2 of 4
2
Capitalism
Posted: 03 January 2014 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 10 December 2013 06:18 AM

I prefer capitalism over socialism when it comes to drugs. I lived in a socialist country and the only reason we were able to get certain drugs, say, an antibiotic cream, was because we knew the local pharmacist. She sold us the cream (unavailable to most of the population) and we returned the favour in some other way. I thought the fact that socialism doesn’t work has already been shown through the huge scientific study called the 20th century. Why are we still talking about this?

If you wonder why a socialist system would be unable to keep up with the demand of antibiotic creams, I can explain it to you.

Have you ever thought about how many people in our capitalist system can’t get that same tube of antibiotic cream?  Everything depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn’t it?

I don’t know which socialist country you lived in but I have been in many countries with socialized medicine and have never been denied any medical care or medication I or a family member has needed. But I see many people in the US either denied care or medications because they can’t afford them or they are forced to spend hours in an overcrowded emergency room in the hopes of getting minimal care—and often not getting even that. Not everyone has the wherewithal to do an end run around the system as you were able to do.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2014 06:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Countries with socialized medicine can still be capitalist. What exactly, then, are you trying to criticize here? I now live in a capitalist country, Canada, where getting the cream is much easier than it was in a socialist country, the Czech Republic. The reason why more people in Canada might have access to medicine than in the US has nothing to do with capitalism per se, since they are both capitalist countries. Don’t change the subject.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2014 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  624
Joined  2013-06-01

History has shown that no economic system is prepared for catastrophe events like meteors and major earth movements. 
Some of the older Gneiss stories refer to over population that was changed by plagues, and natural events that would decrease the population and bring peace and harmony back to earth.
So history is telling us either system seems to work in low population periods.

Looking at one of the best systems of the past was the Egyptian system that operated for several thousand years.
Egypt used the system from India that had a Pharaoh (king) and the Priests (socialist) who controlled the laws.
I think that was most likely the system that inspired the Roman, French and then our system.

The king (Pharaoh) ruled and kept the economy moving and balanced the powers between the temples. The Priests made sure the king ruled within the laws of the kingdom.

Was this longest lasting government system known to mankind a monarchy, democratic or socialist system?

History is showing that it was not a monarchy as we think of as in Europe. The agriculture based economy was capitalist driven. The canals, pyramids and temple building were socialism driven programs to deal with unemployment and alcoholism.

Priests (socialist) became very wealthy and it was the Pharaoh’s job to keep the world in harmony and balance. The world would become out of balance because of greed.  So every 20 to 30 years the Pharaoh would redistribute the wealth of the temples (socialists) to the people (capitalists). 
Now one has to ask, “How can the Priests be wealthy and this be called a socialist system?” History has showed us that is how socialism really works in big populated governments.

[ CuthbertJ - Please tell us why a profit-centered (capitalism) versus people-centered (socialism) economic system is good.]

The Egyptians showed us that a combination of the two systems works the best for larger populations. But they were able to recognize the human factor of “Greed” was a demise of either system and it required the Pharaoh to have a system to control and balance the greed in the other two systems.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2014 01:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Another thing we can learn from the Gneiss stories is that Egypt also had an internet. They used papyrus instead of computers, but other than that it was pretty much the same thing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2014 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26
George - 04 January 2014 06:40 AM

Countries with socialized medicine can still be capitalist. What exactly, then, are you trying to criticize here? I now live in a capitalist country, Canada, where getting the cream is much easier than it was in a socialist country, the Czech Republic. The reason why more people in Canada might have access to medicine than in the US has nothing to do with capitalism per se, since they are both capitalist countries. Don’t change the subject.

I believe Canada has a single payer system and negotiated for lower drug prices with US manufacturers.
I believe that Bush negotiated that US manufacturers could add the losses in profit to the drug prices to US sold drugs. Kinda robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Explain to me how it is possible that Canadians pay MUCH lower drug prices for US made drugs than US citizens do in their own country of manufacture?

A benign dictatorship is not necessarily a bad thing. Likewise a benign Capitalist system is a good thing.  But just as a a bad dictatorship is a bad thing, so is unrestricted (greedy) Capitalism a bad thing.

Se my post #15 to see how the US Capitalist system has been perverted. 1% owns 40% of the nations wealth? Something is wrong here.
I believe i read somehwere that the 14 trillion dollar US debt sits in private tax free off-shore US accounts. I find that objectionable.

