Is Socialism Better Than Capitalism?

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

Your argument assumes those things wouldn't be available under a private ownership system.

Why would public facilities be available if everything was privately owned?

Additionally although those things are available to the public I'd argue because of  the wealth generated from embracing a free market system. 

The market is the precise opposite of free. You've simply heard the phrase "free market" so many times that you've internalised it. The reality is that entry into the market is literally impossible without capital, and still extremely difficult with capital. The market excludes all those without capital from competing. 

Capitalism is human exploitation and it's really that simple. 

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers
"Your argument assumes those things wouldn't be available under a private ownership system."
They won't be open to everyone; only those who can afford it. 

"Embracing socialism entirely would have most likely made these things garbage."
How so? Do you have anything to support your assertion?

"In principle if public schools, healthcare, ect was so great there would be no need for private alternatives which people often pay more for because they are better."
That doesn't follow. If there is a public option, everyone has access to it; this does not prevent nor stop private options to be available as well. Look at education; there are both public and private schools available. Countries with socialized medicine also have private insurance to supplement it, for those who want it and can afford it. However, no one in countries with socialized medicine goes bankrupt trying to get basic health care.

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

None of the public things are free either.  But it very well could be cheaper if they were private even if it cost money to use.

Do you really think free market means to enter the market or use anything in the market is free?  Free market means free of government influence. Transactions of goods and services are determined by the buyer and seller.

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

"They won't be open to everyone; only those who can afford it."

That's not necessarily true either as private ownership often has an interest in increasing the demand of their goods while increasing efficiency.  For example, how would companies work effectively without good roads for transportation of goods and services or for their workers to travel?  

Yes there are public and supplemental private options, but if the public option was so great, why the need for a supplement? Isn't the public option supposedly better for your argument?

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

None of the public things are free either.

I wasn't using the word free in that context. In a fully privatised economy, lack of capital places severe restrictions on personal freedom. One of those restrictions is access to the market.  

But it very well could be cheaper if they were private even if it cost money to use.

The problem with private ownership of essential services is self-evident. The incentive is to make money, not deliver the best services. I don't want to get treated in a hospital which is trying to maximise profits by reducing expenditure. 

Do you really think free market means to enter the market or use anything in the market is free?

You're misunderstanding the context, as I explained above. If there are restrictions on who can compete in the market, then obviously the market isn't free, is it? The market is monopolised by a concentration of existing wealth and at any point it chooses that wealth can decide to squeeze out or buy out lesser competition. 

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers
"That's not necessarily true either as private ownership often has an interest in increasing the demand of their goods while increasing efficiency.  For example, how would companies work effectively without good roads for transportation of goods and services or for their workers to travel?  "
By passing the cost onto the consumer, or by taking money out of their employees' pay, or imposing a fee for anyone who does not work for that company to use the road. They could also ban anyone who does not work for that company from using their roads. Ever hear of the phenomenon of company towns? Now imagine that you can't even leave the town because you can't use the roads without corporate permission.
https://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/company-towns/

"Yes there are public and supplemental private options, but if the public option was so great, why the need for a supplement? Isn't the public option supposedly better for your argument?"
This is a very valid question, to which I did not have an immediate answer, as I live in the States, and have to pay for my health insurance, so I did a quick Google search, and this is what I found:
In Canada, the state provided health insurance does not cover everything, including dental, visual, some prescriptions, and some medical devices, so some choose to purchase supplemental insurance that covers those areas. Supplemental insurance also allows one to have a private rather than public room while staying at a hospital. It can also be used if one needs/wants to travel out of the country.
https://multirisk.ca/research-center/do-you-need-additional-health-insurance-in-canada/

Please keep in mind that this was what I found from one website, regarding one country, and other reasons may occur. I also think it's ridiculous that Canadian health care does not cover dental and visual. 

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

That's not necessarily true either as private ownership often has an interest in increasing the demand of their goods while increasing efficiency.  For example, how would companies work effectively without good roads for transportation of goods and services or for their workers to travel?

Roads would be an example of a public service which private business might be interested in funding, but I'm not sure you'll find many more. Private ownership has negative interest in things like a politically educated underclass, fair working hours, reasonable interest rates on loans, a respectable minimum wage and durability of goods. All private economies have to be regulated by the government precisely to minimise the impact of these incentives on the public.

just_sayin

@Nomenclature said:

The problem with private ownership of essential services is self-evident. The incentive is to make money, not deliver the best services. I don't want to get treated in a hospital which is trying to maximise profits by reducing expenditure. 

