Socialism vs capitalism

[questor]

This is all a lot of liberal nonsense. In fact these views are part of the reason for poverty, they give people a list of reasons why they can't succeed. Liberals enable and encourage poverty by excuses when they should be encouraging better schools, ambition, hard work and the things that lead to

success. Some people will always be less fortunate and less successful, some of these truly need help. What they don't need is the atmosphere of helplessness and futility engendered by liberal philosophy. I hear thousands of voices crying unfairness, bad luck, and a host of other excuses. While this is happening, I see hundreds of minorities and people born in poverty get ahead by their own efforts. Why not read some constructive articles about success rather than dwelling on those about failure?

[Zythryn]

This is all a lot of liberal nonsense. In fact these views are part of the reason for poverty, they give people a list of reasons why they can't succeed.

This is where you loose all credibility.

NO ONE says people can't succeed. They give reasons why people that are 'fill in reason here' are less likely to succeed.

 

some people will always be less fortunate and less successful, some of these truly need help.

Careful questor, that sounds dangerously liberal. People needing help that is. I am really curious who, in your opinion needs help and what form of help you think society should give.

[questor]

Z, do yourself a favor. Pick out any 5 people who are known to be wealthy, read their history and get back to me. Take Oprah as one. Tell me how she did it.

[Zythryn]

questor, to make sure I understand you...

Are you saying every single wealthy individual got that way through hard work AND every single poor person is that way due to lazyness?

[questor]

NO, and yes, you don't understand me. And yes, you won't do any research.

[freeztar]

NO, and yes, you don't understand me. And yes, you won't do any research.

 

Questor, I've noticed a trend of you avoiding Zythryn's questions. I'm not sure why you are, but I urge you to consider addressing his questions as Z seems to be one of the main participants in this thread. "NO, and yes, you don't understand me." is pretty vague and confusing. :shrug:

[Zythryn]

Now questor, show some willingness to communicate please.

I am just trying to make sure I understand your position correctly.

So you agree that not all wealthy people necessarily got there through hard work.

However, you also believe that every single person that is poor got their due to laziness?

But your request of me was:

Pick out any 5 people who are known to be wealthy, read their history and get back to me.

Why did you make this request if you believe not all wealthy people got that way through hard work?

I agree with you, by the way, that not all wealthy people got that way through hard work. Some did, some got there through luck. Some a combination.

Likewise I also believe some poor people got that way through lack of drive or laziness, while others got that way through bad luck and some, a combination of the two.

You yourself a few posts back stated:

Some people will always be less fortunate and less successful, some of these truly need help.

So I don't think we are all that far apart in our positions. I am just trying to figure out what your position is.

If you do believe that some people that do need help from society. Then I think the question is HOW do you decide who to help and who not to help?

[questor]

Freez, since you want to join this conversation, why don't you read my answer to Z? How plain does NO have to be? My answer to his question was NO! Secondly, why does Z never seem to do any reading or research on a subject even though pointed to the

information? Let him read the information, do the research and then we'll have a basis for conversation.

[Zythryn]

Questor, I do plenty of research.

I have followed many of your links to supposed research you have done.

When it turns out they actually are to links that support my side of the discussion rather than yours, you respond with comments such as:

'I did a google search and took the first 4 titles that popped up without reading them'.

Now, if you have research or links that explain your views, I would be happy to read them. Please don't waste all of our time by posting more links to data that does not support your claims.

If you care to answer my last post (#177) I really am trying to understand you position as you first imply one thing (asking me to "pick ANY 5 wealthy people" and then get back to you) and then your answer that 'no' you don't believe all wealthy people got that way through hard work.

If the latter is true, then what good would me listing 5 wealthy people that didn't get that way through hard work be?

If the first implication is true, why state 'no' to my question?

[freeztar]

Freez, since you want to join this conversation, why don't you read my answer to Z? How plain does NO have to be? My answer to his question was NO! Secondly, why does Z never seem to do any reading or research on a subject even though pointed to the

information? Let him read the information, do the research and then we'll have a basis for conversation.

 

I'm not going to get involved in this other than to say that both of you need to provide sources for your info and refrain from personal attacks. The subject is socialism vs. capitalism.

[Michaelangelica]

This is all a lot of liberal nonsense. In fact these views are part of the reason for poverty, they give people a list of reasons why they can't succeed. Liberals enable and encourage poverty by excuses when they should be encouraging better schools, ambition, hard work and the things that lead to

success. Some people will always be less fortunate and less successful, some of these truly need help. What they don't need is the atmosphere of helplessness and futility engendered by liberal philosophy. I hear thousands of voices crying unfairness, bad luck, and a host of other excuses. While this is happening, I see hundreds of minorities and people born in poverty get ahead by their own efforts. Why not read some constructive articles about success rather than dwelling on those about failure?

there is no point carrying on this conversation . Your mind is too closed. Did you read ONE link I gave? How come the poor offend you so much?