[ Edited: 04 January 2014 02:52 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2014 07:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  814
Joined  2012-04-25

MikeYohe wrote [ CuthbertJ - Please tell us why a profit-centered (capitalism) versus people-centered (socialism) economic system is good.] I’m not sure if I’m interpreting this correctly. I think Capitalism is a disease so I’m not sure why I’d want to show it’s good.  I’m also not saying a socialist system as practiced anywhere today is the ideal system. I think if we just define socialism as people-centered, then we should do whatever we can to move to that type of system.  I think of it in really simple terms: a child with cancer, obviously no fault of their own, should have complete access to every possible treatment, cure, hospital, etc. without regard to how wealthy their parents are, and without regard to cost. In a capitalist system, this isn’t the case, because curing that child is not profitable. Same with education. When the profit motive is in place, then someone decides which cases are worth it or not based on monetary concerns. And that’s wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2014 07:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2013-07-15
CuthbertJ - 04 January 2014 07:13 PM

MikeYohe wrote [ CuthbertJ - Please tell us why a profit-centered (capitalism) versus people-centered (socialism) economic system is good.] I’m not sure if I’m interpreting this correctly. I think Capitalism is a disease so I’m not sure why I’d want to show it’s good.  I’m also not saying a socialist system as practiced anywhere today is the ideal system. I think if we just define socialism as people-centered, then we should do whatever we can to move to that type of system.  I think of it in really simple terms: a child with cancer, obviously no fault of their own, should have complete access to every possible treatment, cure, hospital, etc. without regard to how wealthy their parents are, and without regard to cost. In a capitalist system, this isn’t the case, because curing that child is not profitable. Same with education. When the profit motive is in place, then someone decides which cases are worth it or not based on monetary concerns. And that’s wrong.

So what you are saying is that you have a RIGHT to another persons skill, time, and learning at the expense of others? By what moral ground do you hold this true?

As for the original question a free market system is the most moral because it does not rely on FORCE to make people do things. The concept that you have a right to enact force on me or my business to make it fall in line with what you wish is amoral to the extreme. If I act unethically and cause people harm with a bad product that I knew was dangerous then I am legally liable for my negligence and should be held so. But preemptive force is not right by any means.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2014 08:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
Write4U - 03 January 2014 11:56 AM

I don’t believe we need to worry about becoming a socialist country just yet.
Just look at this little tidbit about the distribution of wealth in the US

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?c=reccon1

gulp


That’s what I call a cold slap of reality in the face.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2014 08:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

Add to that a few real world lessons from Naomi Klein

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPmYvfYzBsw
Naomi Klein - Charlie Rose Interview
The anatomy of the Shock Doctrine

and I wonder what does this notion of “capitalism” mean anyways?

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2014 09:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
MikeYohe - 22 December 2013 10:49 PM

CuthbertJ,
I think what you have here is “Greed”.
Greed is not only found in Capitalism, but in all forms of government and big business.
Just look at our congress if you want to see Greed.
Or look at the management of the Socialist country of China.

So what is your remedy? Either too much capitalism or too much socialism is bound to fail. What do you propose to fix the problem?

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2014 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3253
Joined  2011-08-15

So what is your remedy? Either too much capitalism or too much socialism is bound to fail. What do you propose to fix the problem?

There’s obviously no quick fix to the economic situation we’re in but a mixed economy is the only way to reverse the trend on the video. the central government with a limited power to control unbridled profits, a minimum wage that automatically raises with the cost of living, a ceiling on campaign spending by corporate lobbyists, a graduated income tax, penalties for moving manufacturing out of the country, merit pay for workers, and stronger unions working under NLRB guidelines to name a few. But we’ve covered this ground many times on this forum. I do agree with Lois that too much of any economic philosophy will cause the system to ultimately fail: pure socialism as espoused by Robert Owen is unworkable as shown by his failed communities (e.g. New Harmony, Ind.) and pure lassez-faire capitalism resulted in legal slavery and the rise of aggressive labor unions leading to the bloody conflicts of the Guilded Age. There has to be a balance between the two or an eventual conflict and collapse of the system will result, and yes given the same conditions it can happen again.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2014 09:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 04 January 2014 06:40 AM

Countries with socialized medicine can still be capitalist. What exactly, then, are you trying to criticize here? I now live in a capitalist country, Canada, where getting the cream is much easier than it was in a socialist country, the Czech Republic. The reason why more people in Canada might have access to medicine than in the US has nothing to do with capitalism per se, since they are both capitalist countries. Don’t change the subject.

I don’t know who you were responding to here, but socialized medicine not a matter of socialism vs. capitalism. It’s possible and, in fact, preferable to have a socialist programs within a capitalist economy.  Socialized medicine should be at the top of the list. 

LL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2014 09:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

The topic of this thread is capitalism vs. socialism, not socialized medicine vs. single-payer health care. You should either stick to the topic or start a new conversation elsewhere.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2014 12:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 06 January 2014 09:28 AM

The topic of this thread is capitalism vs. socialism, not socialized medicine vs. single-payer health care. You should either stick to the topic or start a new conversation elsewhere.

Should there be a rule that topics can’t evolve?

But who will bell the cat?

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2014 09:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Sure it can evolve, but not through punctuated equilibrium.  grin

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2