“Socialism Has Produced Some Very Powerful Millionaires”

The bigger the government, the more control the rich and powerful have (since they own the politicians and bureaucrats). Smaller government gives them less control, and more power to the average citizen. Limited government is much better for the little guy, it gives him the opportunity to run his own life.

a reply to: seasonal

I read a few years back about the eastern distilleries pushing for a tax on whiskey during George Washington's admin that made whiskey from the western states less competitive and they even got an exemption from that same tax.

People claim that was a time of true capitalism. I guess people need to believe in something.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Actually the smaller government of the 19th century made it easier for the robber barons and their monopolies.

Unless I'm thinking that you mean something else by bigger and smaller governments.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Tell that to the Rockefellers.

Notice all of the people complaining about capitalism cite extremely wealthy people as evidence of its failures.

I am not saying these people are unethical (to the contrary they seem like fine people to me) but I think this is a conditioned response ingrained into socialists.

Dostoevsky (I believe) contended that it wasn't that the socialist wanted to help the poor, it was that they hated the rich.

Hence they would justify destroying the economy for all just to make sure there were no rich.

originally posted by: Grambler
Notice all of the people complaining about capitalism cite extremely wealthy people as evidence of its failures.

And all the people who complain about socialism cite poor masses and both things exist in countries labeled as either.

a reply to: Grambler

You need not justify it. It will happen because of the flaws or lack of laws being enforced. Every corrupt system fails.

Hence they would justify destroying the economy for all just to make sure there were no rich.

a reply to: daskakik

The numbers arent even close. The countries that have claimed to have been true socialists led to tens of millions of people starving or being murdered.

You can talk about poverty in the US all you want, it is infinitesimal compared to other areas of the world.

originally posted by: Grambler
The numbers arent even close. The countries that have claimed to have been true socialists led to tens of millions of people starving or being murdered.

"Claimed to be", there is the hitch isn't it.

You can talk about poverty in the US all you want, it is infinitesimal compared to other areas of the world.

I'm talking about other countries that "claim to be" capitalist like Guatemala, Uganda or Thailand.

Can't have it both ways.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Grambler
The numbers arent even close. The countries that have claimed to have been true socialists led to tens of millions of people starving or being murdered.

"Claimed to be", there is the hitch isn't it.

You can talk about poverty in the US all you want, it is infinitesimal compared to other areas of the world.

I'm talking about other countries that "claim to be" capitalist like Guatemala, Uganda or Thailand.

Can't have it both ways.

I am not trying to. I fully admit that Capitalism has problems, even in the best of countries.

In addition, being capitalist does not guarantee a success.

But not only does socialism have a 100% failure rate, it has led to some of the most disgusting horrific situations the world has ever seen.

Jordan Peterson describes the horror and genocide that always follows these ideals.

a reply to: Grambler

You are missing the point.

Capitalism doesn't have it's problems. Capitalism is a pipe dream. It doesn't exist.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Grambler

You are missing the point.

Capitalism doesn't have it's problems. Capitalism is a pipe dream. It doesn't exist.

So whats the point? Are you claiming no economic system has ever existed.

Great, now where do we go. We can't use any historical examples to determine rather or not we should strive closer to capitalism or socialism because non of it has ever existed?

Its just a semantic argument that leads nowhere.

The point is, countries that have strived for socialism, and called themselves that, suck.

originally posted by: Grambler
The point is, countries that have strived for socialism, and called themselves that, suck.

So do countries that have strived for capitalism and called themselves that.

The point is that it doesn't matter what the government calls itself or what it says it is striving for, it is crony-capitalism. If they can walk the tight rope and balance the greed of the elite with the needs of the masses they may last a long time if not then talks of revolution start gaining strength.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: infolurker

The US is $20,000,000,000,000 in debt, so laugh all you want at the socialists-capitalism will and is faltering too.

Any system that has massive corruption is going to crash.

The current system is not capitalism. It is a sort of corporatism.

In capitalism, banks wouldn't be bailed out and many other special favors to corporate interests woul not be given out.

We also would not have a federal reserve.

In fact, it seems the more the government get involved, the more problems we get. Seems that would indicate socialism is bad.

But humor me, name me one socialist country that has had success?

According to the article in the OP, great thinkers such as Noam Chomsky and Bernie Sanders touted Venzuela as an enormous success. Why were they so wrong?

Great post. This is where people go wrong by using the word capitalism as the boogeyman.

Corrupt corporatism is not free market capitalism. We need free market capitalism more than ever! The only way that will happen is if the current system collapses. We need a collapse in order to rebuild it properly. This time without the FED, corporate bribery.._errr lobbyism and strict term limits. Collapse already!

a reply to: Wookiep

Wouldn't a corrupt system always fail?

Seems like capitalism gets a free pass, because we are not using it right, or it isn't being applied right.

The same exact thing a pro-socialism advocate says.

Seems like finger waving to me.

a reply to: Grambler

I'm a pretty happy peasant, I have a nice place, a good car a boat and all sorts of other luxuries.


I'm not complaining .

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Fractional reserve lending has an end game.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Grambler

I'm a pretty happy peasant, I have a nice place, a good car a boat and all sorts of other luxuries.


I'm not complaining .

Yes I would be considered poor for this country.

My family of two made around $35,000 last year.

And my life is great.

Now I am still in favor of dealing with crony corporate people, but I am i no way going to compare myself to the poor of other countries.

a reply to: ketsuko

You misunderstood me, I was pointing out regardless of the system in place disparity will occur for the majority.

As I said in my reply to gambler I am very content personally I have good life so despite what you may think I'm not complaining.

a reply to: seasonal

Sure, I won't argue with that. I think capitalism is really the only viable option for the U.S., given the 330 million population, combined with the many examples of how socialism never works long term. We need to fix the current corruption within our own system, and we will be just fine.