are stuck with the choice of the population, and the cost of that choice.

Really, there is no comparison.

How do you not know their quality?

As for the cost, you know what it's costing you as a person. And, from there, can conclude whether or not it's value for money, or whether it's time to change to a platform which seems to have a better set of objectives, with a clear strategy.

[Britennene]

Government=/=Social Welfare. The government takes Taxation to give to Welfare Programs. This is very minimal in USA.

Hundreds of billions of dollars is minimal?

It's not force to take 20-30% off someone's income, since they got that money straight from the government.

What? This doesn't make sense. I don't make my money from the government. Taking any amount that is not voluntary is force.

You're poor? Then how do you own a computer? Then why do you speak of the talentless?

I am relatively poor. Computers are cheap these days. You can get a brand new one for under $200.

I was speaking of the talented when pointing out that equality is not desirable, and pointing out that some people deserve higher pay than others.

Compared to the 600 trillion (Literally) used in the military, yes. It is a minimal number.

Well, that's your opinion. I bet millions of others disagree.

:I Well, a brave new world.

I'm not fully in favour of equal pay, actually. Equality is desirable, if we could maintain that equality without a dictator rising to power.

[Britennene]

They'll fall down to poverty once again if they use the money on alcohol. And Charities most usually just send money to the people. Only a few charity programs raise money for housing and shelter.

Maybe so. It's not our job to control their lives.

For that, we can blame corruption. Bureaucracy is the #1 enemy of communism.

We can blame government. Corruption is inherent in it, to a small degree.

It's my duty to make sure that those people get their lives back in order.


Yes, the government corruption. The corruption which could disappear if greed would disappear.

[Sibirsky]

You make a choice every several years on enormous bundles of goods and services, without knowing their quality or cost. And you are stuck with the choice of the population, and the cost of that choice.

Really, there is no comparison.

How do you not know their quality?

Invalid question. The question is how do you know their quality?

What the fuck, does "Hope and Change" mean in terms of quality?

As for the cost, you know what it's costing you as a person. And, from there, can conclude whether or not it's value for money, or whether it's time to change to a platform which seems to have a better set of objectives, with a clear strategy.

The government changes taxes, fees and other forms of revenue generation, constantly. As well as changing spending, coverage, etc.

And you have yet to address the massive bundling.

[Sibirsky]

Compared to the 600 trillion (Literally) used in the military, yes. It is a minimal number.

$600 billion. Actually a bit more. But you're off by a factor of almost 1000.

Well, that's your opinion. I bet millions of others disagree.

So?

:I Well, a brave new world.

I'm not fully in favour of equal pay, actually. Equality is desirable, if we could maintain that equality without a dictator rising to power.

Why is equality desirable? Are there levels of equality that are desirable?

[Staeny]

Maybe so. It's not our job to control their lives.


We can blame government. Corruption is inherent in it, to a small degree.

It's my duty to make sure that those people get their lives back in order.


Yes, the government corruption. The corruption which could disappear if greed would disappear.

We don't like corruption in capitalism either. Capitalists aren't the worshippers of uninhibited selfish greed, we respect the individual property rights of others.

[Sibirsky]

Maybe so. It's not our job to control their lives.


We can blame government. Corruption is inherent in it, to a small degree.

It's my duty to make sure that those people get their lives back in order.


Yes, the government corruption. The corruption which could disappear if greed would disappear.

But greed will not disappear. It's a basic human trait.

[Staeny]

Well, that's your opinion. I bet millions of others disagree.

Popularity doesn't necessarily mean something is right....in other cases however it does, and in those cases it's not right BECAUSE it is popular.

[Proloteriat]

They both suck. I hate the USA's bankers and a lot of other stuff about the USA and other capitalist countries. While I hate communism for just being one big uncompetetive company that makes all the money for itself. I'd say I also like the odd thing about both systems capitalism is survival of the fittest and thats good but communism does often have free housing and protects its people (sometimes sometimes it fails). But on the whole I hate them both.

