Milton Friedman breaks it down.

Socialism - I can do good with other people's money.

1. Socialism takes away freedom. The redistribution of wealth has to come by force.
2. Very few people spend other people's money as carefully as they spend their own.

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g2kTy7glZ9s&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g2kTy7glZ9s&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

i would never want to see a total socialist system, since i worked hard, sometimes self employed or self contracted out, while other times only making what other think i deserve, no thanks. this took a little extra effort,and would not want that effort penalized buy giving it back, because other are working the system to their advantage. sort of like am doing now, though deservedly so, after paying into it and using it for what it was designed for, tho having to sue everone for those benefits, because of so many scammers, honest claims are rejected immediately, no lawyer, no rights, sad.

that said, i believe everyone should have free education, even at university level, if the grade point average is maintained. also free medical, two things that ensure growth and decent healthy life. the free education will make medical cheaper, as the docs won't be carrying so much debt and have to charge so much for services. though that might incure a bit more taxes, the masses should have those two basics for free, thus making all more productive to society.

besides those 2, free enterprise usually does better than socialist systems, since no all socialist system seems to have made it in the long run. nice therory, but restricts growth, without the benefit, many will not attempt to push their limits. hard to argue, without the motivation, reward, why bother.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute web site is an excellent source for researching and analyzing capitalism vs. socialism. "The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics."

You may choose from a large library of online books to download and read, such as von Mises' Socialism, An Economic and Sociological Analysis.
http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&ID=280

In the US the present cost of (free) government-subsidized education and health care is enormous and paid for by the taxpayers. The middle class always pays for welfare programs through coersive taxes. The projected cost for universal socialized health care is through the roof. IMO State intervention in public education has been very counterproductive. A great percentage of funding and human resources is spent on State political agendas. Students are being indoctrinated as much as educated.

Advocating "free" medical care, education, etc. is promoting socialism in which the State decides the manner and amount of assistance you receive. There is no consistant middle way between capitalism and socialism.

Thanks for starting what for me is a very interesting thread.

The age old question rearing its head, the answer is both can be good, but rarely is, pitfalls with both doctrines.
too be honest most of us have been brought up in a capalist country, judging by what I have seen, experienced or read, the other is worse, but if it was what you always had, you really don't know.
Anyone out there who was brought up in a truly Socialist country and can offer first hand knowledge, now that would eb interesting.

Socialism Vs Capitalism

Takes a brave, knowledgeable, or argumentative person to introduce this topic to a open forum, as I do not fit into Two of these categories I am to sit and watch with interest as this develop's, should make good reading, with intersting debating points being raised before the long knives come out.
For me history teaches that all good socialist in the end, achieve there own capitalist ideals

socialism only works if everyone is equal , unfortunately some like to be more equal than others .

there are some social programs that could work if the pricks would not steal & exploit them namely
our Social Security system & medicare for seniors over 65 have any of you ever had to go on workers compensation that where capitalism screws you over you can not sue because it suppose to be a no fault policy but it in the hands of the insurance companies and they have there lobbyist in the state house to keep it to there benefits and they reduce you to nothing were you are forced to return to work before your injuries are healed by cutting your benefits to were you can not afford to live

workers compensation that where capitalism screws you over you can not sue

that may be incorrect, depending what state, but i sued work comp 3 times and won all three times. now the company did fire me last time i put in for my last injury, which they think saved them 2 years salary, when in reality it screwed them. i would of quit before 3 months if they didn't fire me. and you are right, without a good lawyer and nice cushion to wait for litigation, you would be screwed and return to work, or take their pitance of a settlement, just to feed and tend to your family. luckily, i planned on retiring, when it hit the fan, made it 2 years with no income. then they started settling............soc sec/work comp/private ins.........screw 'em all

"there are some social programs that could work if the pricks would not steal & exploit them namely
our Social Security system & medicare for seniors over 65 have any of you ever had to go on workers compensation that where capitalism screws you over you can not sue because it suppose to be a no fault policy but it in the hands of the insurance companies and they have there lobbyist in the state house to keep it to there benefits and they reduce you to nothing were you are forced to return to work before your injuries are healed by cutting your benefits to were you can not afford to live"

Capitalism doesn't "screw you over" in the cited situation, socialism and statism does.

Social security, medicare and worker's compensation for injury programs are government mandated and regulated socialist programs. They do not have the superior free market remedies to satisfy customer complaints that private insurances under contract would have through the court system. Socialist program administrators do not have to compete with the private business market for a market share, they have a monopoly. And only the State can create a monopoly. So there is minimal motivation to satisfy their captive customer.

Since these socialist programs are "free" there is little accountability of cost and fraud is rampant. Years ago I watched one tv documentary abut medicare fraud in the state of Florida. In this one state they were able to document and estimate that at least fifty billion dollars of medicare funding was lost per year through fraud. A large share of this was due to con men setting up medical supply stores and billing the governement for medical supplies that were over priced or never issued to a customer. They took in tens of millions before they vanished or were caught.

The State pioneers and grows socialist services to extend its agents' thirst for power and control. Politicians use them to buy votes.

Interesting viewpoint TJ.
Sadly not supported by history though. Trade Unions grew out of exploitation, not political motivation, to assist workers under the only true capitalist system that ever existed - on its invention in the UK. Free market just does not work in so many situations (especially when any sort of monopoly is involved).
Laws have been passed in USA to restrict this free market because it has a tendency to go overboard.
I suggest that anyone that thinks that what I am saying is ---- just looks at Enron - free market & capitalism gone mad!!!

If you believe politics is a way of life then the only alternative to Capitalism is Socialism.
If you believe that the theory of ism's is scientific and not an art then you are on the way to ask questions about the general theory of the world in which we live.
You first study Capitalism which succeeded feudalism.
Capitalist production grew out of individual production of feudal times.
With the development of a surplus.
Surplus was sold in exchange for articles brought in from other parts of the world
Production for consumption gave way to production for profit.
Workers produced things for the new "Lord" the capitalist.
These things are called commodities-- articles produced for sale.

What interested Marx was the source of this profit.
Marx pointed out that it could not possibly come from the capitalists selling the products above their value,this would mean capitalists cheating each other.
Where one made a profit the other would make a loss cancelling each other out.
It followed that the value of an article on the market must already contain a profit.
That the profit must arise in the course of production not the sale of the product.
Some factor in production adds value greater than its costs.
But what is meant by "value"?

Had enough or do you want to know more?

Socialism takes away motivation and collapses upon itself!It promotes laziness and indifference except for those that seek power to support their selfishness!

Capitalism provides the growth and innovation!Selfishness and desire for power creates a lack of interest for humanity as a whole!

There will never be wealth equality,race equality or any other kind of equality as long as their is no ''spiritual'' center truly recognized by human beings!Religion,individal humans definition of spritiuality,awakens the need ,but perverts the message with its own human selfishness!

Therefore ,we need Capitalism and we have a need for socialistic programs as altruism is stifled by selfishness!Not everyone can legitimately compete in the Capitalistic realm because of circumstances beyond their control and many knowingly suck on the tits of socialistic programs!

Once socialistic ideas become the leader ,the entrepenuership of Capitalism is stifled,the Nation is doomed.Economic destruction is certain and generations with a new socialist mindset garuantee the downward spiral!

Like LA,I support healthcare and education as basic human rights.I also support soc.security retirement versus private investment!There should always be a safety net for the inept because the cost to society is higher w/o it,but it should never be the lead focus as in socialism!

Neither system can stand alone because of selfishness and inherent greed for wealth and /or power!

I think Wealth redistribution ,in the form of inheritance tax,on a generational basis would be good for humanity and probably increase entrepenuership while replacing a complicated tax system!But that is not a realistic possibility,because those with the wealth and power are not humane enough to share!

Bottomline is,Capitalism must be the basic program to support for growth and survival,but there are basic human rights and needs that are not addressed properly by it!These basic rights need to be addressed by law!

suck on the tits of socialistic programs

nice one, can i use that in the future, no copyrights please.

laphanphon wrote:

suck on the tits of socialistic programs

nice one, can i use that in the future, no copyrights please.

No problem!Is there room on your WBU cap?

Quoting Milton Friedman on socialism is really scarping the bottom of the barrel.

How long has Milton been dead?

Why not quote Ronald Reagan - would make about as much sense.

Whether alive or dead matters not.

Interesting thread. What Stan said had some truth in it (I think I am generally a bit? more socialist than him, so not often i would agree). I would say to sum it up in one sentence, Capitalism encourages greed, while socialism encourages laziness. In the real world you need to keep a balance.

I did try to be a Capitalist once. Back in the 70's in the UK, i tried to corner the market in candles locally when the unions went on strike in the coal mines (damn socialists!), expecting power cuts and a good price for my stock when all was in darkness. Unfortunately the power stayed on (huge stockpiles of coal had been built up) and i was using candlelight for the next 10 years....I have been a bit more cautious since and by balancing the 2 (selling my labour to the best bidder and claiming any benefit i was entitled to) have done ok. The fact that i do have a guaranteed income (however small) in the future, mainly free healthcare and some other benefits (like a buspass... might need it one day) does make me glad that the government always has to promise us something a bit socialist to get elected. So i think the answer has to be they are 2 sides of an equation, and like in Chemistry, if it doesn't balance trouble is only a matter of time.

Pure Capitalism thrives if the workforce are ignorant and unorganised. Try to keep it that way and one day, the guillotine will get busy again. If you have nothing, you will risk all to get your cut. Governments are there to ensure that balance, then everyone can hope to gey somewhere. Pure Socialism only works in a perfect world - and this isn't it.

rick wrote:Interesting thread. What Stan said had some truth in it (I think I am generally a bit? more socialist than him, so not often i would agree). I would say to sum it up in one sentence, Capitalism encourages greed, while socialism encourages laziness. In the real world you need to keep a balance.

I did try to be a Capitalist once. Back in the 70's in the UK, i tried to corner the market in candles locally when the unions went on strike in the coal mines (damn socialists!), expecting power cuts and a good price for my stock when all was in darkness. Unfortunately the power stayed on (huge stockpiles of coal had been built up) and i was using candlelight for the next 10 years....I have been a bit more cautious since and by balancing the 2 (selling my labour to the best bidder and claiming any benefit i was entitled to) have done ok. The fact that i do have a guaranteed income (however small) in the future, mainly free healthcare and some other benefits (like a buspass... might need it one day) does make me glad that the government always has to promise us something a bit socialist to get elected. So i think the answer has to be they are 2 sides of an equation, and like in Chemistry, if it doesn't balance trouble is only a matter of time.

Pure Capitalism thrives if the workforce are ignorant and unorganised. Try to keep it that way and one day, the guillotine will get busy again. If you have nothing, you will risk all to get your cut. Governments are there to ensure that balance, then everyone can hope to gey somewhere. Pure Socialism only works in a perfect world - and this isn't it.

interesting reading Rick,
and as always: "Balance turns out to be the winner."

Agreed cookie, nice piece Rick.

For most goods & services the 'free market' is certainly the best way to balance supply & demand & set a realistic price. The most efficient & inventive companies will make the most profit as is only correct, and some people will get very wealth but through their own efforts.
Some goods & services do not lend themselves to this scenario. & it is possible that people will not agree with my list, but should at least understand the reasoning
Education - I have no problem if some individuals have the resources to pay extra for better, but it is sensible that a (especially capitalistic) country has the great majority of its citizens educated to the highest possible level. These are the people that will generate new wealth for the nation in the future. If the majority are ignorant stagnation will result.
Health - As above, if individuals can pay for an even better service lucky for them. However the population should be kept in the best health that it can be. People dying in the streets from illness can hardly make for a good environment for anybody ( I am not suggesting this actually happens, just taking it to extremes )
Utilities - (& I am including oil here). This is a pure monopoly & attempts to turn it into something else have failed dismally. Left to the free market it results in just a few large companies (colluding on price) making huge profits at the expense of a user that has no actual choice - except to sit in the dark & freeze or sweat.

However Governments are only good at one thing - bureaucracy. If you give a government these 'industries' you will end up with massive, inefficient, bureaucratic entity that has a life of its own & results in high prices (paid by the taxpayer) and a service to the user that is poor to say the least.

So there has to be a 'third way'. Where, somehow, Government takes care of its citizens without it getting physically involved with running anything except Government. Sadly most politicians in the world are so entrenched in dogma & self interest that they fail their citizens continually and will continue to do so...

The tendency of "business" (or capitalists) is to monopolise a market - to eliminate competition and by limiting consumer choice, be in a position to increase prices and maximise profit.

A general role of government is to regulate to ensure that competition exists (and provide maximum value to consumers) and to prevent thhe formation of monopolies and restrict associated predatory social and economic behaviour.

I think that some people confuse the legimate regulatory role of government with socialism.

In broad terms I think the "capitalist" seeks to make as much money as possible by doing as little as possible, and in opposition the "worker" (trade union) seeks to sell his labour for as much as possible and do as little work as possible.

Usually the "capitalist" has resources that an individual worker does not have, and so the bargaining power between then is not balanced - it is in favour of capital.

Consequently workers form associations (trade unions) so that they can "collective bargain" and match the resources of capital. This is not socialism - it is sound business practice.

In Australia, the Australian Wheat Board collectively bargains with all wheat purcahsers in the world - you can only buy wheat from them. This is collective bargaining by the wheat farmers (samll capitalists) and they do this to maximise their income. However, these same farmers are opposed to collective bargaining with farm workers.

Two sets of rules.