Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Socialism Only Works In Theory

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 7:19 p.m. EST by number2 (914)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This is to supplement another thread. The truth is that we have a mixed economy: part capitalism and part socialism. The US constitution has the interstate commerce clause. That wouldn't be a 100% laissez faire capitalist document.

On the other hand a 100% socialist economy wouldn't work for a day. In fact if you get over 50% socialism you are in trouble. Look at Greece. Look at us: can't pay social security, medicare, medicaid and other social programs because we are bankrupt.

When more people take than put in, then you go in to debt and it's a matter of time, from there. On the other hand, I think we can see that laissez faire didn't work out so well for the banks.

What should we do then? Well this country with it's mixed economy has been the most prosperous nation in the world. Let's go back and copy what we did in the past. I think it is about an 80/20 capitalism/socialism ratio. I say this because if I am given the choice to take a free ride I'll do it 100% of the time. And so will you.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by Josue (13) 2 years ago

High taxes rates have historically not been a drag on growth. Go back to pre-Reagan tax rates. Most of our troubles would be solved.

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

I would like to be omniscient, but since I'm not I just put pieces of the puzzle together. I think taxes are one piece of this puzzle. There are many fascist pieces that need to be fixed and the government needs to stop spending like a teenager with a credit card.

If we just went back to pre_reagan but didn't fix the fascsim, the corporations would steal those taxes to boot

[-] 3 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Go back to pre-Reagan taxes, and on top of that institute campaign finance and lobbying reform. The problem isn't specifically that government is spending too much; it's that we're seeing so little return on what we're spending. The current system has Uncle Sam shelling out tons of money in subsidies and tax breaks and lucrative contracts and then getting so little in return that taxpayers start getting pissed off.

If we start taking a look at our defense budget for real we'll probably find all sorts of contracts that are late and over budget, or simply more expensive than training and maintaining your own people. If you look at the Lockheed Martin fighter jet flap it probably would have been cheaper to train a team of engineers and build the prototyping equipment they'd need. If we take government-subsidized private firms and consolidating those operations in-house, we have a start right there; if we stop giving crazy tax breaks for companies doing R&D and moved those operations back in-house the cost of funding the labs and paying the people would probably be less than the lost revenue. Slow down and actually take a look at whether or not we actually need to be handing out 90% of farm subsidies; ten to one we're subsidizing agribusiness conglomerates who really don't need it. As a rule, paying a private company to provide a service is more expensive than providing it oneself.

Finally, if we want to avoid further asset bubbles of the sort that caused the 2008 collapse we need to restore Glass-Steagall and really begin regulating Wall Street. Part of that regulation will be enforcing real penalties for violations, including fines of hundreds of millions of dollars. Those fines will provide the government yet another source of income beside our taxes, and thus mean that the government will be able to do more with less of our money.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

in short the problem is fascism. the connected people are robbing the country. Maybe that is all we need to fix.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17685) 2 years ago

Thanx for your succinct, essential & absolutely accurate (imho) point & post. I can (& indeed need!) say little else other than quote Mussolini himself :

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”.

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

I think the same in healthcare. there's a rush to socialized medicine in this country and before we go all the way over there, let's just handle the fascism in healthcare and see if that doesn't fix all of our issues with it.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I agree with you that a lot of privatization schemes amounted to payoffs of big business; what I laid out above it is the first step to identifying and choking off those payoffs so that Uncle Sam can get his money's worth again.

[-] -1 points by figero (661) 2 years ago

LOL! drug use was high back then too - maybe that had something to do with it

[-] -1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

you're kidding yourself if you think that would make the US competitive in the modern world.

[-] -2 points by roloff (244) 2 years ago

That's why the Carter years were such a success right?

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

1940s-1970s, liberal consensus, look it up. Carter was the end of it - neoliberalism had already won the day. So, the period of the greatest increase in standards of living - prosperity and equality - in the planet's history, was a sham?

Pretty pictures for you: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent

[-] 5 points by demonspawn79 (186) 2 years ago

Do you seriously believe the U.S is in debt because of it's social services? You don't think it has more to do with the massive amount spent on defense or subsidies given to private corporations?

[-] 1 points by DavidD (48) from Minot AFB, ND 2 years ago

Defense? Hmm. Which form of economics would you say the military more closely resembles?

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

No, it's all of it. We spend more than we bring in. And at the moment we borrow 40 cents on the dollar. So they're talking about cutting these. I don't have access to the governments books and even if I did I wouldn't believe their figures. I do believe that we are trillions in debt because this government is huge and is involved in every aspect of my life.

[-] 4 points by JoeSteel (58) 2 years ago

There are a few reasons we're spending more for crap service than we have coming in. One of those reasons is that our wealthiest citizens are being taxed at their lowest historical rates since the Great Depression. Another is that the wars for seven years were not budgeted which greatly increased our national debt. Still another is spending of the Federal Reserve which simply needs to be not headed any more by insiders and banks and brokers. Put Elizabeth Warren or Ron Lawl in charge of the Federal Reserve, this administration simply needs to do something about it.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

"...this administration simply needs to do something..."

Is it possible? The guy is brown from kissing Bernankes' bum for 3 years. Can't we get a real pres. Please?!?

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

we can disagree with him on other things but Ron Lawl is right about money.

[-] 1 points by DavidD (48) from Minot AFB, ND 2 years ago

The military more resembles a socialist economy than anything else in this country. Everyone in a single rank with the same amount of time served makes the same base pay salary. People with greater abilities do more to make up for the lesser abilities of the others, even though they may be paid the same thing.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

true and I'm glad I'm not in the military

[-] 2 points by BreadLandPeace (359) 2 years ago

I'm a socialist, but I don't consider any of the governments that exist now socialist. Let me try to say this simply but without watering down the main idea:

The point is that capitalism IS the 1%. It's their economic system. It's not run democratically. If we, the majority, controlled both the wealth and how it is produced in this country, that would be socialism.

