After the failure of capitalism

[Sibirsky]

Capitalism has proven itself to not be substainable in America, poverty is on the rise, people are losing their homes, the government is doing bailouts and the feds are making money not even bothering to secure it with debt.

Europe is heading down the same path, with capitalism failing in nation after nation.

Capitalism is what sustains America and the rest of the World's bloated social welfare system, and that is what is dragging it down, I swear if I had a dollar for everytime a leftist proclaimed the end of capitalism for the fault of a government action, I'd probably have enough money to buy a plane ticket to Lenin's Tomb and burn it for the lulz.

You'd have enough money to buy Lenin's Mausoleum. Which, itself is disgusting, a monument to failure and a tool of indoctrination.

[Arilando]

Your wrong, there has never been a socialist country. In order for a country to be socialist, it has to be democratic.

Nope. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. Has happened on a wide scale and failed miserably.

No, socialism is the democratic ownership of the means of production, instead of just a few corporate bosses.

[Sibirsky]

I don't know. Turkey taught us that State Capitalism is mostly stable, but really doesn't lend itself to rapid growth.

China is a State Capitalist Model, no rapid growth?

I would rather build a business on how I want to and what I want the business to be like, I don't want or need any damn bureaucrats to tell me how to run a business if they can't properly run their own damn jobs or run the country.

China's growing from a very low base, therefore almost irrelevant. Furthermore, China's growth accelerated since it adopted more capitalist reforms.

[Sibirsky]

I'm not all that sure the kind of prosperity currently seen as good in the western world is something to be all that proud of.

Sure...For Example: Obesity causes health problems...BUT isn't it great there's enough food for people to be obese!

I'd rather be fat and sick than die early from starvation.

[Sungai Pusat]

Nope. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. Has happened on a wide scale and failed miserably.

No, socialism is the democratic ownership of the means of production, instead of just a few corporate bosses.

Actually, a democracy means majority rule in theory, which means that it is the majority owning the means of production, which is still bad. The means of production are owned by the bosses, but the power to choose which company to work in is in the worker.

[Sibirsky]

So...He failed to see the fact that Capitalism brought prosperity...Gee, I wonder why he left THAT out of the Communist Manifesto?

Capitalism was a little more harsh and less watered down a couple of hundred years ago.

That wasn't the fault of capitalism.

[Arilando]

No, socialism is the democratic ownership of the means of production, instead of just a few corporate bosses.

Actually, a democracy means majority rule in theory, which means that it is the majority owning the means of production, which is still bad. The means of production are owned by the bosses, but the power to choose which company to work in is in the worker.

Would you explain why Majority ownership of the means of production is bad?

[Occupied Deutschland]

No, socialism is the democratic ownership of the means of production, instead of just a few corporate bosses.

Actually, a democracy means majority rule in theory, which means that it is the majority owning the means of production, which is still bad. The means of production are owned by the bosses, but the power to choose which company to work in is in the worker.

Whoooaaa! so, in a way...Socialism IS CAPITALISM! (because the laborer can choose where he wants to work, and since the worker is clearly the only means of production there is for those filthy capitalists...)

[Sungai Pusat]

Actually, a democracy means majority rule in theory, which means that it is the majority owning the means of production, which is still bad. The means of production are owned by the bosses, but the power to choose which company to work in is in the worker.

Whoooaaa! so, in a way...Socialism IS CAPITALISM! (because the laborer can choose where he wants to work, and since the worker is clearly the only means of production there is for those filthy capitalists...)

No, that is by his definition, it was the majority rule. The later part is for the capitalism system.

[Sibirsky]

So...He failed to see the fact that Capitalism brought prosperity...Gee, I wonder why he left THAT out of the Communist Manifesto?

Capitalism was a little more harsh and less watered down a couple of hundred years ago.

Capitalism is the reason people in the west have enough money to not have to work 12 hour days and are able to send their kids to school instead of to work. For most of human history life has sucked. You're born, you're poor and you work. Then you die. That's life for the overwhelming majority of population, for the overwhelming majority of time. It is thanks to capitalism, and the increases in productivity it has created that people can work less for more money, and send kids to school instead of work.

[Sibirsky]

Really? How did China do as communist? Or Stalinist Russia? How did the rest of the world do in that time? Capitalism is not failing, it is the slow push towards communism that is failing.

Actually a better comparison would be the Koreas

South Korea is Capitalist, Prospering as a world wide exporter (Mainly Electronics and Cars)
SouthNorth Korea is Stalinist or Statist Communism, and look how it's doing.

Fixed. How about West and East Germany after WWII? Same shit. It's like an experiment. Two very similar groups, separated, and made to live under different economic systems. That's all the evidence we'll ever need.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRuK9hrpQGc

[Arilando]

Capitalism was a little more harsh and less watered down a couple of hundred years ago.

Capitalism is the reason people in the west have enough money to not have to work 12 hour days and are able to send their kids to school instead of to work. For most of human history life has sucked. You're born, you're poor and you work. Then you die. That's life for the overwhelming majority of population, for the overwhelming majority of time. It is thanks to capitalism, and the increases in productivity it has created that people can work less for more money, and send kids to school instead of work.

