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.
Having been on both sides of the fence when it has come to my views on economics, it has taken some time for me to really put in words why conservatives and liberals are so different in their views of economics. However lately I have to put myself in the mindset when I was a socialist, and think of the things that drove me to socialism. So here are some of the ways I felt when I was a socialist...
* Angry at the perceived imbalance and inequality in the world
* Upset that some people had things when other did not have them
* In love with the idea of equality
* Believing that socialism was great because it enforced equality
* I wanted to see everyone happy
* I wanted to punish people who seem to have more, why others suffered.
As you can see in my days as a liberal, I was driven by abstract concepts. Socialism is the apex of ideology. The reality is that socialism has taken the imagination of many people the world over because it is a great ideology, which enforce fairness and egalitarianism. The thing that kept me as a socialist for so long was that I could look at functioning example of socialism around the world. I could also just chalk up bad socialistic governments as implementing socialism incorrectly, and go about my merry way. Basically I was a socialist because I did not understand capitalism.
When it came to me becoming a capitalist, one thing drove me to it
As you can see, capitalism is a system based on the intracies of mechanics. It isn't very high on ideology at all. Generally capitalist are very great in business and finance. This is because most people love capitalism not because of idealism, but because of results. We look at things from a purely numerical and calculation standpoint. So what capitalism does is really throw away a lot of the high idealism of "progress" or "egalitarianism" and we tend to see things in a cold/systematic way. Capitalism lean toward the more practical end.
So this is mainly why capitalist and socialist are at odds with each other. We are arguing two different things. Have you really ever heard a true bonafide liberal socialist get down into the intracies of how scalable socialism really is? Of course not. This is because a socialist isn't driven by math and mechanics. They're rarely ever driven by finance period. They don't love socialism because it's a great system, they love it because it's a great theory. And to love a theory, you have to love ideas. Socialism is a romanticizing of economics, not a realization of it.
We must get socialist to think about mechanics and intracies. We must force them to debate how socialism actually can and would work. We cannot let socialist keep espousing ideas, but we must force them to get into the details of functionality. We must get down into these details to invalidate this theory, so that people will reject a failed system.
I will not get into details of these systems. Why? To start with there are varied definitions of communism, socialism, capitalism, democracy, etc. Even within groups espousing a certain system there are arguments as to how to practice those systems.
However, I do espouse the freedom for people to choose what type of economic/government system they want to live under.
With this in mind, whenever there is any system that puts walls to keep people, against their will, from going somewhere else, I don't see how that system is good.
If a system is good, people want to stay within it. Granted, it may not be a perfect system there will be those that fight the system also.
What I see is the history behind different systems. In which systems do you see people fleeing from and which one people immigrating to?
People actions in the world to me are a strong indicator. Which countries, despite their imperfect systems, have the most people immigrating to? Also, which countries do people leave to find a better life?
So we can all debate about our preferred system but in the end people do run to a system where they may think is the better choice, or lesser of two evils if you want to be negative.
Sometimes effectiveness is not happiness and happiness does not necessarily mean being rich.
Also, I am aware that a physical wall is not the only way to subjugate people in some form.
What is the best system? In the end the people will revolt when subjugation is unbearable, history proves that. People has revolted against the systems in discussion here. Again, which system has more people revolting against and running from? Take care.
Any attempt to control a market is by design socialistic. While liberals themselves are not socialist, their economics are almost always socialistic. This means the attempt to introduce some element of socialism to the free market economy. There is almost nothing in liberals economic policies that enforces any sort of free market imperative.
Socialism is when the government controls the means of production. Socialism is not when the government may play a role in how the free market works. The free market cannot exist without the government.
Besides, the United States has never been a pure free market. It's always been a mixed-economy.
With the standard you've just set I think you'd have a hard time to find one member of congress who isn't a socialist.
Conservative: Millionaires need more money, workers already have too much.
Liberal: Millionaires have too much, workers need more.
Concise, but correct.
The way I view it.
Socialist - (Buffet) - How can we make more rules and regulations to prevent others from taking my share of business. No better return than buying out politicians and making money.
Capitalist - No better system to send signals to control the means of production and balance supply and demand. Environment is a tough call, but at least people can move up the social structure, and those fat cats looking to be protected by government to remain rich will fall in wealth unless they stay on top of things.
Conservative - I don't know what is going on but I do know spending money is bad and I hate abortions.