As an economic system, capitalism puts profits before human need. That's the way it works. The drive for profits is the engine that fuels capitalism. If there's a conflict between making a profit versus meeting a human need -- which wins out? It's easy to see with the medical insurance companies, for example--they exist to make a profit, and as a result, some of the people who need it most are denied coverage. And if you can't afford the coverage, you can't have it.

The problem--and everyone would agree--with the two largest countries that have called themselves socialist is that they're ruthless, repressive dictatorships (the former Soviet Union and China). Unfortunately, the gangsters who gained control in those countries (Stalin in the Soviet Union and Mao--who was a Stalinist--in China) have convinced most people that socialism and democracy cannot coexist.

However, the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, who inspired the group I belonged to at one time, devoted his life to the fight to save the Soviet Union from Stalin and Stalinism. He was murdered by Stalin before he could lead a revolution against him, but left a legacy of writings and comrades he had worked with internationally. They have continued to fight for a democratic form of socialism in which working people would have both economic and political democracy.

The great challenge for us is to create a system that has both economic democracy and political democracy, with the democratic freedoms we have here (and which we continually have to fight to keep from being eroded). At the present we have neither:

We don't have political democracy, because only the wealthiest can participate in the political "process," which OWS has pointed out so well has been completely bought; and

We don't have economic democracy either, because all the wealth we produce goes to the top 1%, while the majority suffer loss of jobs, have no retirement security, healthcare, on and on.

The challenge will be to take back the wealth that we as a majority create and use it for our benefit. If we could vote a better system into existence within the existing political framework, that would be great. But when you consider what just happened with the bailouts, it's completely naive to think the 1% are going to reform themselves.

Having been a Trotskyist, I believe that only a revolutionary movement led by a revolutionary party can save us from the catastrophe of capitalism, but I could really use the help of some veteran socialists who could discuss this all-important question far better than I.

Thanks very much for bearing with me, as I haven't had these discussions very often in a long time. But I do know that the predictions that I heard 40 years ago of the coming crisis of capitalism seem to be coming true, only confirming my belief in the urgent need for revolutionary socialist ideas and leadership to guide us in this dangerous period.

[-] 2 points by Josue (13) 2 years ago

Income inequality, when it becomes drastic and deeply ingrained, is a risk factor for social unrest. Of all people, the CIA seems to have studied this carefully over the years all over the globe, and even they are alarmed with how the American social systems is becoming lopsided. No one is contesting the basic facts about any of this.

[-] 2 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

NO to capitalist and YES to democracy

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

all or nothing, eh?

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 2 years ago

100% capitalism doesn't work.


[-] 1 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

What is your proof that Socialism doesn't work? Have you tested it personally or have you just decided it to be so because of the failure of the USSR?

[-] 1 points by BonaFidePublius (93) 2 years ago

Likewise, Democracy only works in theory. Communism, only works in theory. No government will work unless we have men who actually want to promote good. But even then, it will be corrupted.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I posted that thread you're referring to.The one that states that capitalism only works in theory. In theory it is assumed that assholes and sociopaths won't be the rest on top.

I was trying to point out that our once capitalistic society has been hijacked and taken advantage of. It has infiltrated our government, it has influenced our wars. Many have committed fraud and even theft. Some have used poor and even dangerous working conditions and in some cases even sweat shop labor after moving industry overseas. Not to mention that the federal reserve has a monopoly on the money printing industry. No other private organization can print money. They have devalued our dollar. None of these things are capitalism.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

So we both agree that capitalism and socialism have their limits? I favor a largely capitalist country with some common sense laws that prevent sociopaths and pirates from looting it. I also feel that we can afford to have some small-time social programs for unexpected events.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Exactly. Now if we can just get EVERYONE to realize that our system has been hijacked and is no longer the great system it once was. It's not just the republicans fault and it's not just the democrats fault. It's the combination of both their actions that have lead to the dismantlement of our system. From Reagan to Obama and definitely a majority of members of congress who campaign on lies and fulfill the prophecies of their fundraisers.

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 2 years ago

The only good bit of socialism are if the resources are owned by the state and housing is seen as a basic human right and the nations central bank is not private..

When these things are not secured and people want services socialised then we get slavery and a larger government enforcing it.

there is a fine line between socialism and fascism.

In europe for example..All rescorces are being privatised..Housing is an investment...And the banks are private.. but there is a social security system..

The result is ecomomic slavery,tyranny,police state and corporate media bastardising the info so to win support for horrendus wars based on lies and politicians who represent warprofiteering corporations laughing in our faces as people die in horrific circumstances..

BTW...The state sponsored socialised services in europe are crap and not free..Tax in europe and living costs are horrendus.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (247) 2 years ago

Even idiot can live long that is why capitalism seems to be working so long.

[-] 1 points by Corium (246) 2 years ago

So my question is... Was John Belushi a 1% right winger?



[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

Greece want to stay EU but do not want American casino financial system styles without regulation

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17685) 2 years ago

It never fails to amuse when USers expound on 'Socialism'.

WTF do you think they know about 'Socialism' that hasn't been 'taught' to you by the (mis)education system & The Propaganda & Mind-Management of the Wholly Corporate Owned MSM (ABCNNBCBS-Fux SNEWzzz et al) ?!

Societies in most countries in Europe (France, Germany, UK, The Scandinavian Countries, The Low Countries {BeNeLux}), New Zealand, Canada, et al ... have thrived with variations on The Theme & Meme of Socialism. For example, most people in Europe do not fear illness for fear of financial factors. The National Health Service in the UK is still (despite constant dogmatic Tory attempts at Privatisation) an absolute cornerstone of life in the UK, as was until very recently - Free Education.

