Socialism and Capitalism suffer from one specific problem which leads to a meltdown

a reply to: infolurker

Nice link but that doesn't explain what I asked.

You don't agree with Socialism, I got that already.

But the guy who you said had a "crap" idea wasn't talking about just socialism. It was a blend of Socialism and Capitalism called Socio-cap .

A Capitalism/Socialism mix is what we have here as well. In fact, lot's of nations are a mix of the two. They aren't all the same and it's not that simple either. Capitalism is also more of an economic model and not a model for Government so it's not exactly an either or situation.

Also, rather than just "crapping" on the other suggestions what is your suggestion of the model you advocate for??

And the classic case of how Socialism really works in a country, the prize goes to......GREECE. On that note, the most likely UK Labour leadership winner will be Jeremy Corbyn who loves spewing his Socialist ideals. If that happens and Labour win the next election it will be goodbye England the same way Greece is an inch of the bottom of the economic abyse.

originally posted by: fishwhisperer
And the classic case of how Socialism really works in a country, the prize goes to......GREECE. On that note, the most likely UK Labour leadership winner will be Jeremy Corbyn who loves spewing his Socialist ideals. If that happens and Labour win the next election it will be goodbye England the same way Greece is an inch of the bottom of the economic abyse.

The foolish "socialist idealist" here in America buy it hook line and sinker.

My advice to them would be to go live in one and see how it is instead of bringing the US down to a 3rd world country.

Venezuela is nice this time of year. Send us a text with how long the food line wait is and what leaves work best as toilet paper.

Hey... I got a great idea... let's implement a system that always FAILS but it sounds good on paper, romantic, and gives us a cause.

Great freeking plan... LOL

a reply to: infolurker

Id rather follow a model of government that works, like sweden, norway,finland. Not the failing system that you have in america.

Socialism is so bad that the top countries for happy people are all socialist leaning.

Great freaking plan, you got that right.

originally posted by: lostbook
Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources.

Can anyone that is pro Capitalism refute this statement?

Genuine question.

a reply to: fishwhisperer
Is Germany not a democratic socialist republic and doing fine, so is France.
Socialism and capitalism can be explained by the fact capitalism gives us and persuades us we need the rubbish that we are buying and it is necessary to live. Socialism is the opposite.
The mother of invention used to be necessity until capitalism changed it to making an invention for profit. We should by now as a human race come up with a way to desalinate sea water and provide everyone with clean water. Instead we invent a plastic bottle and take control of the worlds water supplies, keep supplies low and demand high because its a capitalist society.
Capitalism is by its nature boom and bust because we are aggressively competing for the lot and not just our share.
What have we done?

a reply to: infolurker
Capitalism is the cause of south Americas woes. The westen world don't want more competition on the world stage competing and touting for our disposable income. The only good thing about western leaders are they make good business men. Completely ruthless in the name of profit.

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: lostbook
Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources.

Can anyone that is pro Capitalism refute this statement?

Genuine question.

The End of Growth Wouldn't Be the End of Capitalism

DOES CAPITALISM NEED GROWTH? Ask any economist of the free-market persuasion to justify capitalism, and the word "growth" probably won't even be part of his spiel. The simple Econ 101 theories that are used to justify free markets don't even have growth in them! In Econ 101, capitalism works because people gain from trade, not because they have more and more to trade over time. Efficiency, not growth, is the gold ring. In those simple toy economies, people just keep on cheerfully making their bargains of cattle and grain until the Sun explodes.

It is human nature that cannot be stopped that is the cause of all political system failures. Their destructive traits appear in the form of wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: lostbook
Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources.

Can anyone that is pro Capitalism refute this statement?

Genuine question.

The End of Growth Wouldn't Be the End of Capitalism

DOES CAPITALISM NEED GROWTH? Ask any economist of the free-market persuasion to justify capitalism, and the word "growth" probably won't even be part of his spiel. The simple Econ 101 theories that are used to justify free markets don't even have growth in them! In Econ 101, capitalism works because people gain from trade, not because they have more and more to trade over time. Efficiency, not growth, is the gold ring. In those simple toy economies, people just keep on cheerfully making their bargains of cattle and grain until the Sun explodes.

That is a very good point. Capitalism is not entirely dependent upon growth, but as we have seen from our system in America, growth is the end-all goal for those that are not satisfied with making a little here and there by trading cattle and grain. That explains why the system must crash from time to time so that we can reset everything, let the majority go flat broke and let the wealthy consolidate even more wealth as the growth cycle begins again.

You have, in fact, validated the OP's position that no matter the system of government or economics we put in place, it is all dependent upon the people not becoming corrupt. The same is true for socialism.

a reply to: introvert

If we agree that corruption is inevitable, shouldn't it be the more reasonable proposition that we distribute power rather than consolidate it?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

If we agree that corruption is inevitable, shouldn't it be the more reasonable proposition that we distribute power rather than consolidate it?

