• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Eat the Rich

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
The dilemma is that Capitalism has no social or moral framework. It's an economic philosophy that has to be balanced by a social framework, like child labor laws, OSHA, minimum wage, vacations, overtime, etc. The Industrial Revolution showed us how bad the moral obligation to humans can be with Capitalism as the sole guiding set of rules.
And socialism has a better track record of morality?

o_O
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
And socialism has a better track record of morality?

o_O
I'm guessing you are thinking Soviet Russia and China. You're probably ignoring Sweden and Denmark, whose citizens routinely rank as some of the happiest people.

So be specific. Or just play word games as if we aren't on to the right wing tricks.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
No kidding. We clearly see what socialism and communism brings to the table.
The excuse for it's omni-failure....
trying-socialism.jpg
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Everyone I know in business needs skilled labor, eg,
carpenters, electricians, arborists, mechanics.

Well, they can still hire people as trainees or apprentices, just like they did in the past.

In the long run, we're all dead.
But during the next couple generations, it'll be worth
training workers for trades. When your fully automated
future arrives, there'll be different solutions.

It may not last as long as two generations, though. Some people have had their jobs become technologically obsolete within their own lifetimes. Or, if not obsolete, they became economically non-viable because the same job could be done by someone overseas at a fraction of the price.

It's not that nobody actually needs these jobs anymore, because obviously, most of these low-skilled, low-wage jobs are clearly needed by society. As you say, we're not at a fully automated future yet. Yet, it's only for some emotional or cultural reason that people seem to believe that these jobs should be paid as little as possible. It apparently has very little to do with practical economics or even good business sense. "Penny wise and pound foolish."

Reminds me of an interview I heard on the radio once.
A gal described her herculean efforts to find a job...a
couple years of sending out hundreds of resumes.
No takers.
Then, near the end of the interview, she divulged that
her degree was in International Diversity Studies.
With such an education, one could could develop
some useful skills, eg, writing, research. But the
degree itself is pretty lame.

Maybe it is a lame degree, but one has to wonder why colleges and universities would even offer such utterly pointless and useless degrees. I mean, if it's purely for the sake of scholarly research, then it would only have value within academia or perhaps for government research. But even then, such positions would presumably be limited in number.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm guessing you are thinking Soviet Russia and China. You're probably ignoring Sweden and Denmark, whose citizens routinely rank as some of the happiest people.

So be specific. Or just play word games as if we aren't on to the right wing tricks.
Those are capitalist countries.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well, they can still hire people as trainees or apprentices, just like they did in the past.
It's better if they bring some training to the table.
They need to be productive right out of the gate,
so that everyone can continue working.
A construction site is not a classroom, even though
some learning happens.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Maybe it is a lame degree, but one has to wonder why colleges and universities would even offer such utterly pointless and useless degrees. I mean, if it's purely for the sake of scholarly research, then it would only have value within academia or perhaps for government research. But even then, such positions would presumably be limited in number.
There's a culture of learning for the sake of learning in
these ivory towers. For your viewing pleasure....
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Socialism....a record of 100% failure.
At least capitalism has some successes.

The Red Army and PLA were surely no failures. At best, you could only accurately say a 50% failure. However, it's probably closer to only a 1%-2% failure. The wealthiest people at the top, who are accustomed to living in total luxury, might have found it a bit rough.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
You're probably ignoring Sweden and Denmark, whose citizens routinely rank as some of the happiest people.
These countries are not socialist though.

"To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs."


Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist (forbes.com)
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
People think that socialism will only curtail the freedoms of the rich whereas it always ends up curtailing the freedom of everyone.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
They keep trying to remind people of that fact but keep getting intentionally ignored by people trying to sell the socialism kool-aid.
Essentially, socialists must re-define "socialism" to
avoid including disastrous examples of "the people"
owning the means of production, eg, N Korea, Cuba.
Now it's....
Do I like this capitalist country's social programs?
If yes, then "socialist".

But they still talk of ditching capitalism, which is the
path to a N Korea type of command economy, with
all the consequent oppression.
 
Last edited:

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
People think that socialism will only curtail the freedoms of the rich whereas it always ends up curtailing the freedom of everyone.
"They'd rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich." - D. Margaret Thatcher.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
These countries are not socialist though.

"To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs."


Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist (forbes.com)

The only debate there is the amount of social programs you want supported by capitalism.
In the US , the government seems more interested in supporting itself than its citizens.
It's not money itself that corrupts, it's the power it affords. The more money printed by the government, the more power it gives itself.

Government's power comes through enforcement which is even deadlier when it becomes corrupt. The more power given to government the more likely it is that it will become corrupt.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Essentially, socialists must re-define "socialism" to
avoid including disastrous examples of "the people"
owning the means of production, eg, N Korea, Cuba.
Now it's....
Do I like this capitalist country's social programs?
If yes, then "socialist".
But they still talk of ditching capitalism, which is the
path to a N Korea type of command economy, with
all the consequent oppression.

That's kind of telling. Socialism seems now redefined to any economic system that is successful.
The failed Socialism economies were not "real" socialism. :shrug:
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
The only debate there is the amount of social programs you want supported by capitalism.
In the US , the government seems more interested in supporting itself than its citizens.
It's not money itself that corrupts, it's the power it affords. The more money printed by the government, the more power it gives itself.

Government's power comes through enforcement which is even deadlier when it becomes corrupt. The more power given to government the more likely it is that it will become corrupt.
Exactly. It's the whole reason the monarchy in the UK went from being almost absolute, to having a parliament, to having checks and balances, to not even allowing the King or Queen into the Chamber of Parliament nor disrupt it, and eventually ended up with a constitutional monarchy essentially by the Georgian Period. It seems many institutions are doing this backwards and becoming bigger, more powerful and less accountable.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
For not so smart, not so skilled, & not so ambitious people,
capitalism is indeed rough these days. Automation is causing
low skill jobs to disappear. But for the rest, there's much high
paying work available.

And for poor people who can't afford to get themselves out of poverty in a self-perpetuating system that relies on personal wealth to generate more personal wealth.

It's not surprising that many people from working-class families don't have college degrees or other marketable academic skills when college in the U.S. (and in multiple other countries) costs an arm and a leg unless you take out a loan that leaves you indebted for years. Then when you factor in other expenses like health care, especially for medical emergencies, the picture of capitalism becomes much different from the inaccurate and overly idealistic notion that "hard work begets wealth" within a strictly capitalist system.
 
Top