Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Socialism Defuses Greed

Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 8:47:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Profit, and accumulation of goods go hand in hand.
Capitalism is a system based on profit.

Socialism, in an economy where the government provides everything for you, defuses profit and accumulation of goods. In a capitalist system, it is a sign of dominance if you own 100 pairs of shoes, or 19 lamborghinis, but in a socialist society where these goods are provided to you according to your demand, you will seem like a hoarding b.itch if you own 100 pairs of government issued shoes, or 12 government issue cars.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 8:50:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 8:47:05 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Profit, and accumulation of goods go hand in hand.
Capitalism is a system based on profit.

Socialism, in an economy where the government provides everything for you, defuses profit and accumulation of goods. In a capitalist system, it is a sign of dominance if you own 100 pairs of shoes, or 19 lamborghinis, but in a socialist society where these goods are provided to you according to your demand, you will seem like a hoarding b.itch if you own 100 pairs of government issued shoes, or 12 government issue cars.

I don't think this would be a very strong argument to Americans.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 8:50:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Right... And why is greed bad?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 8:54:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 8:50:20 PM, Ren wrote:
At 1/24/2012 8:47:05 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Profit, and accumulation of goods go hand in hand.
Capitalism is a system based on profit.

Socialism, in an economy where the government provides everything for you, defuses profit and accumulation of goods. In a capitalist system, it is a sign of dominance if you own 100 pairs of shoes, or 19 lamborghinis, but in a socialist society where these goods are provided to you according to your demand, you will seem like a hoarding b.itch if you own 100 pairs of government issued shoes, or 12 government issue cars.

I don't think this would be a very strong argument to Americans.

duhhh
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 8:56:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 8:54:18 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/24/2012 8:50:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Right... And why is greed bad?

Waste of resources. Social conflict.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 9:00:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 8:50:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Right... And why is greed bad?

greed is the desire to own, and plunder and claim on unmitigated levels. I've said this a million times, In the natural order of things, all materials are commonly owned. When you mix labor with natural resources they become privately owned. However, there comes a point where this conversion comes at the transitive THEFT of the disadvantaged and creates unnatural economic inequity.

Greed will nearly always become the equivalent of theft.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 9:08:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 9:00:19 PM, mongeese wrote:


Distinguish greed from ambition. Ambition is the need/want to excel and achieve. Greed is the need/want to excel and achieve for a reward.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 9:22:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You're assuming socialism works. A cursory glance at modern history proves otherwise. As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Government has to get the money to provide all those nice things you were talking about from other productive people. In that sense, government cannot create wealth. At least not without taking some away.

I think a system based on rational self interest - or, greed - is much more productive and logical and actually produces the best income for everyone. Business are accountable to those that use them in the sense that when competition is allowed, people will choose the business that suits them best, so none of that socialist nonsense about evil corporations gone wild really makes any sense. Competition is awesome because people will always choose the best services, so its in a business' interest not to abuse/exploit their customers...

Government, on the other hand, is not accountable to citizens like businesses are in a free market. If government f*cks up, they aren't punished. In fact, when they do, their f*cked up programs are usually expanded. However, in a market, inadequate services will be punished. In this sense I think greed is a good thing.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 9:23:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 9:22:16 PM, jat93 wrote:
You're assuming socialism works. A cursory glance at modern history proves otherwise. As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Government has to get the money to provide all those nice things you were talking about from other productive people. In that sense, government cannot create wealth. At least not without taking some away.

I think a system based on rational self interest - or, greed - is much more productive and logical and actually produces the best outcome for everyone. Business are accountable to those that use them in the sense that when competition is allowed, people will choose the business that suits them best, so none of that socialist nonsense about evil corporations gone wild really makes any sense. Competition is awesome because people will always choose the best services, so its in a business' interest not to abuse/exploit their customers...

Government, on the other hand, is not accountable to citizens like businesses are in a free market. If government f*cks up, they aren't punished. In fact, when they do, their f*cked up programs are usually expanded. However, in a market, inadequate services will be punished. In this sense I think greed is a good thing.

Fixed, outcome not income.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 9:33:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 9:22:16 PM, jat93 wrote:
You're assuming socialism works. A cursory glance at modern history proves otherwise.

There has never been a non-monetary socialist state.

As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Non-monetary.

Government has to get the money to provide all those nice things you were talking about from other productive people. In that sense, government cannot create wealth. At least not without taking some away.

I think a system based on rational self interest - or, greed - is much more productive and logical and actually produces the best income for everyone.

Impossible. A system based on personal gain cannot benefit everyone.

Business are accountable to those that use them in the sense that when competition is allowed, people will choose the business that suits them best, so none of that socialist nonsense about evil corporations gone wild really makes any sense.