You have obviously never spent any time in a socialist country like Cuba.  Delivering the best services doesn't appear to be a goal of socialist countries.  The first thing that you smell when you arrive in Cuba is the smell of gasoline.  The air is heavy with the smell of gas from the cars.  Sure its great to see cars from the 1950's everywhere.  That's the last time a Cuban could afford a car.  However, the quality of air is horrible.  Cuban healthcare is free, but I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.  The waiting time to see a doctor is months.  If you go to a hospital you have to take your own sheets, toilet paper, and toilet seat.  You'll be in a room with 5 other patients.  The operating table looks like something out of Slaughterhouse 5.  They mop the floor with water they get out of the toilet (not making this up).  Most pharmacies are literally the size of card table.  The neighborhood pharmacia is literally displayed on top of a card table.  Your only hope for getting exotic medicines like eye drops or baby cough syrup is the black market.  

Buildings collapse in Cuba all the time.  When the government oversees itself, it lets standards slide.  That's the reason why Russia has such a horrible environmental record.  When the government is in charge of reporting itself for violations, it often looks the other way.  

When your pay is set by the government there is no incentive to work harder.  Unless you are working in the black market that is.  A common expression in Cuba is "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us".  People know socialism is a dead end.  They will do anything to be able to get near the tourists - they know that the closer you can get to a capitalist the better your chances of making money are.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

You have obviously never spent any time in a socialist country like Cuba.

Cuba doesn't have anything to do with what I just wrote. You can't fix the problems with capitalism by attacking Cuba. I suggest you learn that debate is about addressing the other person's argument, not attacking something the other person hasn't even mentioned. 

America has been trying to make life as difficult as possible for Cubans for the last sixty years. Every year for the last thirty years, the UN general assembly has called for the United States to end its embargo against Cuba:-

UN General Assembly calls for US to end Cuba embargo for 29th consecutive year.

A total of 184 countries on Wednesday voted in favour of a resolution to demand the end of the US economic blockade on Cuba, for the 29th year in a row, with the United States and Israel voting against.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612

Your drooling worship of capitalism is annoying, but when you rewrite history it's even worse.

Something else you almost certainly don't know about Cuba is that it has a rate of educating people to doctor and/or PhD level which is three times higher than the United States. 

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

Cuba doesn't have anything to do with what I just wrote. You can't fix the problems with capitalism by attacking Cuba.

Can't fix issues of Political elitism with capitalism or socialism........

 I suggest you learn that debate is about addressing the other person's argument, not attacking something the other person hasn't even mentioned. 
laughs.................If you can understand them?

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers
Your argument assumes those things wouldn't be available under a private ownership system.

I disagree with you observation on public and private Capital, "they" are by fact models of Capitalism and are regulated only with a form of democratic "Political Elitism". A government institution cannot own Capital is untrue. What is not taking place as a point of coaching public witnesses by education is the witnesses’ abilities to say whole truth in connection to unions of established justice. The capital in question is set aside by republic trust for social interaction it is not a socialist the public never owns the park, school or other things the people simple act as though they should own. This is because they pay taxation which is not clearly ever held as a United States Constitutional Right.

MayCaesar

OakTownA said:

I'm willing to bet the majority of people on here utilize socialism or have benefited from socialism without realizing it, as all modern countries use some form of socialism. Drive on public roads? Socialism. Went to a public or state school? Socialism. Ever gone to a public library? Socialism. Enjoyed a national park? That's right; you can thank socialism. What seems to be the most successful is a blend of capitalism and socialism, aka democratic socialism. Scandinavian countries are a great example of this.

My family certainly has benefited a lot from it, with one member shot in the head by a communist death squad, and another having a pleasant vacation in a labor camp. The sports exercises the latter had to do were very beneficial to his health!

As for your examples, you assume that having them is beneficial, but I beg to differ. First, they are not what socialism is about: socialism is a system of public ownership of the means of production, not a system of taxpayer-funded goodies. Second, the government-provided services are notoriously inefficient compared to private services, and I have had my share of going to public hospitals and being treated like garbage - never again. Or a public school with a teacher yelling at me and calling me a "hopeless moron", at the age at which such actions can screw the kid's psychology; my children will never go to a public school. And third, these services are not free: they are paid for with private funds appropriated by the government, and you will have a hard time convincing me that those $100 or whatever that I "paid" towards maintenance of the interstate system was a great investment - just got out of a 40 minute long traffic jam on the Capital Beltway.