The 'Prophets of Profit' would have you believe however, that Health & Education are ethical ways to turn a profit & that access to these should be a function of wealth or 'connections' ! What utter unconscionable twaddle !!

There are are legions of people throughout Europe who will explicitly profess Socialism - because they realise that it has an Ethical Basis & Dimension above & beyond "The Dog Eat Dog" & "The Devil Take the Hindmost" attitudes of crude laissez-fair capitalism. Indeed Modern High-Finance Kaputalism (cf Corporate Banksterism) is a Busted Flush & every one who can simultaneously think & breathe - can clearly see it.

Furthermore, consider that China and India are where they are now based upon the pursuit of Socialist Policies for over 50 years & the educational & entrepreneurial talents of Indians & Chinese (& us all!) are best backed by a strong society that nurtures & enables the 99% rather than one which panders to the conceits & greed of The <1%.

Do NOT confuse 'Socialism' with State Capitalism or Totalitarian Stalinism & do try to understand why almost every 'Economist' & 'Social & Political Commentator' with any sensible critique or with anything pertinent to say about our Global 'Debtocracy' ( http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/debtocracy/ ) is increasingly referring to Karl Marx (Go On Give It A Go - You Just Might Learn Something - http://www.marxists.org/ ).

Finally, in the U$A of course 'Socialism' has been actively & avidly pursued by The 1% for themselves via : The Capture of Government by The Banksters ; Empire Abroad ; The Military-Industrial Complex (especially during the erstwhile 'Cold War' and the new & 'hot' "Global WAR on Terror") ; The Law&Order / Prison - Industrial Complex and the various Corporate Kleptocrats, Oligarchs & Plutocrats.

For a historic & salutary warning from an ex-soldier, honourable man & Ex-President of The 'Usurped States of Amnesiacs', please see ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEbfVIuUtNE&feature=related ). Wise, cautionary & prescient words from 50 years ago.

Reclaim your demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy Citizens of The U$A or ... ?

fiat lux.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

there are pro's and con's. I think you are seeing only the pro's. If the whole country was ran like an american university or the DMV, we would have problems with it.

[-] 0 points by MSB (3) 2 years ago

Yep. Socialism work great... Although, what was that I saw on the news yesterday about Greece being broke? What was that due to? Hmmm... Oh, yeah, it was high spending on social services. And weren't they looking towards the EU to bail them out? And didn't the Greek government employees basically discount any type of serious reforms to make their government solvent again? What do they think, more of the same thing will make their enormous problem better? Oh yeah, and isn't Italy in the same boat, only with more debt? You're right, Socialism works great, except for the fact that it has failed or is failing everywhere it has been tried. But thanks for playing.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17685) 2 years ago

MSB : So you think that Greece & Italy's problem is Too much 'socialism' rather than too much debt & a kleptocratic 1%, do you ? And because the 'Lame' Stream Media told you so ?!! Hmmm ...

Your snide tone & supercilious manner probably make a lengthy reply futile. It may be of some value to rewind to Greece's predicament by a year or so, provide some links & leave it to you & your ilk to connect the dots, tho' frankly one can't expect you to take a dispassionate view ! Nevertheless, here goes :

a) "Goldman-Sachs Role in Greece's Financial Crisis" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbSGDsVpz9g&feature=related ;

b) John Perkins, "The truth behind the Greek Economic Crisis" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQpSq8dkzfg&feature=related

c) How Debt Works : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zPyZZIvwCc&feature=related

d) Greece’s Choice — and Ours: Democracy or Finance? : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29593.htm

e)"The wealthy won’t pay their taxes, so labor must do so." : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25422.htm

Greeks have been sold down the river by their 1% & Foreign Banksters. Greeks should Nationalise their Central Bank ; Reinstate the Drachma ; Reclaim the issuance & control over the aggregate quantity of their money ; Democratically Decide where The Decimal point goes ; Press Reset on their economy - after defaulting on their 'Odious Debt' ( Re. 'ODIOUS DEBT' : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odious_debt ... ) & start over.

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

Agreed, so perhaps you would consider our group's proposal of an alternative online direct democracy of government and business at http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/strategically_weighted_policies_organizational_operating_structures_tactical_investment_procedures_as_of_11_6_2011 , for this is a small-business-bottom-up approach, not today's big-business-top-down approach, so if agreed, join our group's 20 members committed to that plan at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 2 years ago

Ever hear of the People's Republic of China? China is a 100% form of socialist country, actually, most like a National Socialist country, not unlike Nazi Germany, in point of fact. Like NAZI Germany, China has a State directed Capitalist economy, where there is a focus on encouraging Foreign Direct Investment, geared toward helping China achieve optimal internal development and eventual self- sufficiency, as a dominant World power. China is also held together by a modern understanding of their ethnic identity, a fiction, if you will, just like the Aryan identity of Nazi Germany. Their Government is decidedly Socialist, though, also decidedly influenced by beliefs that are not rooted in what we would call Classical Socialsm.

The Chinese, like the Germans, are really a great number of peoples, merged together, after centuries of warfare, political union and interbreeding. While there is no common spoken language for all Chinese, in point of fact, they do have a rather clever Universal written language, that helps unite Mainland Chinese (Taiwan actually has different words for certain things, since they developed on a somewhat separate path, for some time) that we could actually even adapt to spoken English, if we wanted to.

What you might mean is that a Classical Socialist country, with a command economic system is not workable. BTW, what do you think about this Global system that requires periodic trillion dollar bailouts around the World? Do you believe that this present Globalist system is workable?

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

I disagree with much of this but it is good to see that people do realize we have a mixed economy. The most egregious error that I must point out is that the banking system of this country is not run in a laissez faire manner whatsoever.