Survival of the fittest. Exactly. Once all the not-fittest are eliminated, you have monopolies of corporations that have been CONDITIONED to maximize profit.

Government, on the other hand, is not accountable to citizens like businesses are in a free market.

Unless if its made by its citizens.

If government f*cks up, they aren't punished. In fact, when they do, their f*cked up programs are usually expanded.

Non Sequitur.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 11:27:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 9:33:33 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/24/2012 9:22:16 PM, jat93 wrote:
You're assuming socialism works. A cursory glance at modern history proves otherwise.

There has never been a non-monetary socialist state.

So you think that the coordination problem can be solved by getting rid of price signals all together?

As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Non-monetary.

It's not about the "money". It's the resources money uses. It's that you ruin incentives for work, the government can't allocate resources effectively and don't have incentives to make goods and services cheaper.

Government has to get the money to provide all those nice things you were talking about from other productive people. In that sense, government cannot create wealth. At least not without taking some away.

I think a system based on rational self interest - or, greed - is much more productive and logical and actually produces the best income for everyone.

Impossible. A system based on personal gain cannot benefit everyone.

zero-sum gain fallacy. Both people can benefit from transactions, and both people can get personal gains. Just looking at history shows that we are better of now then we were years ago.

Survival of the fittest. Exactly. Once all the not-fittest are eliminated, you have monopolies of corporations that have been CONDITIONED to maximize profit.

And then new competition will come. There's no reason why the capital goods will disappear. There's no reason to believe that new competition won't come in. Why would only one business try to maximize profits when others can?

Unless if its made by its citizens.

Free markets are made by citizens.

If government f*cks up, they aren't punished. In fact, when they do, their f*cked up programs are usually expanded.

Non Sequitur.

How so? This is poor incentives that harms others.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2012 4:44:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Put simply, socialism raises more problems than it solves, if indeed it solves many at all.

Pure capitalism isn't the answer though due to issues like negative externalities, public goods (characteristics of non-excludable and non-rival) and so forth. In fact, it's rather amusing to see people blatantly state economic positions in the politics forum yet not respond to critical issues in the economics forum (nearly nobody responded to my thread on negative externalities) .

Put simply, socialism isn't the answer. Maybe it defuses greed, but the end result isn't good regardless.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2012 6:19:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 8:47:05 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Profit, and accumulation of goods go hand in hand.
Capitalism is a system based on profit.

Socialism, in an economy where the government provides everything for you, defuses profit and accumulation of goods. In a capitalist system, it is a sign of dominance if you own 100 pairs of shoes, or 19 lamborghinis, but in a socialist society where these goods are provided to you according to your demand, you will seem like a hoarding b.itch if you own 100 pairs of government issued shoes, or 12 government issue cars.

Sounds like Socialism is as bad as ever and Capitalism is a good as ever. Down with American Socialism. Up with Capitalism!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2012 9:56:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 8:47:05 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Profit, and accumulation of goods go hand in hand.
Capitalism is a system based on profit.

Socialism, in an economy where the government provides everything for you, defuses profit and accumulation of goods. In a capitalist system, it is a sign of dominance if you own 100 pairs of shoes, or 19 lamborghinis, but in a socialist society where these goods are provided to you according to your demand, you will seem like a hoarding b.itch if you own 100 pairs of government issued shoes, or 12 government issue cars.

Isn't socialism greed driven? The driving force behind the implication of socialism is envy, and greed.

(n) envy (a feeling of grudging admiration and desire to have something that is possessed by another)
(n) greed (excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves)

Socialists are envious of those more fortunate.

Socialists are greedy because they want wealth to be redistributed.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2012 11:44:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/25/2012 9:56:31 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/24/2012 8:47:05 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Profit, and accumulation of goods go hand in hand.
Capitalism is a system based on profit.

Socialism, in an economy where the government provides everything for you, defuses profit and accumulation of goods. In a capitalist system, it is a sign of dominance if you own 100 pairs of shoes, or 19 lamborghinis, but in a socialist society where these goods are provided to you according to your demand, you will seem like a hoarding b.itch if you own 100 pairs of government issued shoes, or 12 government issue cars.

Isn't socialism greed driven? The driving force behind the implication of socialism is envy, and greed.

(n) envy (a feeling of grudging admiration and desire to have something that is possessed by another)
(n) greed (excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves)

Socialists are envious of those more fortunate.

Socialists are greedy because they want wealth to be redistributed.

LoL!

No.

Have you guys looked into the actual manifestation of socialism? Not everyone receives the same thing; instead, they receive based on their contribution to society, rather than profit based on the proportion of the market they control.