So I would think a bit before thanking someone for providing an illusion of free stuff with no strings attached. I am a high standards guy: I would rather pay a lot for quality goods and services, than pay a bit and having a lot more taken from me by force for trash created by incompetent bureaucrats and politicians. Others are free to make their own choice, just not with my property, please: you are free to build your own socialist communes and experiment away. I did not ask for your "gifts".

I will add that even if all of the above was not true and people actually benefited from taxpayer-funded services, it would not mean that they should approve of them: they can object to them on the moral grounds. The fact that I happened to benefit from something that I do not approve of does not make me approve of it, and I can put my short-term benefit aside when arguing from principles. I can have someone steal a million dollars and give it to me, and get away with it - it will not change my moral assessment of thievery.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

My family certainly has benefited a lot from it, with one member shot in the head by a communist death squad

Death squads haven't got anything to do with communism. Falsely associating the two is just plain ignorant. 

Here are two capitalist countries (i.e. "fledgling democracies" according to Reagan) with a detailed and documented history of using death squads.

Death squads in El Salvador (Spanish: escuadrones de la muerte) were far-right paramilitary groups acting in opposition to Marxist–Leninist guerrilla forces, most notably of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), and their allies among the civilian population before, during, and after the Salvadoran Civil War. The death squads committed the vast majority of the murders and massacres during the civil war from 1979 to 1992 and were heavily aligned with the United States-backed government.[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squads_in_El_Salvador

The Guatemalan military kept detailed records of its death squad operations, according to a document released by four human rights and public interest groups today. The army log reveals the fate of scores of Guatemalan citizens who were "disappeared" by security forces during the mid-1980s. Replete with photos of 183 victims and coded references to their executions, the 54-page document was smuggled out of the Guatemalan army’s intelligence files and provided to human rights advocates in February, just two days before a UN-sponsored truth commission released its report on the country’s bloody 35-year civil war.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB15/

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

"Private ownership has negative interest in things like a politically educated underclass, fair working hours, reasonable interest rates on loans, a respectable minimum wage and durability of goods."

Thats really only true if a company owns a monopoly.
Otherwise they have to deal with competition.  In that case it is better for them to have educated employees, respectable wages ect.

You previously stated the only way someone can enter the market is if they have capital.  Well unfortunately proposals such as artificially infalted wages, and other regulations make that all the more true.  This is why large corporations support these government regulations while small business owners oppose them.  The large businesses know small businesses cannot thrive in those conditions.

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

Well yeah the cost most likely would be passed somehow to the consumer but that doesnt mean they would cost more be in worse condition.  Public roads also cost money, and if youve ever seen how long it takes for the roads to be crappily repaired id argue pretty inefficiently.

Regarding canada or other socialized medicine, why do they require private alternatives?  Well in part because the public system sucks in many areas.  Longer waits, rationed care, not as reliable.
In preventative healthcare it does succeed but when people require procedures especially non life threatening ones it often sucks.
Im not saying the U.S. system is efficient, theirs far too much bureacracy inflating the prices.

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

Thats really only true if a company owns a monopoly

No, it's true generally. The purpose of a business is to create wealth, so doing things like manufacturing goods which never need replacing or paying too much for labour are bad business practices which reduce profits. 

Otherwise they have to deal with competition.

That's a very dangerous myth. We have seen repeatedly that in practice successful businesses cooperate rather than compete. Here is just one example:-

Supermarket firms Sainsbury's and Asda have admitted that they were part of a dairy price-fixing group that earned about £270m extra from shoppers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7132108.stm

Major supermarket chains are always going to have customers walking through their doors. It makes little sense for them to engage in serious price wars with each other because only the consumers gain from that, while the businesses themselves lose profits by trying to undercut one another.  By cooperating they ensure that they remain in control. 

John_C_87

That's right; you can thank socialism.

I thank religion.... held as a united state not socialism. In whole truth those three things have been changed over the years parks, school, and library. I would call them a form of political elitism used to hold a purchase of government as a form of Capital as a whole truth. I do not think you even knew that America has been bought and paid for and even men who had become Lords by receiving property as a Grants from the King of England returned many of those land’s held in the 13 colonies back to America after it had become independent.