The federal reserve (controlled by the state) issues currency, the value of which is based not on objective values, but on expected returns in the coming years through taxation. The fed gives this money which stands for nothing that actually exists to banks at low interest rates. The banks loan it to us with no regard for whether or not they can actually get a return on their investment (since they can just get more paper from the fed, it doesn't really matter to them) at a higher interest rate, hoping to be able to pay back the fed.

The dollar that the bank loans to you is a promise from the government. It's the promise that you will produce something of actual value in the future and give part of it back to the government so that the government can say that they actually have something to back their currency up with.

A laissez faire banking system would require that the currency be backed by an objective standard of value (such as gold), which would prevent banks from loaning more than they actually have. This would prevent deficit spending.

The federal reserve was established in 1913. 20 Years later (1933) it was made illegal to own gold. The great depression began in 1929 and bottomed out in 1932-33. Hmmmmm...

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

well it is a pretty "hands off" deal that the bankers have. They get to make up the rules as they go and no one regulates them or audits them.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

to which rules are you referring?

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

what i understand is that they repealed glass-steagall which imposed limitations on them. Now, they can use absurd leverage in there derivatives casino, where the price of an asset moves by a minor amount and a huge gain or loss ensues. If it is a loss they transfer it to the FDIC insured bank(BofA) or get the politicians to pass TARP. If they gain, they pocket it.

[-] 0 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

ah yes, but these are rules which only government regulation of the economy makes possible.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

yeah that's why i'm saying laissez faire. Because the government has their hands off of the banks. On the other hand they got their hands all over us. If you're not sure just go to an airport.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

What I meant was that things like FDIC insurance (provided by the Government) can only exist with government regulation. Without FDIC insurance, the part where they "transfer it to the FDIC insured bank(BofA) or get the politicians to pass TARP" wouldn't be possible. If it weren't possible, no sane person would play in such a casino.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

you're right. Am I wrong about the whole concept, then?

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

Not about the whole concept, no. Your solution suggested that we keep our mixed economy and just limit the socialist aspect of it. This, however, would ultimately lead us back right where we are now. No part of America's past success was due to government control of the economy. Every improvement in the standard of living was the result of the Capitalism.

In any compromise between two opposing ends, it is only the one that has less to offer (socialism) that can benefit from the other.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

where do we start then? with money? fix it to prescious metals and base metals?

Do you believe in a public police force? who polices it so it is not anarchy and piracy?

BTW I'm a libertarian just trying to compromise so we can get something done. If libertarians don't compromise then we are only 10% of the population and nothing libertarian will happen.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

First of all, from Wikipedia: "To compromise is to make a deal where one person gives up part of his or her demand." If you have ideals which you believe are right, to compromise is to sacrifice what you believe is good to what you believe is evil.

I think the best place to start is to amend the constitution by removing the commerce clause. That clause alone is the single greatest threat to freedom. Without economic freedom (from force and coercion), there can be no political freedom. The next step, or perhaps it should occur concomitantly, would be to use objective values as currency, such as precious metals. While the government could safely be allowed to retain the power to coin money and fix standard weights and measures, they should not have the power to 'regulate' its value. And, with a currency of objective value, such regulation would be impossible. an ounce of gold is worth an ounce of gold.

The government should not, however, have the exclusive right to coin money. The reason for this is that if government is given exclusive rights to the coinage of our currency, they could regulate the exchange rate of raw materials (gold ore) to coin. This would effectively give government the power to artificially alter the value of the currency without regard to its objective value and to grow or shrink the money supply at its whim through its influence over the exchange rate.

Anyone who has the means should be able to coin money. The reputation of their facilities will be the arbiter of whether or not a given agency's coin is accepted, and to whom it is acceptable. In other words, if a bank wishes to coin money and it owns the raw materials necessary to do so and the facilities with which to do so, it may. If the quality of the coin it produces is found to be unreliable or fraudulent, no one will accept the currency as payment. If one establishment charges a higher price for the conversion of raw materials to coin than another, and their coin is of the same quality, the establishment which charges the lesser fee will dominate the other, and their coin will become more prevalent. Over time (a brief period of time) a standard will emerge. It might be produced by a government facility, it might be produced by a private facility. It won't matter who produces it because the value of the coin will be contained in the material of the coin itself.

The next issue to tackle would be funding of government. A government which recognizes individual rights could tax neither the labor nor the property of its citizens without violating their right to their own life and their property rights, which are derived from the right to life. At first glance, this would seem to render the government incapable of funding itself, and therefore carrying out its duties. There are certain services which the government of a free society must be able to provide its citizens, without charging them a fee. These services include things like the court system, police force, provisions for the military, etc. There are some things which only government can provide, but which are not needed by all citizens. Chief among these is the enforcement of contracts. If there were as small as a 1% tax on the value of contracts, it would be enough to support the activities of a government which limited itself to the principles of government laid out in the Declaration of Independence. i.e. The protection of individual rights. Such a miniscule tax on such a relatively infrequent occasion would certainly not be enough to support the type of government we have today, but our system of government involves itself in many things it has no business being involved in.

There are many other steps which would be necessary in order to safeguard individual rights, but this is a place to start. I believe it is the right place to start.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

you and i are on the same page with most of it. But those who have a different perspective than you do are not evil. Jihadists, George Bush and other extremists have this view. If libertarians don't compromise then libertarians get nothing because we are such a small percentage of the population.

Strategically, we would benefit by moving in the libertarian direction. I don't see it happening where we go 100% in the libertarian direction but 10% is better than 0% which is what we have now.

[-] 1 points by RedLetterDay (1) 2 years ago

Capitalism only works in theory.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

100% capitalism maybe where there is no rules.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (247) 2 years ago

When anything like corrupt governments,cheating businessmen ,looting banks,war mongers,fascists and the like work why should not a socialist work. Any thing can work if you want those things to work.In fact socialism works both in theory and in practice.Just try it.