Democrat - I have no flying idea how anything works but emotionally we need to save the poor people even though we are destroying the wealth of every single citizen in that society and making it even worse for poor people. We basically just steal wealth through taxes and we can dole it out to the rich (why the rich are getting richer, inflation, and this). But we will tell all the people that we are for unions and the working class. They are too stupid to know any better, throw them some food stamps and maybe some cell phones and we should be ok. Anyway, time for me to take a $100,000 flight over to vacation for my family on air force one.
Conservative: Millionaires need more money, workers already have too much.
Liberal: Millionaires have too much, workers need more.
Concise, but correct.
Short response to Old Gringo: Fanciful rhetoric that plays well on the podium. Has no bearing on real life.
Conservative: Rural people, old people, religious and traditional people, small business people. blue collar people, Mormons, The Amish. Billy Graham,
Liberal: College students, corporate weinees, lawyers, academics and celebrities, government employees, urbanites. Unionists. Michael Moore and Bill Gates.
Now that is correct. Not concise, but correct.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 01-03-2014 at 05:46 PM..
Short response to Old Gringo: Fanciful rhetoric that plays well on the podium. Has no bearing on real life.
Conservative: Rural people, old people, religious and traditional people, small business people. blue collar people, Mormons, The Amish. Billy Graham, Koch Bros., Ted nugent, Fred Phelps
Liberal: College students, corporate weinees, lawyers, academics and celebrities, government employees, urbanites. Unionists. Michael Moore and Bill Gates.
Now that is correct. Not concise, but correct.
I fixed it a little but it's hardly concise. There are liberals and conservatives in every category you mentioned. What's a corporate weiee?
Here is the answer to your previous question well elucidated by none other than yourself.The quote I've heard contends Liberals and Conservatives. You and your fellow posters subscribe to the notion that all liberals are extreme socialists and that all conservatives are the saviors of humanity.
No. That's not what I ascribe to. And no, you seem to be confused on who you are quoting. It wasn't me.
Classical American Liberals are people like Thomas Jefferson who believe in minimized government and maximum individual liberty in a free market environment.
Modern Liberals in America are entitlement statists economically with a mix of conservative or liberal social views. They are not usually conscious believers in socialism per se. They just believe they can have all the benefits of an entitlement state and income redistribution without all the nasty totalitarian rules and loss of individuality. But they typically believe in a free market, with more regulation of business affairs.
Modern Liberals in Europe are the same as classic American Liberals. Like Sarkozy in France. Calling them "liberal" in some parts of Europe is meant as an insult.
American Progressives are a more radical type of modern Liberal that usually espouses one or more Leftist positions on social issues. They are typically somewhere between "modern liberal" and "communist" economically.
American Conservatives: The same thing as a classic American Liberal. See above.
I fixed it a little but it's hardly concise. There are liberals and conservatives in every category you mentioned. What's a corporate weiee?
A corporate weinee is a big city urbanite college grad, typically Ivy League mentality, who works for one of the Fortune 500 companies and is socially liberal or progessive, not religious typically, socially conscious and politically correct. They love modern art, fashion shows, the symphony and playing racquetball for lunch. They live in a sanitized bubble.
When they get rich, they donate money to the United Nations or start a foundation to help the London School of Economics. They do Democrat fundraisers for 10,000 a plate.
Conservative: Rural people, old people, religious and traditional people, small business people. blue collar people, Mormons, The Amish. Billy Graham,
Liberal: College students, corporate weinees, lawyers, academics and celebrities, government employees, urbanites. Unionists. Michael Moore and Bill Gates.
Now that is correct. Not concise, but correct.
And somewhat over-simplified. So what do you call a old person (65) who is religious but not particularly traditional, who is, in fact, quite progressive and open-minded, Mormon, definitely white-collar, college graduate with honors, urbanite? Oh dear... so much overlap.
A corporate weinee is a big city urbanite college grad, typically Ivy League mentality, who works for one of the Fortune 500 companies and is socially liberal or progessive, not religious typically, socially conscious and politically correct. They love modern art, fashion shows, the symphony and playing racquetball for lunch. They live in a sanitized bubble.
When they get rich, they donate money to the United Nations or start a foundation to help the London School of Economics. They do Democrat fundraisers for 10,000 a plate.
When they get old, they're Ted Turner.
Where do I sign up? You could do a lot worse. It takes all kinds to balance a society. What's your label and how is it better?
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.
