TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Capitalism is evil?
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse In regards to the (insert economic activity) debate with respect to capitalism, why does (insert economic activity) have to be for profit?

wow just wow

you have a long way to come buddy.

Re: Capitalism is evil?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 According to Michael Moore it is. I guess socialism isnt evil. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Kim Jung Il, Mao etc and they will give you a big thumbs up for socialism!

You make a compelling argument against socialism, especially since half of those guys don't even represent socialism.

in the words of the great machiavelli " we tradin war stories, we outlawz on the rise jealous niggas I despise lookin me eyes"

quote:

Originally posted by Vivid Boy in the words of the great machiavelli " we tradin war stories, we outlawz on the rise jealous niggas I despise lookin me eyes"

lol

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I believe in personal responsibility and I'm not desperate to find a scapegoat for everything that's wrong with the world.

Beautiful. I love this line.

One of my favorite examples of where capitalism, or the free market has a one up on inept government.

Coincidentally, its also a company that misguided bandwagoners love to hate.

"Walmart was ready before FEMA"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5090501598.html

quote:

Originally posted by Anton I believe that most historians would label Hitler as a fascist, not a socialist.

Okay, once again, the burden of proof is on you here, seeing as how the party was the "National Socialists." Show me a reputable historian who claims that the Nazis were not socialists.

quote:

Of course they can't get elected on that platform, and I hope they wouldn't. But that doesn't mean their real intent is to rid the world of private property.

In many cases, their aim, as corrupt statesmen, is to own as much property as possible, which is why socialism is often equated with dictatorships. In other cases, as I pointed out before, they may claim not to have that goal and even believe that they don't, but the sum total of their other principles has that as its inevitable conclusion (a classic case of unresolved cognitive dissonance, one reason why they respond emotionally to any challenges).

quote:

...but I do agree that a "smoothing out" of capitalism will lead to a better society over all.

Don't use euphemisms. There is no "smoothing out" - it's called socializing, and that is anti-capitalist.

quote:

I was speaking in the context of large enterprises such as health care or national defense, of course the average business does not need a legitimate reason to be privately run.

So now the size is what determines who should run it? Funny, because the largest operations are notoriously the most wasteful and inefficient no matter who runs it.

National defense is best run by the state because the state actually has the strongest incentive to run it well - maintaining power over its borders and citizens. No such power incentive exists with health care.

quote:

The problem is, once the basic care is provided, that person is stuck with a huge hospital bill, that just does not seem right to me.

Even if this person made more than enough money to afford health insurance but chose not to get it, or if the person was a smoker, or chronically obese, or otherwise made his own bed so to speak, which is what happens in the majority of such cases?

There may be cases where people with genuine need and little fault slip through the cracks, but there always are, no matter what the system is. In a socialist (or two-tier) system, those people slip through the cracks because other people who took less responsibility got into the queue first.

As expected, you present an emotional argument without any regard as to how the system actually works, ignoring the primary imperative of good government: to find the solution that produces the best results for the highest number of people.

quote:

Proper health care should not be incentivised by profit.

It is incentivised by profit, whether you think it should be or not. It does not matter how the system is structured; people may become doctors or surgeons out of an innate desire to help people, but after 15 years of hellish training and a subsequent lifetime of the worst kind of stress, they will expect to be compensated extremely well for their efforts, and will do whatever they can to either maximize their profits (if the system allows it) or minimize their effort and stress (which is what happens in the socialist system). Given those two options, which one would you prefer to be a patient of?

quote:

No, but I would trust the electricity grid and water treatment in the hands of the government rather than a for-profit corporation.

Despite years of evidence that the government can't be trusted any better than for-profit corporations? In Ontario alone we've had at least two well-publicized incidences of tainted water and countless blackouts, brownouts, and power spikes.

Jesus, I thought just about everybody knew by now that you can't trust the government to do anything right. At least when it's private you have the option of going somewhere else if you're dissatisfied with the service.

quote:

If you are asking if the government should provide a certain standard of living to society, then I think it can, and it should. Especially in rich countries such as Canada and America.

Wow. Just... wow. Do you not realize that these countries became "rich" specifically because of the individual rights you seem to feel are unimportant?

quote:

Willfully ignorant is the last thing I would describe myself as. I know that the capitalist system is indeed complex, but I think it fails due to the lack of intrinsic checks and balances. What I - and to a certain extent Micheal Moore - are arguing for is just that; more checks and balances to the capitalist system.

