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.
I get sick everytime I hear the work "protection". In my mind it's simply a dirty word. Why? Because protection never leads to anything good. When you look at most tyrannies that were once free nations, you can see the promise of protection at the root of it. At the end of the day, protection is regression. Protection puts a major strain on competition, it drives prices up, and does not democratize the markets. The bottomline is that protection is a stupid stupid thing, and shame on anyone who thinks the government should be "protecting" them. The only one who can protect you is you. The only person who can insure that you have a job is you. Either you have the skills to get a job based on the current market and the current level of competition, or you make a job for yourself. But it's not up to the government to step in and give you a job.
When the government can "give you a job" you effectively have a socialist country. Or as I like to call it, "slavery".
Listen if factories are closing down in the USA, it's because they're too expensive to be run, and they're cheaper elsewhere. Do not get mad if Americans are not good enough to compete with foreigners. I am in the field of technology. I've been going heads up with foreign competition literally since day 1 in my career. And to be honest, my very first position in tech is a position that is now completely outsourced, and almost done entirely overseas. Good job I stepped up my game and got a better job. That's how you're suppose to do it.
And then the same people asking Trump to protect their jobs throw stones calling liberals "socialist". New Flash, there is nothing capitalistic about a president "protecting" someone's job. There is no protection in real capitalism. So either you go all in on capitalism, or just admit what you are, a socialist. For the record, I'm all in on capitalism for better or worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
You're incorrect, because socialism and capitalism are not discrete terms. They're a spectrum of economic conditions. With nothing pure socialism and nothing purely capitalistic or free market. Capitalism does indeed mean less regulation, less government and more of a market economy. Socialism means that the government is controlling the means of production. When the government "protects" certain jobs, it's not "leaving it up to the market". It is actively getting involved and changing the dynamics of the market. This is "controlling the means of production". It's not doing it directly, but indirectly. This indirectly gives certain companies an unfair advantage that they wouldn't have if it weren't for the government interference and regulations. The results? You have a form of socialism called corporate welfare. And make no mistakes, this is a form of socialism.
Whether branh0913 thinks a tariff is socialism is not important. The government should set tariffs that are at the level that are of intrest to teh citizens of the USA, not set tariffs so branh0913 doesn't call the tariff socialist. Whether this tariff is socialistic is completely meaningless. I mean it's a fact that a tariff is not socialist but again meaningless.
Most of your reasons for not having tariffs in this post are totally ridiculous. It is absurd to set policy to avoid having said policy being part of a soundbite. the government should set the tariff level in the USA interest, and some tariffs are absolutely in US interest.
That makes absolutely no sense. You're saying an economic or political theory must have a state in order to have a definition? And if a state claims to follow said theory, but does not match the definition, then the definition is something else?
Words have concrete meaning. What you're saying attempts to undermine that. It's an anti-intellectual position and is entirely unhelpful to this conversation. It really does not matter if there is not currently a state where the workers own production. That's entirely irrelevant to what the definition of socialism is.
It as a typo, I meant "statement". In either case, capitalism is definitely not to the benefit of 1 person. That statement is absolutely wrong. It is the idea that the market not the government controls the means of production. This is what you get when we talk about the "free market". It is a market that controls itself, and is not controlled by any central government. As a result capitalism can benefit anyone.
Socialism in contrast have never in practice been controlled by people. It has been controlled by the state.
Whether branh0913 thinks a tariff is socialism is not important. The government should set tariffs that are at the level that are of intrest to teh citizens of the USA, not set tariffs so branh0913 doesn't call the tariff socialist. Whether this tariff is socialistic is completely meaningless. I mean it's a fact that a tariff is not socialist but again meaningless.
Most of your reasons for not having tariffs in this post are totally ridiculous. It is absurd to set policy to avoid having said policy being part of a soundbite. the government should set the tariff level in the USA interest, and some tariffs are absolutely in US interest.