Nope it's thanks to the left wing. Before regulation on companies was put into place in the early 1900s the vast majority of people worked 16 hours a day and died when they were 50.

[Sun Aut Ex]

When I was a young student in the Soviet Union

Holy crap, you're Andrew Ryan.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Capitalism is the reason people in the west have enough money to not have to work 12 hour days and are able to send their kids to school instead of to work. For most of human history life has sucked. You're born, you're poor and you work. Then you die. That's life for the overwhelming majority of population, for the overwhelming majority of time. It is thanks to capitalism, and the increases in productivity it has created that people can work less for more money, and send kids to school instead of work.

Nope it's thanks to the left wing. Before regulation on companies was put into place in the early 1900s the vast majority of people worked 16 hours a day and died when they were 50.

Chronic hunger and malnutrition were the norm for the majority of the population of the world including England and France, until the latter part of the 19th century. Until about 1750, in large part due to malnutrition, life expectancy in France was about 35 years, and only slightly higher in England. The U.S. population of the time was adequately fed, were much taller and had life expectancies of 45–50 years.[35] A vivid description of living standards of the mill workers in England in 1844 was given by Fredrick Engels.[36]

During the period 1813-1913 there was a significant increase in worker wages
YAY wiki.
Those increased wages before 1900 had little to do with regulation (or at least, by your standard)

[Sibirsky]

More like the failure of government than anything else. Any economic system will eventually "fail" because of government intervention.

Precisely. BAC reported that in the fall of 2008 CRA mortgages accounted to just 7% of all their mortagges, and 24% of all their defaults.

[Sibirsky]

Nope. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. Has happened on a wide scale and failed miserably.

No, socialism is the democratic ownership of the means of production, instead of just a few corporate bosses.

Publicly traded corporations are democratic and are owned by anyone who wants to owns them. And are very capitalist in nature.

[Sungai Pusat]

Actually, a democracy means majority rule in theory, which means that it is the majority owning the means of production, which is still bad. The means of production are owned by the bosses, but the power to choose which company to work in is in the worker.

Would you explain why Majority ownership of the means of production is bad?

Because it's Majority rules, minority ruled. In a system where there is no such system, anyone can decide what to do, regardless of whether they wold be the minority or the majority.

[Sibirsky]

Capitalism is the reason people in the west have enough money to not have to work 12 hour days and are able to send their kids to school instead of to work. For most of human history life has sucked. You're born, you're poor and you work. Then you die. That's life for the overwhelming majority of population, for the overwhelming majority of time. It is thanks to capitalism, and the increases in productivity it has created that people can work less for more money, and send kids to school instead of work.

Nope it's thanks to the left wing. Before regulation on companies was put into place in the early 1900s the vast majority of people worked 16 hours a day and died when they were 50.

Regulations had nothing to do with it. Capitalism is the reason advances were made in medicine and production. OSHA had almost no effect on workplace safety.

[Sungai Pusat]

Nope it's thanks to the left wing. Before regulation on companies was put into place in the early 1900s the vast majority of people worked 16 hours a day and died when they were 50.

Regulations had nothing to do with it. Capitalism is the reason advances were made in medicine and production. OSHA had almost no effect on workplace safety.

I think it's not really convincing to them unless links were shown.....

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Capitalism was a little more harsh and less watered down a couple of hundred years ago.

Capitalism is the reason people in the west have enough money to not have to work 12 hour days and are able to send their kids to school instead of to work.

I thought that was because of all the worker's rights reforms.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Nope it's thanks to the left wing. Before regulation on companies was put into place in the early 1900s the vast majority of people worked 16 hours a day and died when they were 50.

Regulations had nothing to do with it. Capitalism is the reason advances were made in medicine and production. OSHA had almost no effect on workplace safety.

You realize of course nothing you said actually counters what he said. The only substantive, non-tangential thing you said was effectively "nuh uh."

[Sibirsky]

When I was a young student in the Soviet Union

Holy crap, you're Andrew Ryan.

No, but based on a quick read about him, I take that as a complement. Never played BioShock.

[Grave_n_idle]

It isn't? And... it isn't?

Yeah, tax credits, the CRA, Fannie and Freddie, had nothing to do with it.

Answer that fails to even address the post it allegedly responds to is answer that fails to even address the post it allegedly responds to.

[Sibirsky]

Capitalism is the reason people in the west have enough money to not have to work 12 hour days and are able to send their kids to school instead of to work.

I thought that was because of all the worker's rights reforms.

As usual, you thought wrong. Without an increase of production created by capitalism, the only thing worker's rights reforms would do is create massive poverty.

[Grave_n_idle]

Nope it's thanks to the left wing. Before regulation on companies was put into place in the early 1900s the vast majority of people worked 16 hours a day and died when they were 50.

Regulations had nothing to do with it. Capitalism is the reason advances were made in medicine and production. OSHA had almost no effect on workplace safety.

Ah, more Sibirsky revisionism.