No, you're arguing for socialization of industries. The capitalist system already has intrinsic checks and balances; socialist systems don't. Most importantly, in a capitalist system there is competition; government programs are monopolies by definition.

quote:

Blind faith in the markets is a bad thing

Who said anything about blind faith? To people other than you and Michael Moore, it's well-understood why a free market works, and it's also well-understood that it doesn't work in an ideal fashion all of the time, but that's a trade-off most people are willing to make to avoid a system that barely works any of the time.

quote:

...it's clear that something needs to be done with regards to health care.

Good old Politician's Fallacy eh? Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it!

Ironically, a big part of what's killing American health care is all of the regulations and red tape. But you definitely don't hear any politicians clamoring to loosen those up, because that wouldn't expand government powers.

quote:

I think - or at least I hope - the reason why people on the left are so critical of the U.S. is that to them (or at least to me) it represents so much unrealized potential. The country is indeed capable of great things, but it pains me and others to see so many living in poverty or so many without health care.

What an absolute crock of shit, and you know it.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse These charts show that spending doesn't necessarily equal quality of care. The heathcare systems in the charts are all quite well regarded in their own rights (within reason). That's not what I'm trying to compare. With the US system, they're paying more for the same apple that you buy in Canada, or the Netherlands, or Germany.

I'm trying to understand how you can honestly believe that those charts say anything at all about the quality of care.

What you've done here is to completely ignore the real argument about quality of care, state a totally unproven and patently ridiculous assumption that the quality of care is the same in all of those countries, and conclude that the USA must be less efficient.

Americans spend more on health care. There's no question about that. But the quality of care they receive is also far, far better. How can you even compare to Canada, where you have to wait years on a waiting list for even the most basic elective/non-emergency surgery or preventative care? Where you have to wait weeks for a CT scan and months for an MRI? Who would call this the same quality of care with a straight face?

quote:

While I've been fortunate to not have to make use of hospital services in as long as I can remember, I don't regard my taxation for healthcare to be a personal burden since I don't use the system. Why should I cheap out and demand that the government take less from me if it deprives someone else of care?

Straw-man argument. Although I don't believe in the basic premise of the "rich" subsidizing the "poor", this is not about that, it's about which system is actually capable of providing the best care to the most people.

quote:

Second, the issue of people eating prescription pills like Tic-Tacs seems to be a predominantly North American issue that is taken advantage of by people who have health coverage.

Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong superwrong. Let's just cite the well-known example of France being the world's highest consumer of anti-depressants; how do you explain that? Coincidence again?

quote:

The disappointment in all of this is that nothing gets made of prevention and healthy living since this of course doesn't make anyone any money.

But you see, if people have to pay for their care, then something does get made of it. If I know that being diagnosed with lung cancer or heart disease could cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars over my lifetime, then I'm not going to smoke. If I know that obesity is associated with a wide assortment of debilitating health conditions, I'm going to exercise. What better way can you think of to put the focus on prevention and healthy living?

Man, this thread is pissing me off! and yes a bit by diginut's bullshit, but mostly by everyone who is anti-capitalist that can't string two coherent posts together to make a point.

Watch this, learn, and end the thread.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut What better way can you think of to put the focus on prevention and healthy living?

Easy man, they're liberals, they'll just ban poor health.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Okay, once again, the burden of proof is on you here, seeing as how the party was the "National Socialists." Show me a reputable historian who claims that the Nazis were not socialists.

"Increasingly, however, this interpretation was challenged, and it has become increasingly clear that Nazi Germany was characterised not by strong central government, or by a monolithic political discipline in the service of a clear programmatic agenda, but by administrative chaos" -- "Nazi Germany" By Tim Kirk, page 5

quote:

In many cases, their aim, as corrupt statesmen, is to own as much property as possible, which is why socialism is often equated with dictatorships. In other cases, as I pointed out before, they may claim not to have that goal and even believe that they don't, but the sum total of their other principles has that as its inevitable conclusion (a classic case of unresolved cognitive dissonance, one reason why they respond emotionally to any challenges).

Whose political principles lead to an inevitable conclusion of the elimination of private property?

quote:

Don't use euphemisms. There is no "smoothing out" - it's called socializing, and that is anti-capitalist.

It's called regulating, and it is not anti-capitalist it is a reform of capitalism.

quote:

So now the size is what determines who should run it? Funny, because the largest operations are notoriously the most wasteful and inefficient no matter who runs it. National defense is best run by the state because the state actually has the strongest incentive to run it well - maintaining power over its borders and citizens. No such power incentive exists with health care.

