asdfsdiofjioasdf

[Lenticular_J]

Exactly. A socio-capitalism system is what we need. Some basic needs owned by the government and provided for free, like healthcare, but still plenty of individual opportunities for people - and if someone's a leg behind, they can get help a little easier.

 

 

 

Full on anything is bad.

[dsavi]

sdfadfas

[Rebdragon]

Exactly. A socio-capitalism system is what we need. Some basic needs owned by the government and provided for free, like healthcare, but still plenty of individual opportunities for people - and if someone's a leg behind, they can get help a little easier.

 

 

 

Full on anything is bad.

 

Which, again, supports the point I made. Essentially every developed state on this planet is socio-capitalist. Some are most capitalist than others, some are more socialist. The argument we're having here is basically an ambiguous discussion where one person is telling another person to move their point on the spectrum between pure capitalism and pure socialism a little bit to the right or left; it's by no means a true debate of opposing ideologies.

 

 

 

From my point of view, I'm not soulless, so I obviously agree with the idea of helping those who need it, but unlike essentially this entire forum I'm less inclined to increase welfare to the point that it promotes worthlessness in society. I'm just an old fashioned American conservative who thinks taxes are high enough as is, a pessimist who has never favored idealism.

 

 

 

I think it's disgusting to see myself be taxed 23%, a person who can't afford school or food or laundry who works 12 hours a day of hard work every day, and see someone like Warren Buffet be taxed 17% of his assets because of loopholes that are easily exploited.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

That is why I am a socialist, and that is why I am a liberal.

 

That stuck out to me.

[Will H]

I think that the best place is a healthy midpoint between Socialism and Capitalism. Capitalism works, for example, with luxuries which people could choose not to buy and get along without it, and can easily form competition in order to keep the prices as supply and demand dictates, not just what the company wants (oil companies should be undercutting each other, but so many people need oil they don't need to in order to lower priced to get a sale). It doesn't work with products/services which everyone uses, like healthcare, education*, fuel, food, water etc. without danger of crashing.

 

 

 

Socialism works with everything that Capitalism fails in, but doesn't need to apply where it succeeds. Sure, you could go 100% Authoritarian, but private enterprise should be encouraged too, nobody should be denied the chance to succeed.

 

 

 

*Education is what is keeping the rich/poor divide open. Rich families are paying for better education, and on average get the better jobs, and therefore can afford to improve their own children's education, and on average get the better jobs etc.

 

Ideally, Capitalism in education should be eradicated, not by forceful means, but by improving state schools so independent schools are made redundant.

[dragoonson]

 

*Education is what is keeping the rich/poor divide open. Rich families are paying for better education, and on average get the better jobs, and therefore can afford to improve their own children's education, and on average get the better jobs etc.

 

Ideally, Capitalism in education should be eradicated, not by forceful means, but by improving state schools so independent schools are made redundant.

 

 

 

Education isn't really important,really.My entire primary school class.Third highest results for the level out of ten classes during preliminary exams.2/3 of us,including myself went to schools that average 201 after PSLE.Thats our system,by the way.

 

 

 

[hide=Short mini-rant]My score was something like

 

 

 

English-A

 

Maths-A*

 

Science-A

 

Chinese-C.

 

 

 

Out of 300 I got around 220,went to a lousy school.[/hide]

 

 

 

Anyway,at 17,personally I without gambling,earn about 1.2k at a part time job where I work for 2-5 hours,not even daily.I get free food and drinks there,I get to watch free live shows,and I can flirt with girls during work time.

 

 

 

Thats how it is,there can never be a perfect education system because freaks like me exist.If say it was adapted to fit me,there would be some other freak who had encountered another flaw in the system,and so on.

[syndrome445]

People accuse Obama of being a socialist. (Note- He has never been left of the center)

 

I had a pretty good laugh at that. Never been left of center? :lol:

 

Of the center, no.

 

 

 

 

Wow, People like you are the reason IQ tests should be mandatory in order to vote. Obama is THE most left senator, and John McCain is much less right than Sarah Palin.

 

 

 

On the note that socialism and communism could work. I refuse to give my money away to those who have not worked for it. I will give to charities I support, and I will not let the government warrant where my money that I earned goes. Socialism takes money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not earn it. It is that simple. That is not what America was founded on. Move to Europe if you want socialism or a taste of nationalized Health Care. Also, name me one communist regime that worked out well in the end? In a nearly perfect world, it would work, but short of that it is a deeply flawed philosophy.

[dragoonson]

^An IQ test to vote?We should have an IQ test to sign up for TIF then,maybe such ideas would not come up any more.

 

 

 

See,this is why I have a different thinking that if it has a name I am not aware of.

 

 

 

Communism is rather people do the same amount of work,they get the same amount of money.However,the money is given to someone "upstairs",being the supervisor,per se.So if he's a greedy/lazy person,he can do squat but count money,receive 50% or more of the whole portion without people knowing,and the remaining 50%,say 50k is spread over a population of maybe 10k.So for doing nothing,your dictator gets 50k,and for doing the same amount of work you get the same amount:$5.

 

 

 

My idealogy is that you are paid based on the work you do.Similar to meritocracy,except you don't need to be observed over a long time.For example,you work slowly producing good work and your colleague is fast giving crap work.However,if you average together the speeds and qualities,you find that both of you are equal.You both have equal pay.

 

 

 

But in the case where salaries are set,like foreign "talent",assuming you have a monthly salary of 2k,work average speed and have average quality.You also happen to work 8 hours a day.This chinese immigrant comes in with a pay of 1k a month,and works at the same speed,producing the same quality as you.He therefore works only 4 hours a day.

 

 

 

Such a baseline would be applied to all companies to ensure the fairness.

 

 

 

Is there a name for that?

[syndrome445]

What about those who work fast and produce brilliant work? Do they get shafted or something?

[dragoonson]

What about those who work fast and produce brilliant work? Do they get shafted or something?

 

 

 

Depends.If they have similar pay they work fewer hours.If they work fixed hours or go by the rate they get maybe double.

 

 

 

I really shouldn't be a politician,I'd be so far left I'd fall off a proverbial cliff.

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

My idealogy is that you are paid based on the work you do.Similar to meritocracy,except you don't need to be observed over a long time.For example,you work slowly producing good work and your colleague is fast giving crap work.However,if you average together the speeds and qualities,you find that both of you are equal.You both have equal pay.

 

 

 

That is unworkable though, how do you define the merits of say a lawyer compared to somebody laying tarmac for a road. Physically, the road laying is infinitely more strenuous but it require anywhere near as much mentally (in terms of qualifications etc), you see what I mean? That sort of idea works for people doing the same jobs, or the same type of work but it's unworkable when setting wages for different types of work.

[dragoonson]

Ah,I had a solution to that,I believe.

 

 

 

Something like work requiring a degree automatically falls within "great work" category(unless lousy work is apparent),and therefore payment/work hours should be based on speed.

 

 

 

Whereas menial labor falls under "slow/average speed" (unless quick work is apparent) and payment/work hours should be based on quality.Its possible to suck at mopping,really.

 

 

 

However upon reviewing (and doing) much manual labor I found that manual labor should have its own classifications.

 

 

 

This would only work in a perfect world,I guess.But then,so would anything else :lol:

[syndrome445]

Your dividing people into blocks that determines how well they are payed does not work and makes those with great ideas and good initiative make the same as one who drones away at a dead end job all day. A good economy requires a fluid system.

 

 

 

I think people should work hard to do well and make money depending on how well they do and how well what they are producing is received by the overall populous. This creates a system where ingenious ideas flourish and not so good ideas and bad marketing do not make it. Whats that called again...? Oh! Capitalism, the system that has made America THE greatest country on Earth bar none.

[dragoonson]

Greatness is relative.People in the slums and the ghettos could think its the worst,Chinese people think China's the greatest.Personally,I may say Singapore is a hell hole,but its pretty great too.Hell,I'm great and I have yet to become Dylan the Great.

 

 

 

Hell,if Germany had won WWII,Nazism would've been the system you're praising now,seeing as Germany would have been THE greatest country on Earth,bar none.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Wow, People like you are the reason IQ tests should be mandatory in order to vote. Obama is THE most left senator, and John McCain is much less right than Sarah Palin.

 

Wow, 'coz you're so [bleep]ing intelligent you can't even spell Shilo. Welcome to TIF, Einstein!

 

 

 

If Obama is the most left-leaning senator in America, how comes Hillary supports national healthcare and he doesn't? Obama is far from a quasi-socialist. So far away, it's not funny.

 

 

 

On the note that socialism and communism could work. I refuse to give my money away to those who have not worked for it.

 

Can you explain to me how a CEO who saw a gap in the market, built a business to the point he longer has to work for it, but owns it nonetheless for the money it produces, has worked for that money? All he's done is organised a clever way of making people earn money for him.

 

 

 

Explain to me how the upper classes earn their wealth when they systematically inherit it from each other through the generations for doing next to nothing but living a luxurious lifestyle?

 

 

 

In the meantime, there's a nurse working 12 hour shifts in a hospital for a crappy wage who needs national healthcare and benefits because (s)he's not earning enough. That's capitalism. Don't argue against socialism by saying it's an unfair distribution of wealth when capitalism is far from perfect itself and without doubt worse.

 

 

 

I will give to charities I support, and I will not let the government warrant where my money that I earned goes.

 

If tax was high enough (yes, sorry, I dared mention the "t" word), there'd be no need for charities. Everyone would have the security they need. Trusting charities with your money instead of the government can only be due to an irrational fear of authority.

 

 

 

Socialism takes money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not earn it. It is that simple.

 

A) Who exactly is this money going to?

 

B) How have they not deserved it?

 

 

 

That is not what America was founded on. Move to Europe if you want socialism or a taste of nationalized Health Care.

 

How about America relinquishes its influence over world markets then? Believe me, I despise that as much as you despise communism.

 

 

 

Also, name me one communist regime that worked out well in the end.

 

Cuba. It has a better healthcare rating than the US, even with a capitalist US and an international blockade organised by America.

 

 

 

Are we done here?

 

 

 

Capitalism, the system that has made America THE greatest country on Earth bar none.

 

...until 20 years time when a former Communist nation will challenge that. Should I link capitalism to your failures as much as you link it to your successes?

[Dharockslayer]

What boggles me is that America doesn't have a set tax for your own life-ensurance. I really can't figure out why hospitals aren't being regulated by the government.

 

 

 

Then again, thats just my 'narrow' Europian view. If I get an accident over here I know I will be taken care of, in America I would need to have made a choice to get a life-ensurance. Which basically means that I * myself over if I don't, but because it isn't mandatory and because it costs me money I have less inclination to get one.

 

 

 

If you want to go pure capitalist, you're a jerk because you don't care for the poorer people or the ones who don't have money, while if you are pure socialist/communist, you are a jerk because you take away all the choices and regulate every other guys income. If you are extremely hot, you burn everything, if you are extremely cold, you freeze everything, if you are extremely bla bla....

 

 

 

Don't seek extremes, instead look for a good middle way, and get a life-ensurance tax. Someone might have 'Socialist' idea's, but if those idea's work in the countries where it is practiced. Then why not implent those idea's? Because they are ooooh evil?

[syndrome445]

Why do so many Cuban immigrants take advantage of their asylum and come to America if they ever get the chance if Cuba is such an amazing and flourishing nation? I would not want to be told who I worship and what my beliefs are CEOs earned their money because they did see the hole and took the risk to pounce on it. It is the same way battles are won, you see a hole in a line of defense, and risk losing the battle for the chance to come out on top. Also, what makes you think that the government will put your money to better use than charities will? We trusted them with our social security money, and where is it now? You tell me. Would you rather have a government control where 60% of your money goes, or you control where that money goes?

 

 

 

Also, what do you mean I cannot spell Shilo? I never once typed the word Shilo. If you are referring to my so called location, well excuse me for not being able to spell a name of a fictional town in a game! You cannot tell me that everyone has not misspelled something sometime in their lives.

[syndrome445]

What boggles me is that America doesn't have a set tax for your own life-ensurance. I really can't figure out why hospitals aren't being regulated by the government.

 

 

 

Then again, thats just my 'narrow' Europian view. If I get an accident over here I know I will be taken care of, in America I would need to have made a choice to get a life-ensurance. Which basically means that I * myself over if I don't, but because it isn't mandatory and because it costs me money I have less inclination to get one.

 

 

 

If you want to go pure capitalist, you're a jerk because you don't care for the poorer people or the ones who don't have money, while if you are pure socialist/communist, you are a jerk because you take away all the choices and regulate every other guys income. If you are extremely hot, you burn everything, if you are extremely cold, you freeze everything, if you are extremely bla bla....

 

 

 

Don't seek extremes, instead look for a good middle way, and get a life-ensurance tax. Someone might have 'Socialist' idea's, but if those idea's work in the countries where it is practiced. Then why not implent those idea's? Because they are ooooh evil?

 

 

 

That life insurance is still payed for by the increase of Taxes, and you should not be given life insurance if you are not willing to pay for it. I offer my pity upon those who are poor due to unfortunate circumstances beyond their control, but I do not believe that the government should have the right to decide who those people are. We as people are usually intelligent enough to decide what causes deserve the most support and that we can manage our own assets. If people are too unintelligent to manage their assets and do not give money to charity due to greed, then I agree that socialism would do them good.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Why do so many Cuban immigrants take advantage of their asylum and come to America if they ever get the chance.

 

Talk about self love for your own country. Equally, why do so many Americans go to Cuba for their medical schools?

 

 

 

I would not want to be told who I worship and what my beliefs are.

 

Neither would I. What's this got to do with the price of fish?

 

 

 

CEOs earned their money because they did see the hole and took the risk to pounce on it. It is the same way battles are won, you see a hole in a line of defense, and risk losing the battle for the chance to come out on top.

 

A) They're still not working.

 

B) Equally, someone from a poorer background may also have a brilliant idea, but is unable to follow the same path because they can't get funds. Where is the difference between that person and the CEO, less one is a victim of circumstance?

 

C) Comparing entrepreneurialism to a military battle is just... no.

 

 

 

Also, what makes you think that the government will put your money to better use than charities will? We trusted them with our social security money, and where is it now? You tell me.

 

No idea. I don't live in America. I know what's being done with my money though. It's going to pay for everyone's healthcare so we don't have to worry about whether or not insurance will pay out or whether we'll even be treated because of costs. It's going to lift people out of poverty and raise the average quality of life, so the poverty line is constantly rising. It's going on schools for children's education, libraries for the adults, and the creation of jobs so both can work when they get their qualifications. It's called the "common good". I thought it was something America was big on, nationalist spirit and all that.

 

 

 

Would you rather have a government control where 60% of your money goes, or you control where that money goes?

 

I'd rather it go to a body who can spend my money effectively with the guidance of experts with decades of experience behind them, and the weight of huge amounts of money behind them to fund massive projects. That would be the government, not my local Church fund.

 

 

 

Also, what do you mean I cannot spell Shilo? I never once typed the word Shilo. If you are referring to my so called location, well excuse me for not being able to spell a name of a fictional town in a game! You cannot tell me that everyone has not misspelled something sometime in their lives.

 

Don't reverse that on me. You're the one who quite clearly made a low shot at someone's intelligence.

 

 

 

If people are too unintelligent to manage their assets and do not give money to charity due to greed

 

What has giving to charity got to do with someone's ability to afford security?

 

 

 

In fact, having looked at your opinions, I think here is a place that would suit you perfectly. Plenty of Atheism-bashing, tax-loathing, lefty-hating conservative Americans there. ;)

[syndrome445]

So you are basically saying that you trust other people more than you trust yourself with money. "Experts" do not always hold the same views about where your money should go as you do.

 

 

 

http://hannity.com/ Is a place I prefer, but I like coming to Tip.it because quite frankly Liberal Atheists are a dime a dozen and I like a challenge and frustrating Liberals and Atheists with my own ideas. It seems to drive them crazy for some reason. Conservative sites have no interesting and heated discussions.

[Rebdragon]

Wow, 'coz you're so [bleep]ing intelligent you can't even spell Shilo. Welcome to TIF, Einstein!

 

Do you have to open up an argument with an attack :| ?

 

 

 

Can you explain to me how a CEO who saw a gap in the market, built a business to the point he longer has to work for it, but owns it nonetheless for the money it produces, has worked for that money? All he's done is organised a clever way of making people earn money for him.

 

 

 

Explain to me how the upper classes earn their wealth when they systematically inherit it from each other through the generations for doing next to nothing but living a luxurious lifestyle?

 

 

 

In the meantime, there's a nurse working 12 hour shifts in a hospital for a crappy wage who needs national healthcare and benefits because (s)he's not earning enough. That's capitalism. Don't argue against socialism by saying it's an unfair distribution of wealth when capitalism is far from perfect itself and without doubt worse.

 

Do we have to talk in extremes everytime we bash something? I hate getting in emotional arguments about economics. The more you look at emotional arguments the nicer a utopia sounds. And then you take five seconds, it clicks, and you realize the world isn't perfect and never will be.

 

 

 

Capitalism is worse in essentially one, and only one, sense: the poorest suffer more than in socialist states. It produces more, advances technology faster, and allows for more freedom economically at an individual level.

 

 

 

If tax was high enough (yes, sorry, I dared mention the "t" word), there'd be no need for charities. Everyone would have the security they need. Trusting charities with your money instead of the government can only be due to an irrational fear of authority.

 

That's a nice if. People like having the money they earned. It's kind of human nature, or rather human necessity- a sense of property.

 

 

 

Trusting charities over the government has more to do with trusting human nature over forcing equalization.

 

 

 

Socialism takes money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not earn it. It is that simple.

 

A) Who exactly is this money going to?

 

B) How have they not deserved it?

 

I'm pretty sure he already answered both of those questions.

 

 

 

How about America relinquishes its influence over world markets then? Believe me, I despise that as much as you despise communism

.

 

Well that came out of left field. He said that if you want socialism, Europe has it. And you respond by saying that America should just stop being a super-power in the world market?

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

Cuba. It has a better healthcare rating than the US, even with a capitalist US and an international blockade organised by America.

 

 

 

Are we done here?

 

Meh.

 

 

 

Capitalism, the system that has made America THE greatest country on Earth bar none.

 

...until 20 years time when a former Communist nation will challenge that. Should I link capitalism to your failures as much as you link it to your successes?

 

Don't tell be you're talking about China, which is becoming more capitalist with every minute that passes? I pray to Allah for the sake of any argument being made that you're not.

[Zierro]

Do you have to open up an argument with an attack :| ?

 

 

 

Do you know what that was a response to?

 

 

 

That's a nice if. People like having the money they earned. It's kind of human nature, or rather human necessity- a sense of property.

 

 

 

Another beautiful thing about human nature is empathizing for those less fortunate than you.

[syndrome445]

How many times do I have to say it...THATS WHAT CHARITY IS FOR!

[Zierro]

How many times do I have to say it...THATS WHAT CHARITY IS FOR!

 

 

 

Oh the effectiveness of charity. :roll:

 

 

 

We're talking saving lives here, not "it's the thought that counts".

[syndrome445]

How many times do I have to say it...THATS WHAT CHARITY IS FOR!

 

 

 

Oh the effectiveness of charity. :roll:

 

 

 

Oh the effectiveness of government :wall:

 

 

 

Look we can play ping pong like this all day, but it is obvious that we all have our political predilections to the point where we can argue them, and it is obvious that nobody will change their minds due to what is being said on an online forum. Further discussion is a trivial pursuit and most likely will only get more cut-throat. So therefore I choose to call it a stalemate and I will stop bugging you with my conservative ideals.

[Zierro]

Yeah... isn't that the point of having a thread about it? I mean, look at the religious threads. :lol: