It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

While You Were Sleeping: Among Democrats 49% Favorable To Socialism

page: 13
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: SemicollegiateCapitalism makes things cheaper and more plentiful.



I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. Capitalism, unfettered, breeds monopolies, corruption and economic disparity. It is a terrible system for the average individual.

I understand the appeal of it, I understand how someone could be drawn to its idealism. I think though, historical precedent has proven, time and again, that it's a bad system. More specifically, this 'hands off' approach that some in the GOP want is a bad system.




posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Debating you about free market economy is pointless. Have a good evening.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: SemicollegiateCapitalism makes things cheaper and more plentiful.



I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. Capitalism, unfettered, breeds monopolies, corruption and economic disparity. It is a terrible system for the average individual.

I understand the appeal of it, I understand how someone could be drawn to its idealism. I think though, historical precedent has proven, time and again, that it's a bad system. More specifically, this 'hands off' approach that some in the GOP want is a bad system.


Your wasting your time. He is absolutely convinced that no one could possibly monopolize anything, become wealthy and impose facisim in his idealistic view of free market capitalism.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Annee

I actually don't support Free Market - - without guidelines. Abuse is too easy.


Abuse is nearly impossible.

The seller must sell at the lowest price or else the buyer will go elsewhere. Every time.



In a Free Market.

If prices are regulated - - service becomes the competition.



I'm not sure what you mean. I'll think about it.

For anyone interested

In a voluntary system, the consumers have the almost all of the money. The businesses can only get that money by selling something that the consumers want or need.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: SemicollegiateCapitalism makes things cheaper and more plentiful.



I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. Capitalism, unfettered, breeds monopolies, corruption and economic disparity. It is a terrible system for the average individual.


Wrong, fetters before monopoly, every time.

You do know that monopoly originally meant: a company designated by the government as the one and only business in a given industry.

Like liberal now means "freedom from want" when it originally meant "freedom of action", monopoly now means "big business" when it originally meant "government authorized"




I understand the appeal of it, I understand how someone could be drawn to its idealism. I think though, historical precedent has proven, time and again, that it's a bad system. More specifically, this 'hands off' approach that some in the GOP want is a bad system.


The GOP are the warfare part of the warfare/welfare state. See logrolling in Wkipedia

Most intelligent and moral people accept socialism as the truth. Laziness, or the natural disinclination to work, affects the intelligent moral people as much as everyone else. However moral socialism appear to be, it is not natural, and as it turns out, it will not be sustainable.

ETA-- and as should go without saying, socialism exploits the ignorance of the workers to make them want less for less.

The end result of wanting less is less and less .... then not enough.
edit on 26-10-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


Wrong, fetters before monopoly, every time.

You do know that monopoly originally meant: a company designated by the government as the one and only business in a given industry.


The original meaning of the word has little, to no, basis on current events and topics. Moreover, can you give a historical example of a time when your brand of capitalism was successful? Or is this just a great concept on paper but just hasn't been practiced yet?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


Wrong, fetters before monopoly, every time.

You do know that monopoly originally meant: a company designated by the government as the one and only business in a given industry.


The original meaning of the word has little, to no, basis on current events and topics. Moreover, can you give a historical example of a time when your brand of capitalism was successful? Or is this just a great concept on paper but just hasn't been practiced yet?


The industrial revolution was pretty close to free market. Everything was so new that there were no laws except the obvious criminal laws.

There is a connection to the old meaning of monopoly. Monopoly has always had a bad connotation and the connotation was passed on a misleading propagandistic way to free market businesses. Businesses that were producing vast quantities of never before produced goods at prices that were lower every year.

Government intervention saved us from lower prices and no inflation.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: mikkelno
Nothing wrong with being helpful to the people who needs help. That's also a christian view, am i right?


Compulsory charity is not charity.

Correct. However, I guess it's a good thing that the Prophet Jesus ordered his followers to sell their property & give the proceeds to the poor. There was nothing voluntary about it. It's in Line 33 below, however I included a lot of the passage to make sure nothing was lost in context.

Luke 12:22-34 (New International Version)


22 Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear.