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

well this is a response to another thread where capitalism takes the place of socialism in the title. The world has already tried elements of largely socialist policies and I'm confidant that it is not worth repeating. But look here, I am not an economist, but this is just a common sense approach. We saw something that worked so let's reproduce it.

During the 50's and 60's we had manufacturing jobs and 1 parent could afford to stay at home and raise children. You could work with a company for decades and retire. The standard of living was the highest in the world. I can't tell you all the factors involved that we have to manipulate to get back there, but that makes the most sense to me.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (247) 2 years ago

Suppose I was the inventor of the first road locomotive with a speed of 20km per hour.Then if any body would challenge me by saying that a locomotive can never achieve a speed of 200 kilometers per hour because greedy people and the pope have cursed it. Would you believe that.What I mean to say is that we are here to implement humane ideas while as capitalism is an inhuman idea which has so far been implemented that is why people are unhappy because they came to know what the hell the capitalism is.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

capitalsim understands human nature better than any other system. maybe that focuses on human weakness and is a bit pessimistic but it works. If you give most people, other people's money to spend, they don't spend it as wisely as they do their own. The superhuman thing to do is spend it just as wisely.

I am advocating a largely capitalist system but it is within reason. we need to reinstate glass-steagall and have some restrictions on capitalism. If we do this then I think the country will prosper enough so that we can have some healthy social programs.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (247) 2 years ago

Capitalism is not any human being which is supposed to understand things let alone human nature.Capitalism is the name of a few inhuman rules of ownership/inheritance,monetary and the business economics where profit is above all and where money can earn interest just to mention a few follies of capitalism.Now the humanity has understood the the enslaving principles of the capitalism which people are not any more going to accept thus capitalism has no future at all.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

demonizing profit again. If people don't make a profit then there is no money for the socialists to tax. If you don't profit you don't eat unless you are eating someone else's food. Black/white thinking has fogged up your glasses.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (247) 2 years ago

Few of the protesters may be knowing about the set up of the new economy whereby there would be no need of taxing.Further I may remind you that profit is not an incentive because it is not well defined under any conditions.Moreover,profit is one of the means of scavenging excess money in the economy.Remember the fact that it is not demand and supply which runs any economy(that is why only manipulations run the economy) because demand has never been well defined that is why only manipulations run the economy while as some of the protesters may be knowing how demand is being looked at and calculated.They may be knowing about new forms of incentives.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

i think your view is extreme. how will the government run without taxation? you and I both have a demand for food created by hunger as incentive. If we sell a widget on ebay and make a profit so that we can buy food with the money, what is so wrong? Nothing. this is just how humans work. Any society or economy needs to be based off of incentive or it will fall apart.


[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

I would just add that, by contemporary definitions, especially from the libertarian right, the 50s-60s USA was socialist. Of course, the name of the system was embedded liberalism and it was more capitalist than socialist, but, that's the sort of nuance that's treated as crypto-communism nowadays.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

what do you mean by "embedded liberalism"?

Libertarians are hard to classify because many of them are individualists.

Contemporary black and white thinking says that we are either communists or fascists and there is no in between.

[-] 6 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago


I of course mostly agree up to the "was clearly exhausted" phrase. Embedded liberalism was beat back, by folks like Milton Friedman and a wealthy/corporate elite that was sick of being restrained by society. The oil shock and other crises of the 70s were the perfect opportunity to take over via disaster capitalism (a la Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" - a good read).

Bill Moyers was lamenting the same (takeover) in his great speech last week ( http://www.truth-out.org/how-did-happen/1320278111 ), where he said:

'...on August 23, 1971, a corporate lawyer named Lewis Powell – a board member of the death-dealing tobacco giant Philip Morris and a future Justice of the United States Supreme Court – sent a confidential memorandum to his friends at the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. We look back on it now as a call to arms for class war waged from the top down.

Let’s recall the context: Big Business was being forced to clean up its act. It was bad enough to corporate interests that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal had sustained its momentum through Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson. Suddenly this young lawyer named Ralph Nader arrived on the scene, arousing consumers with articles, speeches, and above all, an expose of the automobile industry, Unsafe at Any Speed. Young activists flocked to work with him on health, environmental, and economic concerns. Congress was moved to act. Even Republicans signed on. In l970 President Richard Nixon put his signature on the National Environmental Policy Act and named a White House Council to promote environmental quality. A few months later millions of Americans turned out for Earth Day. Nixon then agreed to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress acted swiftly to pass tough new amendments to the Clean Air Act and the EPA announced the first air pollution standards. There were new regulations directed at lead paint and pesticides. Corporations were no longer getting away with murder.

And Lewis Powell was shocked – shocked! – at what he called “an attack on the American free enterprise system.” Not just from a few “extremists of the left,” he said, but also from “perfectly respectable elements of society,” including the media, politicians, and leading intellectuals. Fight back, and fight back hard, he urged his compatriots. Build a movement. Set speakers loose across the country. Take on prominent institutions of public opinion – especially the universities, the media, and the courts. Keep television programs under “constant surveillance.” And above all, recognize that political power must be “assiduously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination” and “without embarrassment.”

Powell imagined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as a council of war. Since business executives had “little stomach for hard-nose contest with their critics” and “little skill in effective intellectual and philosophical debate,” they should create new think tanks, legal foundations, and front groups of every stripe. It would take years, but these groups could, he said, be aligned into a united front (that) would only come about through “careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and united organizations.”

You have to admit it was a brilliant strategy. Although Powell may not have seen it at the time, he was pointing America toward plutocracy, where political power is derived from the wealthy and controlled by the wealthy to protect their wealth. As the only countervailing power to private greed and power, democracy could no longer be tolerated."