Under condition we paid the Native American Indian and the Frech for the same property...

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

Generating wealth is a good thing not a bad thing.  Additionally pretty much everyone is looking for ways to have more money.
Youre not going to buy a $1 apple over a $0.25 one (assuming same quality).  Does that make you greedy?

By artificially inflating wages and or demand and supply chains your definetly ensuring supermarkets and laege corporations remain in control.  There the only ones that can take the initial hit, while they absorb the dwindling competition.

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

Generating wealth is a good thing not a bad thing.

On the contrary, it most definitely is a bad thing for the majority of people, because it drives inflation up. I'm getting the distinct impression that you aren't aware wealth itself is a myth. In the United States that's even more true now that the fiat currency is no longer backed by gold. If the currency crashed overnight, you'd be left holding millions of worthless pieces of paper. If your wealth was invested in, say the housing market, and it crashed overnight, the same principle applies. There's no stability for anybody except those running the system because your assets are only ever worth what somebody else tells you they are worth.

Consider Zimbabwe as a prime example of the mythology of wealth. Inflation reached such high levels in the country that despite almost everybody being incredibly financially wealthy, few people could even afford to buy bread. You see, it isn't wealth which makes you wealthy, and that's something most people don't understand. It's the size of the gap between what you have and what everybody else has which makes you wealthy. Hence, a necessary component of wealth is to keep the general population much poorer than you are.

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold

Is Socialism Better Than Capitalism?

Yes, Socialism or Political Elitism are the better United States to hold as a way to conduct crimes against those who own Capital.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: @Nomenclature with the assist

@Nomenclature
I seriously think you are just tossing up these tropes for me to smash them out of the park.  First, as you point out, only the US and Israel have an embargo (and even that is a very porous embargo with extensive farming produce and good exchanges, and medical donations being allowed).  So if a socialist country can't make it if a single capitalist country doesn't support them, that seems to suggest that socialism is dependent upon capitalism to survive or thrive.  So, tell me, were you making a point, or just pointing out that I'm right?  Know that either way, I appreciate the assist.

You seem upset that I give you real world examples from Cuba at how socialist government actually works.  I'd think actual real world examples would be very applicable.  Do you seriously believe that the reason that socialist governments like Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. have such bad environmental records is because of capitalism?  No.  The reason is that the governments are bad at self policing themselves and will ignore their own rules if it is to their advantage to do so.  A capitalist company is concerned about making a profit, so it will generally comply with the rules, if it fails to do so, it will suffer the consequences of its choice, but if a socialist government ignores its own rules nothing happens.  The pollution just continues.  

As someone who has been on teams that delivered medical equipment to Cuba as part of humanitarian efforts, I am well aware of how Cuban healthcare works.  Education is free.  Medical resources are scarce as the government can't afford to properly supply the hospitals.  Doctor's are paid poorly for their work - about $50 American a month.  And since there is no capitalism, there isn't a thing they can do about it - they can't even leave to go work in a capitalist country.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Another Myth: Generating Wealth Causes Inflation

Generating wealth alone does not necessarily cause inflation. Inflation is a sustained increase in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over time. It is often caused by a combination of factors, including an increase in the money supply, a decrease in the supply of goods and services, and an increase in demand for goods and services.

Wealth generation can contribute to inflation if it leads to an increase in demand for goods and services that outpaces the supply, which can cause prices to rise. For example, if a sudden increase in wealth leads to a surge in demand for housing in a particular area, and the supply of housing cannot keep up with this demand, the prices of houses in that area may increase.

However, generating wealth can also have a deflationary effect if it leads to an increase in the supply of goods and services. For example, if a company invests in new technology that increases productivity and reduces costs, it may be able to produce more goods at a lower price, which can lead to a decrease in the price level.

Therefore, while generating wealth can contribute to inflation under certain circumstances, it is not necessarily the sole cause of inflation. Other economic factors such as monetary policy, supply and demand, and productivity also play a significant role in determining the level of inflation in an economy.

John_C_87

@just_sayin
 A capitalist company is concerned about making a profit, so it will generally comply with the rules, if it fails to do so, it will suffer the consequences of its choice, but if a socialist government ignores its own rules nothing happens.  The pollution just continues.  

I disagree a base private own capital company is most concerned with surviving form day to day, month to month, or year to year. It is only public companies that are by law required to always address profits. As for rules, laws, and united states constitutional rights no education is free under any condition at minimum a person is expected to demonstrate an ability to learn. This all comes at inherited risk to understanding whole truth and the wording free might really need to be change. A principle closer to whole truth may be sponsored education.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

Generating wealth alone does not necessarily cause inflation.

Obviously it does. The natural planetary resources don't increase, regardless of how much wealth is accumulated, so if there are a trillion dollars in circulation to pay for them today, and two trillion dollars in circulation to pay for them tomorrow, then each individual dollar is worth half as much.

I genuinely get bored of explaining such jaw-droppingly simple concepts to people who have been fooled into believing they understand economics.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Myth Busting: Examples of wealth generation causing DEFLATION

Wealth generation can contribute to DEFLATION if it leads to an increase in the supply of goods and services, which can drive down prices. Here are some examples of how wealth generation can cause deflation:

1. Technological advancements: Investment in new technology can lead to increased productivity and efficiency, resulting in lower production costs and lower prices for goods and services. For example, advancements in manufacturing technology have led to a significant decrease in the cost of producing consumer electronics.

2. Globalization: Increased international trade can result in a larger supply of goods and services, which can drive down prices. As businesses expand their operations globally, they can take advantage of lower production costs in other countries, which can lead to lower prices for consumers.

3. Increased competition: Wealth generation can lead to increased competition in the market, which can result in lower prices. As new businesses enter the market, they may offer lower prices to attract customers and gain market share.

4. Investment in infrastructure: Investment in infrastructure such as transportation and communication can increase efficiency and reduce costs, leading to lower prices for goods and services. For example, the construction of new highways and railroads can reduce transportation costs, making it cheaper to move goods from one place to another.

In summary, while wealth generation can contribute to inflation under certain circumstances, it can also lead to DEFLATION if it results in an increase in the supply of goods and services. The impact of wealth generation on inflation or deflation depends on various factors such as productivity, global economic conditions, and competition in the market.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

I seriously think you are just tossing up these tropes for me to smash them out of the park. 

With all due respect, thinking isn't a talent of yours. If it were, you'd no doubt realise that dropping metaphors rooted in a national sport which nobody else in the entire world cares about, might leak the fact that you're living in a self-insulated environment which is completely out of touch with the rest of the world.

First, as you point out, only the US and Israel have an embargo (and even that is a very porous embargo with extensive farming produce and good exchanges, and medical donations being allowed)

What I actually pointed out is that attacking Cuba has precisely zero relevance to anything I wrote. You need to learn to understand that you don't defend criticism of one thing (in this case, capitalism) by attacking something else. That is a logical fallacy called "Tu Quoque" (i.e. "You too"), more commonly referred to as "Whataboutism". American politics has almost certainly brainwashed you into this silly habit, so it's an extension of my initial observation. You are a reflection of a self-contained, politically dichotomised environment which is entirely out of touch with global reality. 

and even that is a very porous embargo

Whatever you say.

By its own admission, the US aims to “starve” the island of Cuba, and it is succeeding. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/03/cuba-us-embargo-must-end

if a socialist country can't make it if a single capitalist country doesn't support them, that seems to suggest that socialism is dependent upon capitalism to survive or thrive.

Lmao. What? Socialism and capitalism are political ideologies. You are confusing them with countries, which are geographical areas and bases of economic power. The United States is the most powerful country on the planet, so it sounds very much like you are making a thinly veiled "might makes right" argument, which of course is the same argument Hitler used to justify the invasion of Europe.

As the most powerful country on the planet, the United States is able to incentivise other nations not to trade with Cuba and levy punishments against those which do. Your feigned ignorance of this reality is as disingenuous as everything else you ever write.

So, tell me, were you making a point, or just pointing out that I'm right?

What do you think you are right about? To be perfectly honest you simply appear to be delusional.

You seem upset that I give you real world examples from Cuba at how socialist government actually works

Yes, I'm very upset at your completely unbiased attacks against Cuba. It's a shame you haven't been self-evidently brainwashed by wingnut conservative politics because at least then I'd have some kind of excuse to fall back on.

Say, would you like some examples of how capitalist governments "actually work"? Capitalist governments which, far from being subjected to decades of rigorous economic embargo designed to punish and starve people for the political beliefs of their leadership, are fully supported by the economic might of the United States and its allies?

How about we start with El Salvador?

Death squads in El Salvador (Spanish: escuadrones de la muerte) were far-right paramilitary groups acting in opposition to Marxist–Leninist guerrilla forces, most notably of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), and their allies among the civilian population before, during, and after the Salvadoran Civil War. The death squads committed the vast majority of the murders and massacres during the civil war from 1979 to 1992 and were heavily aligned with the United States-backed government.[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squads_in_El_Salvador

Great, right? How about Guatemala?

Twenty-two years after the National Security Archive published the notorious “Death Squad Dossier” of Guatemala – which chronicled the kidnapping and disappearance of 183 people by government agents over a period from 1983-85 – police arrested 11 former military and security force officials on varying charges of forced disappearance, torture, rape, and assassination connected to the document.

The Dossier, or Diario Militar (Military Logbook), is a collection of military intelligence and police records documenting the Guatemalan regime’s use of clandestine detention, torture and death to target people perceived as leftists and enemies of the state. Entries in the logbook describe the capture by security forces of 183 men, women and several children, and contain photographs of the victims, the dates and locations of their seizure, their alleged connection to guerrilla groups, and in half of the cases codified references to their secret executions.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/guatemala/2021-06-04/diario-militar

Oh look! What a fantastic system capitalism is! How about Zimbabwe next?

Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe is an ongoing period of currency instability in Zimbabwe that, using Cagan's definition of hyperinflation, began in February 2007. During the height of inflation from 2008 to 2009, it was difficult to measure Zimbabwe's hyperinflation because the government of Zimbabwe stopped filing official inflation statistics. However, Zimbabwe's peak month of inflation is estimated at 79.6 billion percent month-on-month, 89.7 sextillion percent year-on-year in mid-November 2008.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe

Oh yes please!!! Where can I sign up for 90 sextillion percent inflation? This capitalism of yours looks to be a simply brilliant way to run an economy!!!

How about we take a look at Mexico next? Surely they are doing well under capitalism, right? I mean, it's perfectly obvious because capitalism is such a great system and... Oh dear...

Three decades of neoliberalism in Mexico: the destruction of society

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25813500/

Malaysia?

Not yet a failed state, Malaysia is decaying rapidly

Affirmative action policies have entrenched a crony capitalist system

https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Not-yet-a-failed-state-Malaysia-is-decaying-rapidly

Well, at least Russia has managed to turn things around since converting to capitalism, right?

‘They are stealing Russia’: Adam Curtis on how hyper-capitalism wrecked a nation

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/oct/12/russia-adam-curtis-extreme-capitalism-liz-truss-traumazone

Let me tell you something. Your ignorance and delusional opinions aren't simply erroneous. They are downright offensive.

just_sayin

@Nomenclature said a lot of whataboutism and called me mean names.

I noticed that you did not talk about the very specific examples I gave about how capitalist systems are more accountable than socialist ones - the rampant collapse of buildings in Cuba, and Cuba/Russia/North Korea/Venezuela's environmental record.  It is hard to argue that when the government owns the means of production that it is more responsible and always self-polices itself.  The fact is when you compare the corruption of capitalism to the corruption of socialist governments, capitalism is much more ethical - if for no other reason than profits are dependent on them being so.  Corruption is rampant in Cuba.  A common Cuban expression is "nothing is permissible, but everything is possible".  Bribery is expected by government officials.  I've never gotten off of a plane in Cuba where someone didn't confiscate something from my luggage and demand a bribe for me to get it back - and that includes humanitarian items like multi-million dollar medical equipment meant to help the Cuban government.

Regarding the embargo - it would be wrong to blame the US for the failed Cuban economy.  Again, if Cuba has to have the support of a capitalist country to have a thriving economy then that shows that socialism can't succeed without capitalism.  Every other country in the world does business with Cuba.  Daily tourists arrive from all over,  Cruise ships dock in Havana and Santiago De Cuba every day.  If you are in Cuba it is very easy to know if you are in a tourist area - those are the only sections where the buildings are painted and the roads are all paved.  Embassy row, the capital buildings and historic district - look very different than the rest of the city.  By the time you reach the edges of Havana you'll notice that most roads aren't paved, even the highway that extends all the way down the island isn't paved except at rest stops and major cross roads.  Tourism drives a significant part of the economy.  Not as much as remittances from the US, but tourism is a significant part of the economy.  

If you go look up what visitors to Cuba say, you will notice that Europeans and Canadians didn't like their experience in Cuba.  They will note that the value wasn't good, and that everyone tried to bribe them or cheat them in some way.  A capitalist business would know that doing business that way may get you a few more dollars in the short run, but won't get you a lot of repeat customers and won't give you good word of mouth.  But when the government owns the means of production, nobody really cares.  Being honest and doing a good job is paid the same as someone who does a bad job and cheats people.  Well, I guess the person who cheats people does end up with more money.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

Wealth generation can contribute to DEFLATION if it leads to an increase in the supply of goods and services

Stop talking absolute rubbish. An increase in the supply of money can't cause a drop in the cost of living. Deflation is caused by finding cheaper ways to do things or a stagnating economy where nobody is buying anything. An increase in the supply of particular goods or services has ZERO relationship to the value of wealth, only to the value of those goods and services.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Causes of Deflation

1. Decrease in money supply: When the supply of money in an economy decreases, the purchasing power of individuals also decreases, leading to a decrease in demand for goods and services. This decrease in demand can result in lower prices for goods and services, leading to DEFLATION.

2. Decrease in demand: A decrease in consumer demand for goods and services can result in lower prices, leading to DEFLATION. This can happen due to factors such as a decrease in consumer confidence, an increase in unemployment, or a decrease in disposable income.

3. Increase in productivity: An increase in productivity can lead to lower production costs for businesses, which can result in lower prices for goods and services. If this decrease in prices is not offset by an increase in demand, it can result in DEFLATION.

4. Technological advances: Technological advances can lead to more efficient production processes, which can result in lower production costs and lower prices for goods and services. This can result in DEFLATION if the decrease in prices is not offset by an increase in demand.

5. Decrease in government spending: A decrease in government spending can lead to a decrease in aggregate demand in an economy, which can result in DEFLATION.

6. Increase in saving: If individuals save more and consume less, it can result in a decrease in aggregate demand and lower prices for goods and services, leading to DEFLATION.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

Causes of Deflation

1. Decrease in money supply

Thanks for contradicting your own argument. A moment ago it was an increase in money supply which led to deflation. The fact is that you haven't got a Scooby Doo what you're even talking about, do you?

piloteer

@JulesKorngold

I'm not convinced socialism or capitalism can be quantified in a manner to determine which one is "better", especially since socialism is a form of government, and capitalism is a form of economics. I personally feel that socialism is immoral, and the principles of collectivism are ill-conceived, but if you accept liberty as a viable principle, then the soviergnty of other countries and their choice of governance should be respected. I live in the US, which is a socialist country, but our constitution was written specifically as a rejection of the 'principle' of collectivism, and as a citizen of the US, I feel that socialism in my country is nothing short of a criminal foreign invasion on our land to destroy our principles. But, even with that conviction in mind, mine is still only an appeal to emotion if we are trying to determine which one is better. They cannot be quantified to determine which one is better.       

MineSubCraftStarved

@JulesKorngold
I think when looking at socialism and capitalism, it is important to define them.
Socialism is defined as when the government has complete control of an economy. Meanwhile, capitalism is defined as when the government has no control over the economy.
Every country on the planet today is a mixed system. However some countries can be socialistic or capitalistic, either having the government own the majority of the economy or the private sector owning the majority.

When analyzing these differences, I think it is important to contrast the successes of the socialistic world versus the capitalistic one. For around 50 years, a world stretching from Tirana to Pyongyang barely managed to achieve nothing less besides authoritarianism, poverty, and stagnation. Meanwhile capitalistic countries managed to create a world with plentiful food, housing, medical care, and overall well-being, in deep contrast with it's socialistic counterparts. Capitalistic countries didn't send it's people thousands of kilometers away from their homes like the Soviet Union, a socialist country did, simply for refusing to give up their property(Kulaki). In fact, the very nature of socialistic countries, that being of collectivism, and thus authoritarianism, breeds this kind of behavior. Socialistic countries require strong central governments, and thus are naturally more inclined to be more dangerous towards its citizenry.

Therefore, capitalistic countries are superior to socialistic ones, and thus, capitalism is better than socialism.

JulesKorngold

piloteer said:

@JulesKorngold

 I live in the US, which is a socialist country     

No, America is not a socialist country. The United States of America is a democratic republic with a mixed-market economy that combines elements of capitalism and socialism. While some socialist policies and programs have been implemented in the United States, such as Social Security and Medicare, the country as a whole is not socialist.

The United States has a capitalist economic system that values private enterprise, free markets, and individual property rights. However, it also has a system of government regulations, social safety nets, and progressive taxation that redistributes wealth and provides services and benefits to those in need.

It’s important to note that the definition of socialism can vary widely depending on who you ask, and there is ongoing debate over what constitutes a socialist system. However, by most commonly accepted definitions, the United States is not a socialist country.

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold

It’s important to note that the definition of socialism can vary widely depending on who you ask, and there is ongoing debate over what constitutes a socialist system. However, by most commonly accepted definitions, the United States is not a socialist country.

Socialism is a united state of law........

America is held a republic by the United States Constitution which describes a liberty of search by the people for the more perfect state of the union. It is not impossible for the America's to act as a socialist power, it is currently acting as a socialist country by its use of executive orders and the amount of possible perjury the American voter is enduring by voting. This issue takes place with both democrats and republicans alike as they have both been elected to the Oval Office.

John_C_87

The major perjuries held in Executive order creating a USSOA. (United Soicalist State of America). 

.Women in the Military which is delt with Constitutional by simple adopting the Armed Services as the militaries new unconstitutional standing until corrected. 

.Female President which is best corrected by describing her as a united state nade with all women American or not "Presadera."

.Abortion which is corrected by describing the medical treatment clearly as a whole truth to be Female-Specific amputation.

.Same gender social likely-hoods which are challenged in whole truth by describing them as Binvir /  UnosMulier / VirMulier.

.Marijuana challenged as consitutional united state in the form of air pollution only.

The argument of debate is does Presidential and Congressional sanctions by civil court actual work in establishing the most perfect connection to established justice as demonstrated in the past?

@Juleskorngold

Programs such as Social Security and welfare alone do not make a nation socialist there must be a provable influence made on the court systems.

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

Well that explains why you think overpopulation is a problem.  You see everything in a vacuum.
Islf wealth generation, or the production of new goods was a bad thing wed most certainly be screwed however, the generation of goods and services helps keep the economy afloat and for the consumer may drive the price of goods and services down.
Are you suggesting that the creation of the internet and cell phones are a bad thing because it drives inflation?

"There's no stability for anybody except those running the system because your assets are only ever worth what somebody else tells you they are worth."
That statement is made significantly more true under a socialist government.
When you dont artificially effect the price of goods and services its much harder to cause a sudden crash.

Also i disagree that wealth is just a measure of how rich you are compared to the next guy.  Standard of living is much more appropriate.
Even if im not considered wealthy in comparison to others comparing to other countries and those in history I am very wealthy.

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

Well that explains why you think overpopulation is a problem.

I don't think it's a problem. It's objectively a problem. If we can't feed and house every person then there are too many people. 

You see everything in a vacuum.

I don't know what that means, but that's OK because I doubt you do either.

lf wealth generation, or the production of new goods was a bad thing wed most certainly be screwed

The terminology you're using (i.e. "wealth generation") doesn't actually mean anything. Printing more pieces of paper with Benjamin Franklin on the front, or seeing more digits on a computer screen doesn't "generate" more resources than were there initially. I'm really sorry that you've somehow been fooled about that. Wealth is never generated. It's only moved from one place to another. When wealth is created out of nothing it devalues the existing wealth and hence cancels out its own value.

the generation of goods and services helps keep the economy afloat 

So does debt and war. The value of debt and war to the economy doesn't make them good things. If debt, war, and selling people a bunch of useless stuff they don't want or need is how you are keeping your economy afloat then obviously there is something seriously wrong with your society.  Besides which, as I've just explained, selling people goods and services doesn't create wealth. It simply moves it from one place to another.

Are you suggesting that the creation of the internet and cell phones are a bad thing because it drives inflation?

This conversation is impossible because I can't penetrate your extreme brainwashing. The advance of technology has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. It's a natural product of history. I could equally point out that the Soviets invented satellites, so are satellites a bad thing because they were invented by socialists? Or I could point out that the Nazis invented the rockets which put men on the moon, so are rockets a bad thing because they were invented by Nazis? It's is nothing short of amazing how your mind has been twisted by propaganda to believe that capitalism is responsible for the technological progress which has been going on since the dawn of mankind.