I think we should resort back to the constitution, read the opinions and writings of the Founding Fathers. I think you will find that what they wrote closely resembles the socio-cap comments made earlier.

Individual liberty, mixed with responsibility for the general welfare and a corporate charter system that leashed corporations under the thread of being quickly dissolved.

They had it right the first time. We've just bastardized it to mean things it does not.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

If we agree that corruption is inevitable, shouldn't it be the more reasonable proposition that we distribute power rather than consolidate it?

I think we should resort back to the constitution, read the opinions and writings of the Founding Fathers. I think you will find that what they wrote closely resembles the socio-cap comments made earlier.

Individual liberty, mixed with responsibility for the general welfare and a corporate charter system that leashed corporations under the thread of being quickly dissolved.

They had it right the first time. We've just bastardized it to mean things it does not.

The Constitution and, in particular the Bill of Rights, is very clear about limiting the scope and authority of government.

There is nothing socialist in it.

a reply to: greencmp

The Constitution and, in particular the Bill of Rights, is very clear about limiting the scope and authority of government.

There is nothing socialist in it.

Yes it does limit government. It was ingenious that it could do all the things we want including protecting liberty, restricting uncontrolled capitalism and injecting socialism by giving the government authority to lay taxes for the the purposes of providing for the common good, such as the military.

The constitution is quite ingenious, but too many people interpret it to fit their political desires and do not see it for what it actually was.

It did include aspects of socialism, but we refuse to admit it.

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: lostbook
Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources.

Can anyone that is pro Capitalism refute this statement?

Genuine question.

The infinite growth meme is suspiciously similar to the inflation is good meme.

Perhaps they both come from the same "education".

Capitalism is incentivized production, not growth.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

The Constitution and, in particular the Bill of Rights, is very clear about limiting the scope and authority of government.

There is nothing socialist in it.

Yes it does limit government. It was ingenious that it could do all the things we want including protecting liberty, restricting uncontrolled capitalism and injecting socialism by giving the government authority to lay taxes for the the purposes of providing for the common good, such as the military.

The constitution is quite ingenious, but too many people interpret it to fit their political desires and do not see it for what it actually was.

It did include aspects of socialism, but we refuse to admit it.

I do concede that tariffs are allowed by the federal government but, direct taxation of citizens was not until the 16th amendment.

I also agree that we must have a military. Such was the foresight of the founding fathers as you say.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: lostbook
Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources.

Can anyone that is pro Capitalism refute this statement?

Genuine question.

The infinite growth meme is suspiciously similar to the inflation is good meme.

Perhaps they both come from the same "education".

Capitalism is incentivized production, not growth.

Yes, I also hear the "when interest rates are this low, it's insane not to borrow" to which I respond, "so who then will lend?"

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

The Constitution and, in particular the Bill of Rights, is very clear about limiting the scope and authority of government.

There is nothing socialist in it.

Yes it does limit government. It was ingenious that it could do all the things we want including protecting liberty, restricting uncontrolled capitalism and injecting socialism by giving the government authority to lay taxes for the the purposes of providing for the common good, such as the military.

The constitution is quite ingenious, but too many people interpret it to fit their political desires and do not see it for what it actually was.

It did include aspects of socialism, but we refuse to admit it.

The supporters of the COTUS wanted more industry, central banking with deficit spending, and more city dwellers (factory workers). Alexander Hamilton (the only Founding Father who was not born in the colonies) thought that the US should be an industrial power and was the major voice of the Federalists.

Supporters of the COTUS were proto-socialists, or cronies.

Like Liberals are not Classical Liberals, the Federalists were not promoting association and cooperation, Federalism, but rather central authority and standardization, Imperialism or Nationalism.

The Bill of Rights implies that the Constitution itself was not designed to protect any individual rights.

That said, the Constitution is still in a league of its own.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: lostbook
Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources.

Can anyone that is pro Capitalism refute this statement?

Genuine question.

The infinite growth meme is suspiciously similar to the inflation is good meme.

Perhaps they both come from the same "education".

Capitalism is incentivized production, not growth.

Yes, I also hear the "when interest rates are this low, it's insane not to borrow" to which I respond, "so who then will lend?"

Good point

If credit is easy then the PTB got us hooked and are playing out the fishing line. Until the average guy's children owe a lifetime debt.

If credit is hard to get, they are keeping inflation down. As you know, most loans are newly created money.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: infolurker
Are you freeking serious? They actually indoctrinate you with that crap? Well I guess that was inevitable as the Progressives took over the education system.


BTW, Socio-cap as you call it is what China is.... very similar to Fascism.

Just calling it crap and blaming Progressives which displays your bias on this topic. How about explaining why???

The other poster explained his reasoning behind what he was talking about to some degree. You just called it crap, blamed a group of people without showing any connection and make a predictive outcome again without a connection. But can you back any of it up??

Thank you. I just ignore negative comments