And so, neoliberalism was born.

[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

Shock Doctrine's also a documentary now.


[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Cool, and available free online even... Everyone should watch this. No excuses.


[-] 1 points by MSB (3) 2 years ago

The problem is when it is "tried", it: (1) always fails; and (2) can't be gotten rid of without doing serious, long-term damage, and normally without bloody revolution. Do you not understand that incentive motivates people to acheive? Socialism does not provide incentive, only capitalism. It always amazes me to hear people pontificate about the wonders of socialism and what workers' paradise it provides. If that were the case, people would be trying to escape the US to head to those countries with those types of systems. But clearly, it is the other way around. When is the last time you've seen people leaving Florida heading to the wonderful island paradise of Cuba?

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (247) 2 years ago

Suppose that you try to run a car without say two wheels would it run.Similarly socialism was never implemented fully but only few features of socialism were adopted.Socialism where incentives is given for every good deed or good performance at job was never implemented.In our socialism which OWS is fighting for- no good deed of a person shall go unrewarded or unrecognized even your protesting for the said good cause shall be rewarded.

[-] 1 points by HPolloi (74) 2 years ago

Good work, professor.

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 2 years ago

We need a better way to fight back than this. Protesting is courageous! But we have to do very big things to solve our very big problems. We need a new vision for America and a revolution to move it forward. We'll never get outside the box until we start thinking outside the box...

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )

Free people shouldn't act or live like slaves...

[-] 1 points by Truthseeker99 (99) 2 years ago

The problem with capitalism is human greed. The problem with socialism is human laziness. We need a system that takes human flaws into consideration.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

well instead of trying to invent a new one that might not work well. Let's do what was working.

[-] 2 points by Truthseeker99 (99) 2 years ago

Actually it has never really worked. That is where unions came from. To fight the abuses of greed in times past. Now they are just as corrupt as the capitalists.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

You have to consider yourself lucky to be an American citizen though. Was it perfect? No but it worked better than anything Africa, Mexico, China, Brazil, Russia, India....the whole world has ever done. What we had created the most prosperity and the most freedom ever.

[-] 2 points by Truthseeker99 (99) 2 years ago

I lament the use of past tense in your comment. I am proud to be American, but I can't be blind to the truth either. We are unfortunately reaching the point where the system is so broken it needs replacement not more band aids. We need a system that puts constraints on greed yet encourages innovation and allows for freedom. Our system no longer allows for personal freedom, thanks to the patriot act (in the name of security) and recent supreme court rulings in favor of a police state. We need to get back to personal liberties yet still protect minorities and those without voices. We need to balance prosperity and opportunity; freedom and security; liberty and safety; and seek a better form of justice.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

you sound a bit like a libertarian

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

He sounds like a liberal to me.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

haha. i think we are giving it different names for the same thing really.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yep, seems to be true (in your case and mine, at least). :-)

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

the only real difference we have is your optimism about the government and my pessimism, i think. i just think of the ways that they will screw it up. maybe i am just a negative nancy.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Well, I wouldn't call mine optimism - more historical perspective. There's certainly nothing in recent history to dissuade you from your pessimism though, I recognize that and sympathize. It wasn't always so, and we need to get back to that place - it's our last best hope IMO - otherwise we'll either devolve into neo-feudalism, or end up with a revolution followed by some sort of tyranny (left or right). I think getting money out of politics is the place to start.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

oh sorry to put words in your mouth. i might have some trust in government if some more people like Ron Lawl and bernie sanders were in it. As wrong as Ron Lawl may be from your perspective, you have to admit that he has integrity.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Oh you didn't, no worries.

[-] 1 points by Truthseeker99 (99) 2 years ago

She if you please! And why am I a liberal? Because I believe people should be free? And have opportunity and justice?!

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yep. It's high praise (m'lady).

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Money 'is' debt.

If you want to get rid of debt, find an alternative to the monetary system. e.g. a resource based economy

Any major forms of debt forgiveness (regardless of whether it came from fraud) will crash the global economy.


[-] 1 points by defiant (16) 2 years ago

I can see by the comments to this thread that there is too many stereotypical views. What you need to realize is the moment you call something socialist, communist, or free trade; you have thousands of people already working the loopholes in there minds. We need a complete revamp of the system where everybody has to answer to somebody.

Take a look at Japan, everybody wants to be a government official for all the kickbacks.  In Russia everybody wants to be a privateer making as much money as they can on the side so they can have the officials in there pocket so they can do more.

 So, we need not be lazy, and rewrite the system. It is like the computer your on.  Sometimes you get a virus so bad that all you can do is wipe the hard drive and start over.  So if you catch a large retailer or manufacturer firing US citizens to hire illegals or greencard holders to increase profits you auction it off to another manufacturer.  Same thing if you catch someone abusing the labor laws.  But then you have a judicial panel for review so your competition can't falsely accuse you.
[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

I don't know about a clean slate. Why not just do what worked in the past that was better than anything done before?

[-] 1 points by defiant (16) 2 years ago

OK I am going to have a boxing match with you. I have studied and analyzed all your moves. I know what type of combinations you will throw, when you are desperate, how to get you off your game, and what your blind spot is. You know nothing of my strategies, strength or speed. So you return to the old ways and I already know how to manipulate it for my benefit. Being I have more money than you I can manipulate and control more people. The more desperate I make the people the more control I have

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

Yea so crooks will be looking to exploit the system as they have always done. Central bankers have been at this game since before this country existed. But let's learn from history for once. Repeal everything of the last 40 years and amend the constitution so we don't land here again.

[-] 1 points by defiant (16) 2 years ago

Wouldn't that be a revamp?