What about private contractors? And if the state has no incentive to provide health care why run Medicare and Medicaid? Your "incentive" concept isn't as clear as you would like it to be.

quote:

There may be cases where people with genuine need and little fault slip through the cracks, but there always are, no matter what the system is. In a socialist (or two-tier) system, those people slip through the cracks because other people who took less responsibility got into the queue first.

40+ million people without insurance in the U.S. is not slipping through the cracks. You talk about euphemisms and employ a pretty large one here.

quote:

It is incentivised by profit, whether you think it should be or not. It does not matter how the system is structured; people may become doctors or surgeons out of an innate desire to help people, but after 15 years of hellish training and a subsequent lifetime of the worst kind of stress, they will expect to be compensated extremely well for their efforts, and will do whatever they can to either maximize their profits (if the system allows it) or minimize their effort and stress (which is what happens in the socialist system). Given those two options, which one would you prefer to be a patient of?

There is a difference between profit and compensation. Doctors are compensated for what they do. Insurance companies, lobby groups, and other actors involved in health care make a profit, and a large one at that.

quote:

Despite years of evidence that the government can't be trusted any better than for-profit corporations? In Ontario alone we've had at least two well-publicized incidences of tainted water and countless blackouts, brownouts, and power spikes. Jesus, I thought just about everybody knew by now that you can't trust the government to do anything right. At least when it's private you have the option of going somewhere else if you're dissatisfied with the service.

What about Enron arbitrarily shutting the power down in california just to make a profit? Also, often times, even with private options you don't really have much choice.

quote:

Wow. Just... wow. Do you not realize that these countries became "rich" specifically because of the individual rights you seem to feel are unimportant?

The history of how North America became rich goes far beyond the implementation of individual rights. Also, where did I say that individual rights are not important?

quote:

No, you're arguing for socialization of industries. The capitalist system already has intrinsic checks and balances; socialist systems don't. Most importantly, in a capitalist system there is competition; government programs are monopolies by definition.

Corporations seek to actively avoid competition wherever possible. They do this to such a large extent that the big bad government has to step in and regulate with anti-trust laws.

quote:

Who said anything about blind faith? To people other than you and Michael Moore, it's well-understood why a free market works, and it's also well-understood that it doesn't work in an ideal fashion all of the time, but that's a trade-off most people are willing to make to avoid a system that barely works any of the time.

Some people are not willing to make the trade-off that capitalism demands. Also, is there nothing wrong with trying to make a system better? When one advocates of a reform of capitalism, this does not mean that the person is advocating for a socialist utopia and the elimination of capitalism. You call me out for using euphemisms yet these "trade-offs" that you speak of represent, in some cases, exploitation, oppression and even death.

quote:

Good old Politician's Fallacy eh? Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it! Ironically, a big part of what's killing American health care is all of the regulations and red tape. But you definitely don't hear any politicians clamoring to loosen those up, because that wouldn't expand government powers.

So you agree that something has to be done about the American health care system, that's a start. And Yes, you do hear politicians clamoring to loosen those up - Republicans.

quote:

What an absolute crock of shit, and you know it.

I don't know it. I meant it.

Not all 40 Million people without insurance are forced into it though. Many can afford it but decide not to spend the money on Health Insurance.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Not all 40 Million people without insurance are forced into it though. Many can afford it but decide not to spend the money on Health Insurance.

Even if half those chose not to get insurance, 20 million people without health insurance is still a large number.

quote:

Originally posted by Anton Even if half those chose not to get insurance, 20 million people without health insurance is still a large number.

but that's the 20 million people that no population wants....I am sure the US would be happy to see that portion of the population just die off.

quote:

Originally posted by Anton Even if half those chose not to get insurance, 20 million people without health insurance is still a large number.

Less than 1 in 10. Which is what I would expect, since it's about the same as the level of poverty in the USA.

Anyway, if they can't afford to pay for health bills, they are still treated, just with the cheapest form of care that the Hospital has available.

They're already poor and probably stuck that way because of the poor decisions they made in their life. What's a missing arm or leg gonna make a difference?

Edit:

See? Chem agrees with me. Can't argue with that logic.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam They're already poor and probably stuck that way because of the poor decisions they made in their life. What's a missing arm or leg gonna make a difference?

....

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Edit: See? Chem agrees with me. Can't argue with that logic.

I would go to the extreme and just take the 20 million who can't afford healthcare and toss them in a tar pit....gotta give back to mother earth.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced I would go to the extreme and just take the 20 million who can't afford healthcare and toss them in a tar pit....gotta give back to mother earth.

That 20 million dead people today is our oil supply of tomorrow.

