Ursa Majoris Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Perhaps a political statement, how we (re our current administration) are engaging in a war to promote capitalism Or a statement that there are degrees of capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I just found it thought provoking. Not to hijack another thread with the book I'm reading (skins), The Sword of Truth series. In it there is the Imperial Order who take socalism and facism to the extreme (the bad guys) who are trying to take over the world. The protagonist of the story is the leader of the opposing force who is trying to preserve a capatilistic system with a centralized, hands off government of his land, against the imperialistic Socialists. He gets kidnapped and forced to live in the heart of the Order's capital, in cognito, and live as one of the commoners of the Socialist system. The story highlitghts the supposed flaw of Socialism promoting laziness and inefficency due to the lack of the freedom to strive for a better life through personal income. I've always considered myself a bit of a socialist and think that a pseudo-socalistic system, with limits, is the best overall governmental option. I think that unbridaled Capatilism does foment an environment of financial might equals right and the bullying of the less fortunate. It also gives people the unfortunate ability to chose the wrong career path, one for which they are not suited to and, IMO, doesnt evaluate each persons personal strengths and weaknesses enough as a child to guide them into the career in which they can be best applied. Lets face it, not everyone is cut out for the goals they wish to acheive. Just because you have an MBA doesnt nessecarily mean that you deserve a six figure income. It just means that you were fortunate enough to have parents that have enough money to pay for 4-6 years of college and that you have the patience to take the classes. I could rant on this subject forever. I have just been evaluating my beliefs lately and this just an expression of one extreme. I dont know if I answered your question but its late and I'm sick of typing. I'll revisit this thread tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 there is a whole lot of difference in the freedom of someone who gets to keep, say 80% of their gross income versus somebody who only gets to keep say 50% of their gross income amen to that. i would also add that the person who pays ~20% of their gross income in taxes, but pays it in connection with certain transactions they chose to partake in (think sales tax), has more freedom than someone who just has 20% of every dollar they make lopped off the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 simplify the tax code.....a flat tax accompanied by a luxury tax on certain high end items. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 so anyone have figures on how much the u.s citizens pay in taxes, health care, school, etc compared to socialist countries that pay more in taxes but have those thing free that we pay for... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 (edited) ...to continue... ...hence, those who complain about the high tax burden in the US, even though it is pretty much the LOWEST tax burden you're going to encounter in Western society (Japan being a de facto western nation), should certainly feel free to move to a nation with lower, or even zero taxes. conversely, those who complain that taxes are too low (usually on others, not on themselves of course) and our government is too stingy with services, should consider themselves more than welcome to move to one of those other western societies with HIGHER tax burdens and more benevolent, fatherly governments (and, of course, double-digit unemployment). they should also consider themselves free to move to more highly taxed countries like venezuela and cuba. i'm also interested in that comparison with the sudan and somalia. which of these statements would you say are more true: 1) we are more developed than the third world because we have higher taxes than developing nations 2) our economy has led the developed nations of the world for decades because we have lower taxes than other developed nations Edited April 13, 2007 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 so anyone have figures on how much the u.s citizens pay in taxes, health care, school, etc compared to socialist countries that pay more in taxes but have those thing free that we pay for... none of it's "free", dummy. also, what is the price of freedom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Amen to all the 'feel free to move' comments. Anyone who really believes the grass is greener needs new glasses. I've been to a few other countries, and my overall impression remains the same: the relative wealth of the 'middle class' here is much better than that of most, if not all, other countries on earth. All countries have the very wealthy and the poor, but the U.S. has a larger and stronger middle class than anywhere. The gap maybe widening between the haves and have nots, and you have to run faster now than ever to stay in the middle or upper middle, but it still exists. And the power to do so is almost totally in your hands. The avy is thought provoking, but I guess I'd rather have the capitalism gun pointed at my head than any other kind..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 My comment was directed at DemonKnight's avatar which seems to indicate that he is against Capitalism. Funny, I thought it was the result of him destroying too many brain cells with his bong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 13, 2007 Author Share Posted April 13, 2007 also, what is the price of freedom? $2 Trillion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 13, 2007 Author Share Posted April 13, 2007 Funny, I thought it was the result of him destroying too many brain cells with his bong. oops--kindly delete this thread please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 oops--kindly delete this thread please Hey, I used the . No need for . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 what is the price of freedom? Eternal vigilance, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Eternal vigilance, of course. which, i'm guessing, is also a function you'd like the government to take care of for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 which, i'm guessing, is also a function you'd like the government to take care of for you? From a foreign policy perspective, I sure would, as long as they refrain from lacing their vigilance with imagination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I just found it thought provoking. Not to hijack another thread with the book I'm reading (skins), The Sword of Truth series. In it there is the Imperial Order who take socalism and facism to the extreme (the bad guys) who are trying to take over the world. The protagonist of the story is the leader of the opposing force who is trying to preserve a capatilistic system with a centralized, hands off government of his land, against the imperialistic Socialists. He gets kidnapped and forced to live in the heart of the Order's capital, in cognito, and live as one of the commoners of the Socialist system. The story highlitghts the supposed flaw of Socialism promoting laziness and inefficency due to the lack of the freedom to strive for a better life through personal income. I've always considered myself a bit of a socialist and think that a pseudo-socalistic system, with limits, is the best overall governmental option. I think that unbridaled Capatilism does foment an environment of financial might equals right and the bullying of the less fortunate. It also gives people the unfortunate ability to chose the wrong career path, one for which they are not suited to and, IMO, doesnt evaluate each persons personal strengths and weaknesses enough as a child