Don't answer the last questions I am no longer interested.

[Essay]

Why not read some constructive articles about success rather than dwelling on those about failure?

Is "failure" the only alternative to your view of "success?"

Can't there be a middle ground of enduring sustenance and sustainability?

===

 

You are still operating under the assumption that everyone want to "get ahead," and to prosper.

 

Only about 5-20% (depending on how you scale things) of most populations have the relentless drive to "succeed," as you refer to, with those like Oprah (or just those in any small business).

 

And currently, with those constructors doing their best, the U.S. uses resources at a rate 4-6 times what the planet can provide (if everyone were as successful as the U.S.). That cannot be sustained for any long term, nor can that philosophy be expanded to ever larger populations with any hope of enduring.

 

The largest percentage of most populations would be very content to live in a manner that simply sustained their moderate comfort level. The Bible tells us to live simply and to be wardens over our resources to achieve sustainability (ever-lasting life). Science tells us we are living too richly, unsustainably, and in a way to quench the duration of species (ever-lasting oblivion).

 

It has only been several generations that this pyramid scheme of free-enterprise has been allowed to utilize the resources of all the world's countries. This has been very beneficial to the constructors, but it throws those other countries into social upheaval, economic instability and resource degradation.

 

Do you have any sort of global ethic, or any sense of how the U.S. will need to fit in with the rest of the world, to progress sustainably into the future?

===

 

Over a third of our economy is generated by financial services involving real estate, banking, insurance, and investment. The Bush tax cuts help stimulate that high-end, financial pyramid for the past 6-7 years. How's that going?

 

Let's see, another third is wholesale and retail sales; transportation; health care; legal, scientific, and management services; education; arts; entertainment; recreation; hotels and other accommodation; restaurants, bars, and other food and beverage services. Well maybe some of these services benefit from the tax cuts (if they have the right accountants).

 

And the final third of our economy is manufacturing (guns, cars, and computers), construction, and government.

...and the little sectors comprising 1-2% such as mining, drilling, and agriculture.

Agriculture is less than 1%! ...just think about what that means for a moment....

 

"Constructors" working in the financial (house-of-cards) services have been driving this economy for decades now.

Constructors are the one's hiring illegal immigrants, poisoning the Creation, and abusing their competitive advantage.

Is it any wonder that spiritually-mindful folks, content to live simply, see that as a bad path to "prosperity?"

Perhaps most folks have a more biblical notion of prosperity; and not the several decades-old image marketed to us relentlessly (as a part of that economic engine) of kingly Western opulence.

===

 

And then today I hear Phil Valentine (a conservative talk radio show host in Nashville, TN) talk about compassionate conservatism as "forcing this gentleman to hit rock bottom" and "make this guy help himself."

Well, okay, he's probably not a representative conservative; but it sure is depressing to see how narrowly conservatives see other people's choices, and how they assume everyone else in the world would agree with them if only the others had the same focused, revealed knowledge that conservatives have (or is it how everyone else should agree...).

 

Lest this degenerate into total depression....

 

Let me say that, regarding the thread title, I think capitalism works best on the local and regional level (with local and regional controls); but that for national and international considerations, socialism manages the big picture with a mind toward long-term endurability, rather than short-term profit-minded brinksmanship.

[Zythryn]

Questor, I think the references idea is excellent and I will endeavor to do that more often. Especially in cases like this where I find someone that speaks of the issue far better than I have. This may help eliminate confusion of my stance.

Here is the author:Uncommon Thought Journal: How the poor stay poor

Basically, he states that the reasons for people being poor is much more complicated that simply being lazy. He gives a number of references which you may find helpful.

Easy access to education and medical care are a couple of the reasons given which have already been discussed in this thread.

And please, remember neither the author, nor I, nor (I believe) anyone here is saying that hard work and doesn't pay off MORE OFTEN than laziness. Just that it isn't always enough.

[questor]

Z, from your post # 174:

'' Are you saying every single wealthy individual got that way through hard work AND every single poor person is that way due to lazyness?''

I repeat, the answer is NO.

 

To clarify some of my positions on this subject:

I do NOT think the poor are all evil, lazy, or unhappy. My parents were poor, as most people were during the depression.