First, It's interesting that people suggest that the people i mentioned in the original post are not socialists.

Hitler's Party was called the National Socialist Party of Germany. It was in their very name!

Stalin and the USSR. How much more socialist can you get? They practically invented the concept

Fidel? Ever been to Cuba? They have slogans everywhere. "Sociolismo O Muerte" and Defendente los ideas socialistas!". Ironically the government itself is VERY capitalist when it comes to dealing with tourist money.

Kim Jung Il's central government is the very extreme of socialism and communism.

Facism/communism/socialism are very intertwinable. Cant say the same about those when it comes to capitalism (socialism to an extent, thats about it)

Someone please show me an example in history of a capitalist country that was a repressive dictatorship.

My point about socialism being evil is this. Socialism isnt evil just as capitalism is not. But if anyone is going to put a label on capitalism they best look in the mirror. Because individuals of the past and present use socialism as an easier path to do unimaginable evil.

Second:

quote:

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws." - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

I agree. And thats exactly what a socialist government tries to achieve. Do you think they want to take your money from you for the good of all people? NOPE! The more money they take, the more power and influence they can inflict on a society. This is why fascists and dictators tend to follow a socialist model.

Third,

I am all for socialism as it is written on paper. But socialism in real life fails in two ways.

1) it doesnt account for the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Put every sphere of influence under the control of a few and undoubtedly they are going to abuse it.

2) It doesnt account for the human condition of the need to be motivated. People are motivated by the need to improve and make better. This means a better lifestyle, a better field of knowledge or whatever. If everyone has the same and has no incentive to work, innovate or create, then how can society function? This was one of the reasons why the USSR went broke and fell apart.

Lastly,

How ironic it is for people in the western world to demonize capitalism? The very system that gave them the freedom to speak their mind along with the wealth to afford a computer and a good home and even the basic ability to use internet. Ive been in self proclaimed socialist countries where you cant even speak your mind against the powers that be, or even use proper internet for fear of you finding out what they dont want you to know.

Capitalism is FAR from perfect, but by harnessing the human need for motivation we are able to take the inherent nature of greed that is present in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US and harness it for the betterment of society.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 ... I am all for socialism as it is written on paper. But socialism in real life fails in two ways. 1) it doesnt account for the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Put every sphere of influence under the control of a few and undoubtedly they are going to abuse it. 2) It doesnt account for the human condition of the need to be motivated. People are motivated by the need to improve and make better. This means a better lifestyle, a better field of knowledge or whatever. If everyone has the same and has no incentive to work, innovate or create, then how can society function? This was one of the reasons why the USSR went broke and fell apart. ....

doesn't capitalism fail in real life for precisely the same reason as #1?

power and capital is held/controlled by the few with a gross % of population living in poverty due to corruption.

same shit. whether its the heads of state who are corrupt or whether its big business unduly influencing gov't policy...the effect is that the people suffer as a result of greed and corruption by a relative few.

as for #2...bullshit. profit and personal gain is not 'the human condition' and I'd suggest our striving for a better lifestyle is because that's what we've personally known and been taught to think. since when does socialism mean that everyone gets 'the same'? it's well documented that financial incentive alone does not influence motivation. if you grew up in a socialist society (pure socialism...not some poverty-stricken abomination), you'd likely see your motivation not being tied to profit or individual gain.

this is *hardly* meant as a defense of socialism. I'm just pointing out the flaws in those two points.

Capitalism's failures led to the development of Communist and Socialist ideas. Is capitalism really working? Or is it just the most tolerable or a pretty bad bunch of apples?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And the Soviets... well, if you're going to argue that they weren't socialist, you're as nuts as they were.

USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

quote:

Originally posted by Spam They're already poor and probably stuck that way because of the poor decisions they made in their life. What's a missing arm or leg gonna make a difference?

That's one of the most retarded comments I've heard to date...

quote:

Originally posted by VDub That's one of the most retarded comments I've heard to date...

I think their comment was tongue in cheek.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT as for #2...bullshit. profit and personal gain is not 'the human condition' and I'd suggest our striving for a better lifestyle is because that's what we've personally known and been taught to think. since when does socialism mean that everyone gets 'the same'? it's well documented that financial incentive alone does not influence motivation. if you grew up in a socialist society (pure socialism...not some poverty-stricken abomination), you'd likely see your motivation not being tied to profit or individual gain.

What would be the motivational factor in a true socialist system? There has to be some way to quantify and reward the efforts of one persons work and accomplishments over another. Otherwise the accomplishment or extra work is useless. Competition is healthy. It drives progress, innovation and productivity.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.