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

do you say revamp? oops

some people think we should collapse the system and put a new one in it's place. I thought you were going there. hahahaha

[-] 2 points by defiant (16) 2 years ago

I am actually kind of in between. I believe in a lot of the founding principals but I believe a lot of the fine print needs to be changed. We must put in to place an incorruptible regulatory system. For example in Japan or India everything has to go through the proper channels. The problem with there current system is everybody stays in office for a lifetime getting kickbacks and that actually propigates even more corruption than what we are already dealing with. You have a fairly keen mind, and if we can get everybody else to ask why till the question can't be asked anymore we can solve these modern day dilemas.

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

I don't think there is an incorruptible system. the best thing we can do to limit the corruption is politician turnover.

[-] 1 points by bettersystem (170) 2 years ago

Please pass this on if you agree. We are working on setting a date.

Force Change, Boycott Capitalism

We know what the problem is, let us fix it and move forward together.

When you look at a republican or democrat, congress or FDA official, Judges and Justice Department, you see criminals.

Our corruption dates back decades to when those, who in trying to preserve slavery, had to find new ways to preserve it and so created a scientific and advanced form of slavery.

Only two components were required -- the illusion of freedom & choice and the taking away of the freedom to live off the land.

How else would you get a person to submit themselves to mind numbing or degrading work unless you oppress them into it.

Our current system is rooted in corruption and every attempt in preserving it involves manipulating human thought and turning people against one another.

In America the population has been transformed into two major voting groups but they only have one choice.

They had been distracted up until now with television and American culture which prospered through the oppression of other nations.

Americans allowed themselves to be fooled into using their military and economic dominance to seize resources of other nations and create expanding markets for American profiteers.

Now that technology, competition and conscience have evolved Americans are realizing that our current system of government is damaging and unsustainable.

Our government officials have allowed private profits and personal benefits to influence decisions that affect the health and well-being of people all over the planet, not just in America... how much longer will we allow them to rule over us??

Occupy Washington and demand that government officials resign their posts.

We will setup new online elections with a verification system that will allow us to see our votes after we cast them, put our new officials in office and work toward rebuilding our country and our world.

Pass this message along to any and everyone, we already occupy the world, unite.

Occupy Washington, Boycott Capitalism, Force Change


[-] 1 points by SandyEnglish (60) 2 years ago

Here is the socialist view:

The Breakdown of Capitalism and the Fight for Socialism in the United States


[-] 1 points by salvo (10) from Trapani, Sicilia 2 years ago

need to see what you mean by socialism ..._

("bisogna vedere cosa intendi per socialismo...")_

[-] 1 points by hodmedodthornley (21) 2 years ago

but the problem is that mixed economies don't turn out well either. A simple point to make is that There has never been a proper socialist economy put into place (the theories of a socialist economy (which is different from a state directed economy) is international & meant to be nation-state free...... which has never ever happened).....in fact, it pains me to admit it but it seems like you have a very grade school understanding of economics, filled full of left/right duality and intense over-simplification. the problem right now is as the international situation of humanity grows, the static nation state is quickly becoming obsolete. there are many next steps to take, but the first is to question the very apparatus that happens to be unsustainable as it currently is.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

It does not pain you to admit that I have a very grade school understanding of economics.

I don't have time to read anything about that right now. So enlighten me then.

[-] 1 points by hodmedodthornley (21) 2 years ago

ah but it does. i only wish you'd not require my own person to move beyond that (or the very fact you don't wish to learn on yr. own)...you have all the time in the chaosmos (time is relative you know....) it's yr. own fault if you don't wish to explore viewpoints, search information and goddess knows what else. It amazes me that when given the tools of an infinite brain, most just make it into a more entertaining butt-scratcher.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

well I'll get to it after I finish my engineering degree.

[-] 0 points by stevo (314) 2 years ago

I suggest you all pack up and move to Theory...wherever the fuck that is

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 2 years ago

Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money to give away. Ask Greece and Italy

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

I don't think it works very well up until then. when spending other peoples money we are never as wise as we are with our own.

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 2 years ago

True, i should have attribulted the quote to its author...Margret Thatcher

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17685) 2 years ago

Please see my reply to MSB below & suffice it to say ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xEwbzEBw14 !!

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 2 years ago

Germany is not socialist and when China begins exporting high end autos Germany will have to cut back its social programs. The UK is having to cut back its social programs as well. The euro zone is a mess financially. France , Germany and the UK all have their 1 percent.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17685) 2 years ago

Most of the above is true. However, despite Germany NOT being an Explicitly Socialist country, it's arguable that it is implicitly so ! Germany's welfare system ; 'social programs' ; essentially free at the point of use health & education systems etc., are second to none & the envy of most of the world.

How & why ? Strong Unions ; A Sense Of there being 'Social Contract' ; Good & Strong Education system investing today for all their tomorrows and ... Because Germans Give a SH!T about each other & their SOCIETY !! 65 years of such policies has left Germany one of the most Progressive & Strong Societies in The World. Go figure ...

The Rapacious 1% in Europe are NOT very different to their ilk elsewhere , in their hate & disdain of The 99% & in their avarice & capacity for larceny, which is why a strong & compassionate civic society is so impotrant. Again, it's NOT rocket science ...

ad iudicium ...

[-] -1 points by Fedup10 (228) 2 years ago

Does your 65 years include the aftermath of WWII and the rebuilding funded by the allies especially the US? Also the military protection provided by USA taxpayers during the coldwar again funded principally by USA taxpayers.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17685) 2 years ago

@ 'Fedup' : Of course it does but you draw your conclusions & allow me draw mine.

The Marshal Plan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan ) was hugely important to post-war Germany - between 1948 & 1952/53 and indeed it could be easily argued (esp. by the likes of me ;-) that the U$A needs a Rooseveltian 'Marshal Plan' right now, particularly for its crumbling infrastructure. However, the primary financial beneficiaries of The Cold War was ... The US Military Industrial Complex & The US 'Multi-National Corporations' !