23 For life is more than food, and the body more than clothes.

24 Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!

25 Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life[a]?

26 Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?

27 “Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.

28 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith!

29 And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it.

30 For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them.

31 But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

32 “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.

33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Annee

I actually don't support Free Market - - without guidelines. Abuse is too easy.


Abuse is nearly impossible.

The seller must sell at the lowest price or else the buyer will go elsewhere. Every time.



In a Free Market.

If prices are regulated - - service becomes the competition.



I'm not sure what you mean. I'll think about it.

For anyone interested

In a voluntary system, the consumers have the almost all of the money. The businesses can only get that money by selling something that the consumers want or need.



Honestly, I can think on different levels. First would be to consider end result.

As in the animal kingdom, do you want the strong to survive. OR - do you want everyone to have equal fair share without equal input?

I see Free Market as strong survive. Which would be fine with me.

But, as our world is today - - - their are losers. Which is also fine with me.

If you want everyone's needs met - - - you can't really have Winners and Losers.

So, it really kind of depends on where you want to put your "brain".



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

lol

The Industrial Revolution? Ok, ok...hold on...let me wrap my head around that for a moment.
Nope, not doing it. Too easy of a target. Moving on...

So what's the end-game? Without government intervention, what, in the free market, is going to stop the wholesale bribery of politicians and government officials? What will stop the Robber Barons from rising again if we roll back a century and a half of laws and regulations?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Annee

I actually don't support Free Market - - without guidelines. Abuse is too easy.


Abuse is nearly impossible.

The seller must sell at the lowest price or else the buyer will go elsewhere. Every time.



In a Free Market.

If prices are regulated - - service becomes the competition.



I'm not sure what you mean. I'll think about it.

For anyone interested

In a voluntary system, the consumers have the almost all of the money. The businesses can only get that money by selling something that the consumers want or need.



Honestly, I can think on different levels. First would be to consider end result.

As in the animal kingdom, do you want the strong to survive. OR - do you want everyone to have equal fair share without equal input?

I see Free Market as strong survive. Which would be fine with me.

But, as our world is today - - - their are losers. Which is also fine with me.

If you want everyone's needs met - - - you can't really have Winners and Losers.

So, it really kind of depends on where you want to put your "brain".


Humans have minds. A human is always looking into the future to choose what will get him what he wants the most. He is not always right, but he will choose what he thinks will get him what he wants.

A society is people doing what they want to.

A free market is people trading with other people.

Capitalism, that is machinery and applied wealth, allows regular people to make more stuff, to bring more things into existence, than any other social system.

The poor will have access to more stuff at a low price from capitalism than they will in any other system. Because capitalism makes more stuff that people want than any other system.

There is absolute poverty -- not enough to eat, no clothes, no shelter, and there is relative poverty -- basic cable, an old car or the bus, goodwill clothes.

Relative poverty will always be, but capitalism will always make relative poverty the wealthiest poverty that is possible because capitalism pays and so motivates people to do so.

Children used to be slave labor (chores and such), entertainment, and a retirement program. In an affluent society children are mostly an emotionally rewarding and happy phenomenon to their creators. Children have no real utility as far as economics goes so there are fewer of them in an affluent society.

Less people means fewer losers and more importance to each living mind. Anyway every body gets a broken heart about something, there can be only one champion of the world in anything. Relative poverty is one kind of broken heart.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Semicollegiate

lol

The Industrial Revolution? Ok, ok...hold on...let me wrap my head around that for a moment.
Nope, not doing it. Too easy of a target. Moving on...

So what's the end-game? Without government intervention, what, in the free market, is going to stop the wholesale bribery of politicians and government officials? What will stop the Robber Barons from rising again if we roll back a century and a half of laws and regulations?



News!

There are no politicians or government officials in a free market.

Robber Baron's get their domains from regulation, which handicaps new competition.

The Industrial Revolution never happened? or it was just that time on the calendar?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
News!

There are no politicians or government officials in a free market.