[Phaedrus Imperator]

This whole damned thread is discriminatory. I'm a fascist; where's my place on the survey?!

[Manahakatouki]

They both suck. I hate the USA's bankers and a lot of other stuff about the USA and other capitalist countries. While I hate communism for just being one big uncompetetive company that makes all the money for itself. I'd say I also like the odd thing about both systems capitalism is survival of the fittest and thats good but communism does often have free housing and protects its people (sometimes sometimes it fails). But on the whole I hate them both.

What do you like then? The middle of the two?

[Zortaw]

This whole damned thread is discriminatory. I'm a fascist; where's my place on the survey?!

Probably in the communism vs nazism thread.

[Proloteriat]

They both suck. I hate the USA's bankers and a lot of other stuff about the USA and other capitalist countries. While I hate communism for just being one big uncompetetive company that makes all the money for itself. I'd say I also like the odd thing about both systems capitalism is survival of the fittest and thats good but communism does often have free housing and protects its people (sometimes sometimes it fails). But on the whole I hate them both.

What do you like then? The middle of the two?

Depends on what works with what country. I'm a practicalist I go for the ideology that is needed at the time. My country is meant to be communist but that's not my ideals I prefer what's best for the country at the time.

[Staeny]

What do you like then? The middle of the two?

Depends on what works with what country. I'm a practicalist I go for the ideology that is needed at the time. My country is meant to be communist but that's not my ideals I prefer what's best for the country at the time.

Pragmatism at the time isn't that good because it lacks any planning at all...there's a reason we have such massive debts.

[Zortaw]

What do you like then? The middle of the two?

Depends on what works with what country. I'm a practicalist I go for the ideology that is needed at the time. My country is meant to be communist but that's not my ideals I prefer what's best for the country at the time.

Succes with that, popping idealogy results in a lack of believe by your voters.

[Proloteriat]

Depends on what works with what country. I'm a practicalist I go for the ideology that is needed at the time. My country is meant to be communist but that's not my ideals I prefer what's best for the country at the time.

Pragmatism at the time isn't that good because it lacks any planning at all...there's a reason we have such massive debts.

No its because de regulated the banks I belive the banks should be regulated. I could say I'm left from center and with my country UK we need to regulate banks and stop bloody wars I think its the same with the US. But we should let companies make money. Because all communism is realy is uncompetetive capitalism. Another thing to know is that the American dream is an utter lie social mobility is very tough it used to be fine but not now I don't belive this can be stoped as all developed countries need to have large companies or a good state to support it. But yes we need to regulate the companeies to an extent and tax them enough but don't kill them with tax. Its all about balance.

[Proloteriat]

Depends on what works with what country. I'm a practicalist I go for the ideology that is needed at the time. My country is meant to be communist but that's not my ideals I prefer what's best for the country at the time.

Succes with that, popping idealogy results in a lack of believe by your voters.

I don't trust fully in democoracy. I do realise its just a disguse for the dictatorship of companies but its better than nothing. Basicaly at the moment I'm for a strong state there to regulate the private sector and stop it from screwing up the country. But I have no problem idealy with the private sector.

[Zortaw]

Succes with that, popping idealogy results in a lack of believe by your voters.

I don't trust fully in democoracy. I do realise its just a disguse for the dictatorship of companies but its better than nothing. Basicaly at the moment I'm for a strong state there to regulate the private sector and stop it from screwing up the country. But I have no problem idealy with the private sector.

Private companies don't screw up the country, hysteria does.

[Proloteriat]

I don't trust fully in democoracy. I do realise its just a disguse for the dictatorship of companies but its better than nothing. Basicaly at the moment I'm for a strong state there to regulate the private sector and stop it from screwing up the country. But I have no problem idealy with the private sector.

Private companies don't screw up the country, hysteria does.

True but both go hand in hand.