How does tarrifs help America when it unfairly penalizes American business from buying foreign for cheaper prices. There is a reason why companies invest in foreign markets, and that is because it's cheaper. That will keep prices competitive and keep things at a reasonable price for consumers. Tariffs will undoutedly cause inflation in consumer goods in the future. They're a bad idea. This is why we need free trade. Unless you have an issue with a company making a profit
It as a typo, I meant "statement". In either case, capitalism is definitely not to the benefit of 1 person. That statement is absolutely wrong. It is the idea that the market not the government controls the means of production. This is what you get when we talk about the "free market". It is a market that controls itself, and is not controlled by any central government. As a result capitalism can benefit anyone.
Socialism in contrast have never in practice been controlled by people. It has been controlled by the state.
I'm defiantly not saying that only one person in a capitalist system can benefit. It simply places priority on individuals who own more capital. It's my view, and the view of many others, that this system ultimately benefits the few (the capitalists) more and a system progresses, resulting in larger amounts of inequality and a rising oligarchy. While capitalism can theoretically benefit anyone, it doesn't in practice. Could it? Maybe, but this would require a certain level of regulations. It would also mean abolishing corporations entirely, as they are state created institutions given to individuals, who at this point now have all of the benefits of being an individual but none of the accountability, creating what you called earlier "corporatism." While corporatism may not be capitalist (it is, but it's immaterial if you accept that or not), it's certainly not socialism.
As I said, it does not matter if socialism has never been controlled as many socialists would like it to be (this is almost certainly due to the high levels of resistance socialists face). To get back to the root point, saying that protectionism is socialist isn't true because you're definition of socialism is inaccurate. Even if your definition was accurate, protectionism still wouldn't actually be socialist.
The problem for business and families is government. They make contracts, pick winners and losers. Politicians go globalist for personal wealth and the people are screwed.
Corporations have zero to do with it. Take out the bad politicians using the government to get wealthy or gain power and you are left with Corporations that would have little political influence.
I think you follow the money and jail bad politicians who have illegally benefitted by their actions.
The problem for business and families is government. They make contracts, pick winners and losers. Politicians go globalist for personal wealth and the people are screwed.
Corporations have zero to do with it. Take out the bad politicians using the government to get wealthy or gain power and you are left with Corporations that would have little political influence.
I think you follow the money and jail bad politicians who have illegally benefitted by their actions.
You do understand that we can reverse your "solution" and it sounds exactly the same. Bankrupt corrupt corporations and the politicians they uphold will inevitably fall from the public's good graces.
You do understand that we can reverse your "solution" and it sounds exactly the same. Bankrupt corrupt corporations and the politicians they uphold will inevitably fall from the public's good graces.
Bad corporations lose consumer dollars and risk going out of business due to growing competition. The government actually enable bad business because they will protect corporations who do bad business. If you have no government regulations, the market will pick the winners and losers. Right now the govenrment does it, which leads to even greater corruption.
Bad corporations lose consumer dollars and risk going out of business due to growing competition. The government actually enable bad business because they will protect corporations who do bad business. If you have no government regulations, the market will pick the winners and losers. Right now the govenrment does it, which leads to even greater corruption.
Slight amendment to what you said: the government sponsors bills that benefit corporations; these bills, however, are often written by corporations. So while the government may be picking the winners and losers, they're acting for the corporations. Completely deregulating also won't be a solution. If no regulations exist, how long do you think it would take for massive businesses (can't be corporations since corporation is a legal term and therefore requires the government to exist at all, which should mean by your definition of capitalism, which is not the accepted definition economists use, corporations cannot exist in a capitalist system as they're the result of government forces) to buy up state power as nothing can legally stop that. Or simply become the state more or less, if we also go the route of completely anarcho-capitalism.
It is the government's job to protect it people from foreign invasion, keep regulation at a minimum to foster economic growth, makes reasonable laws to protect the people's rights and freedoms, and protect those that TRULY cannot care for themselves (and have no family to care for them). Other than that stay the hell out of the way.
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.