I do NOT think money is the only source of happiness or is the only judge of success.

I DO believe in helping those who truly need help.

I DO believe in treating people with the respect they deserve.

I KNOW that most people can better their position in life with a better education, hard work and ambition.

I KNOW that most successful people share traits that enables their success.

All one has to do is read the life story of any well known successful person.

The freedom to accomplish this is offered by capitalism. Capitalism offers the chance to succeed or to FAIL, it's your choice. Socialism demands mediocrity

and squelches private enterprise, it is for those unwilling to make it on their own.

[Zythryn]

Thank you questor, that was wonderful and clears up quite a bit.

I guess I was thrown off track when you said 'No and Yes'

You and I agree on most of the positions you take, believe it or not:)

 

And I would agree that a pure socialist government would give less incentive for incredible success.

However, I believe having a certain minimum level of support for people does not. I believe helping people, as you stated is needed in some cases, helps society as a whole and businesses in said society.

While we don't have a true capitalistic society, nor a pure socialistic one, I do believe that we can take parts of both to give us the best of both worlds.

I would also like to see the government play less of a role in business. And local communities play more of a role in helping those in need.

I am glad I misunderstood your positions and appreciate you taking the time to clarify them for me.

[Michaelangelica]

[Michaelangelica]

Capitalism abit battered of late?

UK Nationalises banks

http://news.theage.com.au/world/britain-nationalises-second-bank-as-turmoil-deepens-2008092

and others

Dutch government nationalises Fortis

Dutch government nationalises Fortis - Radio Netherlands Worldwide - English

Iceland nationalises bank and seeks Russian loan

Financial crisis: Iceland nationalises bank and seeks Russian loan - Telegraph

US 'nationalises' mortgage lenders

US 'nationalises' mortgage lenders - World News - World - General - Farm Weekly

 

India has already nationlised many of its banks. I wonder hoe it is weathering this storm?

Tuesday, October 07, 2008 (13:48:53)

Tags : UN, Finacial crisis, Nirupam Sen, Ban Ki Moon

India criticises UN over financial crisis

New York: India has sharply criticised the United Nations and its affiliated organisations for sitting on the sidelines as the current financial crisis unfolded, saying that the IMF remained helpless despite the economic meltdown impacting adversely on the developing nations.

India called on the world body to use its universality to coordinate an international response, which is crucial to overcoming the crisis.

During a discussion on the annual report of UN chief Ban Ki-moon, Indian Ambassador Nirupam Sen attacked the Secretariat for ignoring the economic crisis that is now "crushing" the poor around the globe and for lacking any vision for the future or how the organisation could help developing countries deal with the serious looming challenges.

 

While the world had not ended, the world of Wall Street had certainly ended, and the "Masters of the Universe had bitten the dust, the same dust that is now in the mouths of the rest of us," Sen said, adding that the free market, like free love, had come to an end. He branded the report, which gives snapshot of UN work in development, human rights and other areas and its vision for future, as "inadequate if not irrelevant".

 

Sen told delegations gathered for the Assembly's annual review that the document should have spelled out how the UN could rebuild the global political and economic institutions.

The report, he said, also remained silent on intellectual property rights and how the organisation could stimulate the stalled Doha Round of talks being held under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation, another institution "approaching irrelevance." (PTI)

India criticises UN over financial crisis

Monday, September 29, 2008

European banking collapse including nationalisation of three banks

European banking collapse including nationalisation of three banks

Wall Street socialism: privatising profits, nationalising losses

An Phoblacht: Wall Street socialism: privatising profits, nationalising losses

The Banking Crisis

-

 

Who has done what

 

Ireland

 

Ireland has given a blanket guarantee -

 

US

 

The Bush administration's $700 billion bailout package, -

 

Iceland

 

The government is reportedly negotiating a €10 billion-

 

UK

 

The UK government has followed last year's nationalisation of Northern Rock by taking over Bradford and Bingley's -

France

 

Last week French authorities contributed €1 billion. . . or even nationalise failing banks.

 

Spain

 

 

 

Belgium

 

The government led rescue of Fortis, Belgium's biggest financial services firm, failed

 

Luxembourg

 

Luxembourg joined with Belgium and the Netherlands in a

 

Italy

 

Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has promised

 

Switzerland

 

The Swiss government has maintained

 

Austria

 

On Sunday finance

 

Greece

 

Greece was one of the first E

Germany

 

Government has provided an unlimited

 

Netherlands

 

The Dutch

 

Denmark

 

 

 

© 2008 The Irish Times

The Banking Crisis - The Irish Times - Tue, Oct 07, 2008