Looking back at the Socialist Platform (companies, government, support, income)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Theodore Roosevelt’s regulation of business was one of the best things to happen to this country. As you are better versed than I in the history of this era would you please start the thread you requested?
When will we a thread that looks back at the platform of the Bull Moose Party?
I myself agree with the Hon. William Jennings Bryan:
"If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
I looked it up. Mr. Bryan was never crucified upon a cross of gold. Nor did he allow mankind to be so treated. There be Men back then!
How do you separate greed from capitalism? Knowing very well that self-interest is fundamental to a capitalist.
You really can't tell the difference?
You can have self-interest and take care of your own needs without being greedy.
The problem is sin. Everyone has a sin problem - and some leans towards greed as their sin of choice.
Capitalism uses the natural inclination of self-interest to its best possible outcome.
Socialism puts power and wealth in the hands of a few - and somehow they are expected to be free from greed and corruption?? Fat chance. Socialism discourages self-interest and requires others to provide. That is not natural. That is not how humans are put together at our root.
Capitalism is responsible for recovering the miners in Chile. The company in PA was free to make a tool and market it for the self-interest of the owners and employees. Because they were profitable - they could send this tool to Chile to free the miners.
The essence of capitalism to me is is free market society that allows me to take care of myself FIRST - then to help others improve their lot through their own efforts.
You can have self-interest and take care of your own needs without being greedy.
The problem is sin. Everyone has a sin problem - and some leans towards greed as their sin of choice.
Capitalism uses the natural inclination of self-interest to its best possible outcome.
Socialism puts power and wealth in the hands of a few - and somehow they are expected to be free from greed and corruption?? Fat chance. Socialism discourages self-interest and requires others to provide. That is not natural. That is not how humans are put together at our root.
Capitalism is responsible for recovering the miners in Chile. The company in PA was free to make a tool and market it for the self-interest of the owners and employees. Because they were profitable - they could send this tool to Chile to free the miners.
The essence of capitalism to me is is free market society that allows me to take care of myself FIRST - then to help others improve their lot through their own efforts.
I'm not concerned with socialism yet, just took a para out of the OP and commented on it. But your assumption that socialism is about putting power and wealth in the hands of a few makes it sound like it is a synonym to Capitalism. Socialism, by nature is about power to the populace, not power in the hands of a few (Marx, for example, believed in small government, because he didn't believe that the government is the solution that it can drive change but only great masses of people (community) can, hence the word communism.
The problem is that you're assuming morality to be a driving force in capitalism. Is that a credible position to take? Self-interest above everything else is key to capitalism. If you disagree, would you be a capitalist in the strict sense, of capitalism, if you put people ahead of your profits and personal interests?
People will tell you that a Bumblebee is a physical impossibility. Everyone knows by now that a bumblebee cannot fly. Everyone except the bumblebee's themselves. Likewise, everyone knows that democratic socialist governments are economic wastelands and the people there are miserable beyond belief... everyone except the people that live in them...
The bumblebee is a bad example because aerodynamicists have known how the bumblebee flies for nearly a century. Bumblebees are not fixed wing aircraft. However your second statement rings true. I have never heard of a Republic overthrowing socialism for either unrestrained or crony Capitalism.
Europeans seem to like what they have, including the taxes, because they are adult enough to know a good deal. While providing for the public health they seem to make an extraordinary number of millionaires.
But your assumption that socialism is about putting power and wealth in the hands of a few makes it sound like it is a synonym to Capitalism.
I don't understand how you can make that comparison. That's a plutocracy - not capitalism. We are heading in that direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Socialism, by nature is about power to the populace, not power in the hands of a few (Marx, for example, believed in small government, because he didn't believe that the government is the solution that it can drive change but only great masses of people (community) can, hence the word communism.
How can people have power when they are receiving money that they did not work for? If anything, the entity that gives the money has the power. I don't even know what "power to the populace" means - how does the populace have power in socialism? I have not seen any examples of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
The problem is that you're assuming morality to be a driving force in capitalism. Is that a credible position to take? Self-interest above everything else is key to capitalism. If you disagree, would you be a capitalist in the strict sense, of capitalism, if you put people ahead of your profits and personal interests?
1. When you attribute greed to capitalism - aren't you making a moral distinction?
2. Morality is involved only because humans engage in capitalism and humans are moral beings.
3. Self-interest with boundaries is the key to capitalism. Without boundaries, you can cross the line to greed.
4. Capitalism in itself is a system of economics which is dependent on free markets - regardless of whether or not people behave themselves.
Free Markets are necessary for Capitalism but are also very difficult for businesses because a free market limits profits as competitors indulge in price competition.
Free Markets are necessary for Capitalism but are also very difficult for businesses because a free market limits profits as competitors indulge in price competition.
There can be no Utopia until the state limits profits and throttles supply
Free Markets are necessary for Capitalism but are also very difficult for businesses because a free market limits profits as competitors indulge in price competition.
Good for consumers. This is OK.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