to guide them into the career in which they can be best applied. Lets face it, not everyone is cut out for the goals they wish to acheive. Just because you have an MBA doesnt nessecarily mean that you deserve a six figure income. It just means that you were fortunate enough to have parents that have enough money to pay for 4-6 years of college and that you have the patience to take the classes. The story you described above highlights some very important flaws in Socialism. Without incentive, due to lack of freedom to strive for a better life through personal income, I can definitely see where Socialism can promote laziness and inefficiency. It demotes the possibility to gain wealth through innovation, from which competition and inspiration of new ideas stem from. Capatilism offers the fortunate ability to CHOOSE (hence, you're given a choice) whichever path you want to gain the success that you desire. If you take away people's choices, you're also taking away their desire and passion in which many of our nation's innovator's have gained wealth from -- wealth they earned through hard work and dedication. If someone has an MBA, or a Masters degree in a certain subject they are therfore much more informed than the average Joe. Using your example of someone with an MBA, they very much deserve a larger income than that of a person with an undergraduate degree, and especially more so over someone without a college degree at all. It's the knowledge and proof of dedication in a person that corporations are paying higher dollar for. That person making six-figures (and then some) went through year(s) of studying and hard work to gain the advantage over other people. THAT, my friend, promotes efficiency and excellence. Besides, your assumption that all an MBA means is that you have rich parents that could afford college for you is by far the worst of all your other misinformed remarks. Most of everyone that I know who has a particular Masters degree, or MBA did so with loans -- money that is essentially coming out of their own pocket. The difference is that when they finally get into the business world they now have thousands of dollars worth of loans they need to pay back just to get ahead. But they also have an advantage because they are much more educated than many other qualified individuals. Look, college isn't for everyone. But that doesn't mean the ones that don't go to college deserve the same amount of money than those that do go. In fact, they deservedly so should earn much less because they have less knowledge and education to back up work experience. While there are flaws in Capitalism, there are far more devastating flaws in the Socialist system that effect a much greater number of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 conversely, those who complain that taxes are too low (usually on others, not on themselves of course) and our government is too stingy with services, should consider themselves more than welcome to move to one of those other western societies with HIGHER tax burdens and more benevolent, fatherly governments (and, of course, double-digit unemployment). they should also consider themselves free to move to more highly taxed countries like venezuela and cuba. Well, if I were moving to a more highly-taxed country, I'd lean towards the Scandinavian nations, but that's just me. i'm also interested in that comparison with the sudan and somalia. which of these statements would you say are more true: 1) we are more developed than the third world because we have higher taxes than developing nations 2) our economy has led the developed nations of the world for decades because we have lower taxes than other developed nations 1) I think taxes have little to nothing to do with our being more developed than the 3rd world - that's more an accident of history. 2) Our economy led the developed nations for decades mainly because our infrastructure wasn't demolished from 1914-1918 and again from 1939-1945. Even when Europe/Japan was rebuilt, the US has abundant and cheap natural resources on a level that dwarfs most other leading economies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Our government invested massive amounts of taxpayer dollars in our amazing transportation infrastructure--highways, etc.--which allowed our economy to advance rapidly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 which, i'm guessing, is also a function you'd like the government to take care of for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 13, 2007 Author Share Posted April 13, 2007 (edited) Well, if I were moving to a more highly-taxed country, I'd lean towards the Scandinavian nations, but that's just me. 1) I think taxes have little to nothing to do with our being more developed than the 3rd world - that's more an accident of history. 2) Our economy led the developed nations for decades mainly because our infrastructure wasn't demolished from 1914-1918 and again from 1939-1945. Even when Europe/Japan was rebuilt, the US has abundant and cheap natural resources on a level that dwarfs most other leading economies. Natural Resources don't count for much really (Switzerland and Japan, for instance, have very few natural resources). I would argue strongly that one main determinant of economic development is the protection of private property rights. Hernando de Soto has written a wonderful book called The Mystery of Capital that discusses this topic. A long, but very interesting read on the primary cause of economic growth can be found in the paper Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth. Edited April 13, 2007 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 a major benefit of socialism..... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070413/ap_on_..._oil_takeover_3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 14, 2007 Author Share Posted April 14, 2007 a major benefit of socialism..... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070413/ap_on_..._oil_takeover_3 You're not really helping yourself: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 so anyone have figures on how much the u.s citizens pay in taxes, health care, school, etc compared to socialist countries that pay more in taxes but have those thing free that we pay for... free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 (edited) You're not really helping yourself: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/ and why is that.... im for capitalism and big business. i would hope that they would have cheap gas, its found and refined there. plus its one of his ways to keep the people quiet. you should read up a little more on the subject. im not for giving hand outs. cheap gas is one of his hand outs. are you for soldiers and the govt coming in and taking over businesses? Edited April 14, 2007 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 Natural Resources don't count for much really (Switzerland and Japan, for instance, have very few natural resources). Switzerland, though productive with a high standard of living, is more of a niche economy, isn't it? Specialized banking, manufacturing etc of high-quality products, as opposed to the mass manufacturing of consumer goods that most economic powers build themselves upon. Japan, on the other hand, I can't refute. It's also fair to point out that resource-rich Russia is a mess economically; most likely due to.... I would argue strongly that one main determinant of economic development is the protection of private property rights. Hernando de Soto has written a wonderful book called The Mystery of Capital that discusses this topic. ...which sounds about right. If I/you/we all think about it, relatively resource-rich Africa is dirt poor; resource poor Japan is wealthy. Why? The stability to ensure the protection of private property - which has been a staple in the West since, well, ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.