The major point about the OP that you guys aren't realizing is that this greed that colors capitalism is actually self-defeating. Capitalism is supposed to make sense, because those that perform well would reinvest their profits into their market, improving overall economic stability for the country as well as the potential that they will continue receiving those earnings.

Unfortunately, the philosophy that accompanies capitalism influences some to keep all the money for themselves, causing market volality that can be disastrous for their company, resulting in the requirement of socialist-like remedies to keep them form failing altogether, outright collapsing the market.

So, here's an even better question regarding the whole libertarian mantra -- is it fair that a bunch of rich people get to steal from you by force so that they can be irresponsible with the money they already have? Is it fair that the only way to protect your money is to give them to monetary institutions, so they can take it without your knowledge and apply them to investments they wouldn't add their personal money to, using it to contribute to their wealth, while hoarding their family's money in foundations and non-profits that generally do little to nothing for the community, relatively speaking?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2012 12:01:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 9:00:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
In the natural order of things, all materials are commonly owned. When you mix labor with natural resources they become privately owned.

What gives you the right to take something we own in common and make it exclusively yours just because you're mixing your labor with it? If we own a car in common and you decide one day to repaint it and upgrade the engine, that doesn't make the car exclusively yours.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2012 6:06:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/25/2012 6:19:22 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/24/2012 8:47:05 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Profit, and accumulation of goods go hand in hand.
Capitalism is a system based on profit.

Socialism, in an economy where the government provides everything for you, defuses profit and accumulation of goods. In a capitalist system, it is a sign of dominance if you own 100 pairs of shoes, or 19 lamborghinis, but in a socialist society where these goods are provided to you according to your demand, you will seem like a hoarding b.itch if you own 100 pairs of government issued shoes, or 12 government issue cars.

Sounds like Socialism is as bad as ever and Capitalism is a good as ever. Down with American Socialism. Up with Capitalism!

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2012 6:07:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/25/2012 9:56:31 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/24/2012 8:47:05 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Profit, and accumulation of goods go hand in hand.
Capitalism is a system based on profit.

Socialism, in an economy where the government provides everything for you, defuses profit and accumulation of goods. In a capitalist system, it is a sign of dominance if you own 100 pairs of shoes, or 19 lamborghinis, but in a socialist society where these goods are provided to you according to your demand, you will seem like a hoarding b.itch if you own 100 pairs of government issued shoes, or 12 government issue cars.

Isn't socialism greed driven? The driving force behind the implication of socialism is envy, and greed.

(n) envy (a feeling of grudging admiration and desire to have something that is possessed by another)
(n) greed (excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves)

Socialists see as greedy those more fortunate.

Socialists are compassionate because they want wealth to be redistributed.

fixd
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 2:07:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 8:47:05 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Profit, and accumulation of goods go hand in hand.
Capitalism is a system based on profit.

Socialism, in an economy where the government provides everything for you, defuses profit and accumulation of goods. In a capitalist system, it is a sign of dominance if you own 100 pairs of shoes, or 19 lamborghinis, but in a socialist society where these goods are provided to you according to your demand, you will seem like a hoarding b.itch if you own 100 pairs of government issued shoes, or 12 government issue cars.

Socialism requires that individuals be prohibited from making their own economic decisions. If individuals do not make their ow decisions then someone else must. There are millions of economic decisions to be made, from how many shoes to produce of what kinds to what types of entertainment are worthwhile and how much of it. There is possibility of putting each decision up to a popular vote, and even if it were possible few individuals would have any idea how to vote intelligently. The clear implication is that there must be a ruling elite. In democratic socialism, it's a vast bureaucracy. In authoritarian socialism it's Party membership or a royal family.

The drive behind greed is security. Intelligent people satisfy the need for security by owning productive assets. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are not hoarding shoes. In a socialist society, security comes from being part of the ruling elite. Join the bureaucracy or the Party and you are set for life.

The fundamental difference is that a capitalist society obtains security by being productive, while a socialist society offers security only to a non-productive elite. Both are greed, but productivity benefits everyone in the society.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 10:28:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/25/2012 6:06:31 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/25/2012 6:19:22 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/24/2012 8:47:05 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Profit, and accumulation of goods go hand in hand.
Capitalism is a system based on profit.

Socialism, in an economy where the government provides everything for you, defuses profit and accumulation of goods. In a capitalist system, it is a sign of dominance if you own 100 pairs of shoes, or 19 lamborghinis, but in a socialist society where these goods are provided to you according to your demand, you will seem like a hoarding b.itch if you own 100 pairs of government issued shoes, or 12 government issue cars.