Either you're advocating total anarchy because you're afraid of the 'S' word, or you have no concept of historical precedent. I'm going to take iSurrender73's advice and end my discussion with you here. You genuinely sound like you're no older than 22 and just finished your first Ayn Rand novel less than a year ago.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


The seller must sell at the lowest price or else the buyer will go elsewhere. Every time.


In theory, if all other factors were equal and the buyer was making a rational decision based on perfect information, this would be the case but in the real world, all factors are never equal, information is never perfect and people often make completely irrational decisions.

Another thing that doesn't exist in the real world is perfect competition.


The "coincidence of unequal wants" is the basis of every trade. Each person values the thing he trades away less than the thing he gets by the transaction.

From each person's point of view, trading is getting more than is given up.


I believe what you're referring to is actually the double coincidence of wants aka coincidence of wants which simply means that for a barter exchange to occur, each party in the exchange must have something to barter that the other party wants.

The infrequency of this coincidence of wants severely limits barter economies, hence money.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Interesting.

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


The industrial revolution was pretty close to free market. Everything was so new that there were no laws except the obvious criminal laws.

There is a connection to the old meaning of monopoly. Monopoly has always had a bad connotation and the connotation was passed on a misleading propagandistic way to free market businesses. Businesses that were producing vast quantities of never before produced goods at prices that were lower every year.

Government intervention saved us from lower prices and no inflation




The Industrial Revolution created cartels of robber barons who abused the under-regulated free market in every conceivable way. Similarly, you could view the labor market prior to the passage of effective labor laws as being under-regulated and the result of this was of course the exploitation of laborers.

You're reversing cause and effect. Ask yourself which came first, the corporate trusts or antitrust law?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Semicollegiate


The seller must sell at the lowest price or else the buyer will go elsewhere. Every time.


In theory, if all other factors were equal and the buyer was making a rational decision based on perfect information, this would be the case but in the real world, all factors are never equal, information is never perfect and people often make completely irrational decisions.


The price system is the closest thing to perfect information possible. The price system values all resources and services in the context of scarcity, to the best possible unbiased and universal approximation. Thus the price enables a person to know whether a seller is offering a fair deal or not, or whether he wants to buy the thing in the first place.




Another thing that doesn't exist in the real world is perfect competition.


You said perfect competition. What makes you say that?




I believe what you're referring to is actually the double coincidence of wants aka coincidence of wants which simply means that for a barter exchange to occur, each party in the exchange must have something to barter that the other party wants.

The infrequency of this coincidence of wants severely limits barter economies, hence money.


For any voluntary exchange to occur there must be a different valuation of the same objects by the trading parties. Each party gives over something he values less in order to get something he values more.

All value is subjective, hence the inability to assign values by decree.

That is why socialism cannot run an economy.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Semicollegiate




The Industrial Revolution created cartels of robber barons who abused the under-regulated free market in every conceivable way. Similarly, you could view the labor market prior to the passage of effective labor laws as being under-regulated and the result of this was of course the exploitation of laborers.

You're reversing cause and effect. Ask yourself which came first, the corporate trusts or antitrust law?


The Robber barons got free land from the US Gov. and prevented the normal homesteading and ranching of million of acres. There was no railroad cartel until the ICC made every company's books public and so allowed the cartel to enforce the rules on its members. Before the ICC all of the Robber Baron's attempts at price fixing were ruined by one or another of the members stealing all of the traffic by offering lower rates. When the ICC made the books public, no one could do that any more.

The trusts were formed after the break up of Standard Oil, a company that reduced the price of kerosene from 58 cents per gallon to less than 6 cents.

The government always saves us from low prices, just like with health care, housing, and college, and 95% inflation since 1913.

Weekly hours works was decreasing before any labor laws


The only way to work less is to make more in less time. Only capitalism makes the capital to do that.
edit on 26-10-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-10-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Perhaps you would provide us some evidence besides your good word that socialism is responsible for inflation?

I don't expect you to be able to do so, but I thought I'd ask.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Followup: can you point to the "free market" you're referring to? You know, the actual real world example that happens/happened in a place where there is no politicians and no government (or government officials?)

Hint: I'm not expecting much here either, because nothing like that exists or has ever existed.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join