For USers to claim victim status at somehow having picked up the entire tab (thus ignoring the HUGE profits that US Corporations made at the time) is part of The Right-Wing MSM 'National Myth'. The 50s were American 'Halcyon Days' precisely BECAUSE of The Cold War NOT despite of them !!

The really interesting conclusion to draw from your post is the way post-war West Germany rebuilt & moved its Society forward as a result of being freed from the expense & 'societal energy sapping' of The Military WAR Machine. The same is of course true for Japan. Finally it should be noted that Re-Unified Germany has rebuilt & integrated (& still continues to do so), the erstwhile East-Germany - with all the huge concomitant costs involved but still Germany continues to invest in its people & strengthen its Civil Society.

My final point is to draw attention to the fact that 'The Cold War' has been over for 20 years but how come The American Citizenry has seen NO ; NOTHING ; NADA ... of Any Peace Dividend ?! Or have massive efforts been made to replace 'The Cold War' with an endless & ongoing New Global War ... ON TERROR ?!

Cui Bono ?

[-] -1 points by Fedup10 (228) 2 years ago

Drug prices in the USA are higher because europe has price controls due to socialized healthcare. The cost of R&D is borne 100% by the USA consumers. When was the last drug discovered in europe or canada? There have been no discoveries of any drugs to combat serious illnesses due to the price controls in europe and canada. Price controls kill innovation.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17685) 2 years ago

So ALL Pharmaceutical Companies, Corporations & Conglomerates are US based are they ? How have you come to this conclusion ?! Can we blame the MSM again for this nonsense ?!!

What a bitter, ignorant & idiotic post the one above is. It shows a meanness of spirit, atrophied heart & closed mind that no amount of free drugs will ever be able to cure ...

adversus solem ne loquitor.

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 2 years ago

The pharma companies are headquartered in various countries, but their R&D centers are headquarterd in the USA. All filings for new drugs flow through the FDA and brought to market in the USA first unless the FDA has problems with safety. Why do you revert to name calling so easily? Do you have anger problems?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17685) 2 years ago

Firstly, I offer apologies for my evidently tetchy post just above as I was irritated, impatient & short of time when I made it.

No 'Fedup', I don't really have anger problems though I do find myself getting increasingly annoyed by self-referential, specious, tendentious & often dissembling arguments propounded by people (all too often Americans alas!) who know so little yet are able to say so much on the matter of 'socialism' !

Wherever WE are, We have to somehow engage with certain inescapable realities : No man is an island & 'Human Beings' are 'Social' animals, living within 'Societies' made up of individuals, families & 'Communities' ( Oooh ! Sounds a bit like 'Communist', shock horror !!). Don't just be 'Fed-Up' ; Live With It (as you do already of course!) AND maybe ... just maybe 'Embrace' IT ... brother !

Finally on the matter of your post immediately above, I'm all typed out (lol), so please reflect on the fact that 'some' or even 'most', Does NOT Equal, ALL ... & I leave you with the following link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies .

Peace & Prosperity to you and yours & Protection over your home and hearth.

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 2 years ago

Peace as well

[-] 0 points by LetsGetTheFactsStraight (30) 2 years ago

Check out LetsGetTheFactsStraight.com

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Socialism doesn't work period:

Socialism in Guyana

Imagine for a moment what life would be like if you had to queue up at every grocery store just to get basic food items for your family. While you’re standing in line, your palms get sweaty , your heart pounds hard against your chest. Waiting to get to the point of sale seems like an eternity. While in line, your fear intensifies with every step forward to the counter. Your fear is that you would have spent several hours in line only to be turned away at the counter with the dreaded words, 'sorry, come back next week. We just ran out of ….' For many, this is a difficult scenario to comprehend, but for my generation and that of my parents, this was reality during the 70’s and 80’s in Guyana, South America

Read the rest at: http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/12/socialism-in-guyana.html

[-] 0 points by DavidD (48) from Minot AFB, ND 2 years ago

I have to say the same applies to a Republic over a Democracy. When people here call us a Democracy, as a great man once said, "it really grinds my gears".

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

yeah me too. the founders explicitly designed a republic and explicitly gave their reasons for it not to be a democracy. They are close but I do like the protections that a republic provides for minorities that a democracy just won't do.

[-] 0 points by tomcat68 (298) 2 years ago

great post. With so many failed communist / socialist governments in our history books It's really surprising to hear so many in our country wanting to follow. Is this the "grass is always greener" ,mentality? I can't help but lay most of the blame on the educators embedded in our system. the "couldn't compete so choose to teach" liberal socialists whom we send our children off to for a "better" education. those "educators" vested in their campus societies Bitter and Angry for not being the best Engineer, or Writer, or whatever, Secretly Bitter and Angry at the capitalist way of life.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Those failed states like Sweden, Germany, USA circa 1960, etc... Yeah. I'm using socialism as loosely as it's used around here, because these are all strongly capitalist economies, just not mindlessly so.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

At my university I pretend to learn while my teachers pretend to teach. If I go along with the charade I'll get a decent grade but it doesn't reflect my knowledge and is a complete waste of time.

[-] -1 points by tomcat68 (298) 2 years ago


well, at least you have the right attitude. You'll graduate and most likely earn a good if not great living.

one day that might make you part of the 1% :) god help you, it's the american dream

[-] -1 points by Tommiethenoncommie (211) 2 years ago

Sharing may be caring, but taking what isn't yours is stealing.

[-] 0 points by Tommiethenoncommie (211) 2 years ago

Someone else actually started a thread, made sense, and was intelligent? About damn time! Yes, let us look back to go forward. It is the best way, yet rarely acknowledged.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

maybe it's common sense but it is a grade school understanding of economics as was pointed out.