Sounds like Socialism is as bad as ever and Capitalism is a good as ever. Down with American Socialism. Up with Capitalism!

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

Got a problem with that? Thanks for the proof. Down with socialism.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 11:50:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/25/2012 11:44:09 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/25/2012 9:56:31 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/24/2012 8:47:05 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Profit, and accumulation of goods go hand in hand.
Capitalism is a system based on profit.

Socialism, in an economy where the government provides everything for you, defuses profit and accumulation of goods. In a capitalist system, it is a sign of dominance if you own 100 pairs of shoes, or 19 lamborghinis, but in a socialist society where these goods are provided to you according to your demand, you will seem like a hoarding b.itch if you own 100 pairs of government issued shoes, or 12 government issue cars.

Isn't socialism greed driven? The driving force behind the implication of socialism is envy, and greed.

(n) envy (a feeling of grudging admiration and desire to have something that is possessed by another)
(n) greed (excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves)

Socialists are envious of those more fortunate.

Socialists are greedy because they want wealth to be redistributed.

LoL!

No.

Have you guys looked into the actual manifestation of socialism?

Wait are you talking about the "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei" ("Manifesto of the Communist Party")?

That's not the socialist Manifesto, that's the communist Manifesto; there are many forms of socialism, and communism is just one of those many forms.

Communism is a form of socialism that abolishes private property; other forms of socialism includes, Democratic Socialism (social democracy), National Socialism (Yellow socialism,1903), Christian Socialism (Saint-Simonianism,1816), Arab Socialism (ba'athism, 1940), or State Socialism (socialist leaning mixed economy, 1884)

Further more, I have read it, and it's laughable how illogical it is.

Not everyone receives the same thing; instead, they receive based on their contribution to society, rather than profit based on the proportion of the market they control.

In Capitalism profit comes from the importance of one's job in society. For example a doctor.
In communism there is no wages, and one receives only what he needs (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need)

The major point about the OP that you guys aren't realizing is that this greed that colors capitalism is actually self-defeating.
Capitalism is not based on Greed.

(n) greed (excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Capitalism is supposed to make sense, because those that perform well would reinvest their profits into their market, improving overall economic stability for the country as well as the potential that they will continue receiving those earnings.

They do reinvest, they invest in expanding their companies, by hiring employees, and building new stores, or factories; they invest by buying luxuries, such as buying cars, constructing mansions, or hiring maids, lawn services, and other types of care takers.

Unfortunately, the philosophy that accompanies capitalism influences some to keep all the money for themselves, causing market volality that can be disastrous for their company, resulting in the requirement of socialist-like remedies to keep them form failing altogether, outright collapsing the market.

actually it's socialist like remedies that hurt the economy; such as subsidizing farms that grow more corn than the market demands.
Or subsidizing farms that plant seeds in he wrong season.
Or subsiding automobile manufacturers who make unsafe cars, that had to be recalled.
Or subsiding automobile manufacturers who make green cars that don't run, or only travel 1 mile before needing a refill.

So, here's an even better question regarding the whole libertarian mantra -- is it fair that a bunch of rich people get to steal from you by force so that they can be irresponsible with the money they already have?

they don't steal...

(v) steal (take without the owner's consent)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Is it fair that the only way to protect your money is to give them to monetary institutions, so they can take it without your knowledge and apply them to investments they wouldn't add their personal money to, using it to contribute to their wealth, while hoarding their family's money in foundations and non-profits that generally do little to nothing for the community, relatively speaking?

Are you talking about a bank, or trust? They don't take it without your consent; that would be illegal. Read the contract next time...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 11:55:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/25/2012 6:07:33 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 1/25/2012 9:56:31 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/24/2012 8:47:05 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Profit, and accumulation of goods go hand in hand.
Capitalism is a system based on profit.

Socialism, in an economy where the government provides everything for you, defuses profit and accumulation of goods. In a capitalist system, it is a sign of dominance if you own 100 pairs of shoes, or 19 lamborghinis, but in a socialist society where these goods are provided to you according to your demand, you will seem like a hoarding b.itch if you own 100 pairs of government issued shoes, or 12 government issue cars.

Isn't socialism greed driven? The driving force behind the implication of socialism is envy, and greed.

(n) envy (a feeling of grudging admiration and desire to have something that is possessed by another)
(n) greed (excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves)

Socialists see as greedy those more fortunate.

Socialists are compassionate because they want wealth to be redistributed.

made illogical

Socialists are greedy, and envious

(v) compassionate (share the suffering of)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Seeing as socialism makes everyone equally poor, I guess your right. Name 1 socialist state that is not heavily poverty stricken.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle