Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ever notice that they criticize "unbridled" capitalism?
Exactly. The road belongs to everyone. So if you can walk...do not take your car.
Absolutely.
Savers are victims.
Ae you saying those who can walk should not own a car? Or are you saying those who can walk should not be allowed to own or drive a car?
Can you give an example of something like this ever happening and causing a bank to go bankrupt?
Not all. Many banks went bankrupt during that time because amongst other reasons, greedy bankers were qualifying home mortgages to people who were too poor to afford them, then sold those loans to someone else; and because the poor person with the mortgage could not afford to keep up with payments, they defaulted on their loans and when lots of people defaulted like this, it contributed to many banks going under
The problem with your theory is that you continue to ignore the fact that the goal of socialism and communism is the well being of the society/community as a whole. So that when this goal is negated by individual greed and the lust for power it is no longer socialism or communism. It's insurrection. Whereas greed and selfishness are the goal of capitalism. The capital investor makes all the decisions on his own behalf, and at the expense of everyone else involved. It is in effect socially corrupt/insurrection from the start.
The problem with your theory is that you continue to ignore the fact that the road to Hell is usually paved with good intentions. What good are good intentions if they all lead to destruction?
Socialism and communism is designed for perfectly moral people, capitalism is designed for morally corrupt people. In the real world, nobody is morally perfect, and the majority of people are morally corrupt. That’s why the end result of socialism and communism is usually failure, and insurrection and the end results of capitalism is usually success and growth. Capitalism is designed for the real world, Communism and Socialism is designed for the Pipe Dream.
Not all good intentions lead to bad results. And what us your suggested alternative? That we go ahead and act on our bad intentions assuming the results will be bad, anyway?
Ah, the old "if it can't be perfect, why bother even trying" trope.
The end result is not failure. The end result is that greed and corruption destroy everything it touches, and if we are not exceptionally vigilant, it touches everything and everyone eventually. When the US implemented socialist principals after the Great Depression everyone was far better off for it. But we were not wise, and we're not vigilant, and soon our greed and selfishness had us voting for politicians that would undermine and dismantle those socialist policies. And now look where we are. Because greed and selfishness poisons and ruins everyone and everything it touches. And capitalism is systematized greed. We did not fully understand this, and so we let it poison us yet again.
Your mind has been poisoned, and now you're trying to spread that poison to everyone else.
Animal nature. I am going to explain it below.
Animal nature.
I would speak of animal nature, not human nature. Humans are better than animals. So if I don't the other guy will is what these greedy monkeys are doing here, by stealing extra bananas from others who have none.
Power is supposed to push for the evolution of humans, so they abandon the materialistic and selfish dimension which is typical of the previous animal stage, and to lead them towards the path of spirituality.
My point is, Socialism and Communism may have been good intentions, but they seem to always have a way of leading to bad results
Actually it's been tried countless times; with unfavorable results.
Does that include the Billion people who have been taken out of poverty in the past 20 years due to capitalism?
The US has always had socialist principles. The US economic system is what is called a "Mixed Economy" Meaning though it is mostly capitalist, there are aspects of socialism mixed into the economy. Socialism in the USA is not something that was started and ended during the great depression area
When comparing today with yesterday, food is safer and more plentiful, work is safer, products are better, where is this capitalist poison that you speak of?
Social security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, workman's comp, welfare, food stamps, public housing: these are all socialist programs that have saved and improved the lives of many millions of people. And all made necessary because capitalism does not care about the lives or well being of anyone but the capital investor class. They only produce unfavorable results when they become ineffectual in the face of capitalist greed and market control. Or when the society under the yoke of capitalism becomes so selfish and greedy that it's willing to allow it's own members to suffer and die before it's willing to share any of it's collective wealth.
How was this due to capitalism? Seems to me it was due to an increase in practical knowledge due to science, and mass production techniques, not to greedy capitalists being in charge of it. In fact, it's the greedy capitalists that are causing this great increase in production to to become do exploitive that billions of workers the worked over tension stuck in relative poverty.
Meaning that capitalism is so socially toxic that socialist principals have to be enforced by rule of law just to keep society functioning.Take a Bow, Capitalism -- Nearly 1 Billion People Have Been Taken out of Extreme Poverty in 20 Years, Thanks to Markets
From an editorial in the current edition of The Economist, “Towards the End of Poverty“: The world’s achievement in the field of poverty reduction is, by almost any measure, impressive. Although many of the original Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) —such as cutting maternal mortality by...www.aei.org
The US has always had socialist principles. The US economic system is what is called a "Mixed Economy" Meaning though it is mostly capitalist, there are aspects of socialism mixed into the economy. Socialism in the USA is not something that was started and ended during the great depression area
None of that is due to capitalism. In fact, the capitalists have been fighting it all the way. And they continue to fight the imposition of this kind of "socialist oversight". Because it cuts into their profits. And under capitalism, the profits returned on the capital invested are all that matters.
Too much capitalism is neverending growth and monopolization for the fewer. Capitalism in the context of social regulation ensures that monopolies are broken up and a fair sense of competition is enforced. Capitalism unregulated builds empires. Empires influence the rule of law through power, with control from wealth. Capitalism without social regulation is wasteful to the environment. Human nature is too dominate and control more often than to judiciously care for all citizens. Capitalists don't like competition. So it's self defeating.
Without working toward freedom, equality and democracy there will be oppressive powers. Since there is a level of democratic freedom and equality people will enjoy a quality of life. Depraved animals come along more often than not. So the balance meter will fluctuate between these competing interests. If the meter breaks too hard with outright socialist control then wealth, and individual rights will take a big hit in society, and social instability will result. If the meter breaks the other way with totally unregulated capitalist monopoly then outright oppression and fascism will rise. Either extreme ends in dictatorial rule.
Without military defense I don't think there'd be any economic fairness, and no rule of law that adds up to a desirable quality of life. So when people like to champion freedom, human rights, virtue and honor at least they know that that's where freedom and wealth is created. Propaganda and lip service to freedom and wealth, without protecting, and upholding civil liberties is one area where leaders can be dangerous.
I've been taught the idealized fantasy world in grammar school. I think without striving toward equality, and liberty/justice for all we will find ourselves in a totally undesirable world. But to not be taught about the real world, and the dangers that come from many human natures that are corrupt, and oppressive is a great disservice as well. I don't see that all of human nature is the same, but bad human nature crops up all too frequently.
That's why we see Hillsdale college, and Prager U.
That overlap with socialism is something I find to be necessary. I don't like extremes of either side of socialism and capitalism monopoly.
I don't think it takes much imagination to realize the harsh realities, and injustices that the world creates.
As I said before, because people are crooked, there has to be laws in place to prevent them from taking advantage of the weak. With Socialism, the crooked people are the Government and they enact laws allowing them to take advantage of the weak
Read the article; I think they did a pretty good job of explain how it was due to capitalism
If Capitalism is sooo bad, and Socialism and Communism is Sooo good, how come when Germany was split up, East Germany (capitalist) was so successful compared to west Germany (communist) that they had to build a wall to prevent the people from leaving for the capitalist country? The same thing with North and south Vietnam, North and South Korea, it seems in every scenario where capitalism and communism competes against each other, capitalism always seem end up with a better life style for it’s people? Don’t get me wrong, socialist programs can be good, but you shouldn’t have the entire economic system based on Socialism; the best programs is to have a combination of socialism AND capitalism, with most of the majority of the system being capitalist
Remember; the Pilgrims initially tried Socialism, and it failed miserably. I think the account given at that time by Governor William Bradford ((the head of the colony) explaining why it didn’t work for them, is an excellent account of why it doesn’t work for anyone who tries it.
www.aier.org
Eternal growth is impossible: yet it's what unbridled Capitalism and the profit maximization advocate for.
They want a country to grow every year, and what does that imply?
That more cars are produced, more cars are sold: but spaces are limited and at some point, we will need to stop producing thousands and thousands of car because there will be not even one inch free.
All garages, all parking lots will be taken.
Eternal growth is suicidal and self-destructive: capitalists want more and more people on Earth, because they want more and more customers.
For the record: big cities are former country villages.