Reply With Quote
MSM won't dare touch, expose their advertizers, so MSM is fully compromised by the oligarchy's $Bs in advertising.
Hes talking about "mainstream" media not all the top rated things in all the media categories
far right Clear Channel controls radio
far right Sinclair controls a ton of local stations
far right Fox News is the #1 cable news network
Lol conservative victimhood complex
MSM won't dare touch, expose their advertizers, so MSM is fully compromised by the oligarchy's $Bs in advertising.
It's true that every government borrows from both. In the U.S., though, socialism leads to more bureaucracy, less efficiency, higher costs, less options/decisions for consumers, and less accountability. Capitalism certainly has its issues and to some extent, government oversight is necessary. But socialism gets a bad name here because government involvement tends to screw things up. Capitalism does too, but to some extent, it's easier to remedy capitalistic screw ups. For example, if the government screws up, it's hard to pierce the bureaucracy and government has immunity that prevents a significant amount of lawsuits. So if you are having issues with your government insurance, your hands are tied. In our system, if a particular market is not satisfying customers, they can go else where or it opens the door for new compe ors, or you have court systems that can pierce the corporate veil. It's certainly not foolproof, but a consumer has avenues.
The problem I have with people that are anti-capitalism, is that they act like capitalism is corrupt and socialism is pure and corruption free. Nothing could be more laughable. Being from Argentina (I believe), I think you can attest that the government is often corrupt. , the US has plenty of corrupt politicians. There is plenty of government fraud in any sector of the economy that it takes over. Sure, you may get more freebies from the government that the middle class is paying for, but it will be inefficient and people in the bureaucracy can supplement what is traditionally lower salaries with fraud to pad their pockets. To be honest, corruption exists no matter what economic system is put in place because people are corrupt.
"they act like capitalism is corrupt and socialism is pure and corruption free."
another straw man. humans operate both, so both are open to corruption, however, capitalism is fundamentally morally bankrupt, so it's a non-starter
Inherent in socialism is inefficiency and it is a breeding ground for corruption because its bureaucracy eventually leads to un-elected and therefore, unaccountable, people making decisions for you. I'm guessing you think capitalism is inherently bad because it succeeds because people seek their own self interest? And serving your own self interest is "morally bankrupt"?
I always found it funny how Socialism is an automatic bad word for most Staters.
"Inherent in socialism is inefficiency and it is a breeding ground for corruption because its bureaucracy eventually leads to un-elected and therefore, unaccountable, people making decisions for you."
straw man
If the govt wants to take my money and provide govt day care, health care, elder care, k-12/college education, public transport, solid and maintained infrastructure, non-profit public banking, then I'm all for those bureaucratic "decisions made for me"
govt run by the the American Capitalist oligarchy is making decisions against me, so THAT and AMERICAN CAPITALISM.
Capitalism, eg in USA, is greed saying everybody and everything to satisfy my greed, while socialism is seeking The Common Good, For ALL The People.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-13-2018 at 02:43 PM.
What? American Capitalists making decisions for you? What are you talking about. If you don't want an I-phone, you can buy a different kind of phone. They don't control your decision making.
Certainly capitalism can have some ugly effects if there is no oversight. No one wants to have banks run out of people's garage. But I also think there is a difference between greed and on seeking their own self interest.
Well it's certainly possible that you are not in the middle class, and taking advantage of handouts by the government doesn't concern you. But for those that pay a significant amount in taxes, we would be bothered if the government provided, say, free day care, but took double the amount of the actual cost from tax dollars to feed its bureaucracy. You may have no problem with that, but that doesn't make it any less corrupt.
Capitalism: "You don't have money to pay medical expanses? Well, sorry for you."
Socialism: "You are sick? Here, we can help you."
Which one sounds better?
We had that debate a long time ago, and capitalism mostly won out. Sure, there are elements of socialism in our economy, but outside of roads and defense, which inherently are better managed by a government rather than a free market, government control of any sector of the economy is scrutinized. South America has been way more liberal with adopting socialism, but admittedly, they have not been very successful economies, traditionally. A lot of that is corruption from the government, but I don't think you can separate socialism from the corruption, at least not in South America.I always found it funny how Socialism is an automatic bad word for most Staters.
Depends who you talk to
But that isn't reality. Before Obamacare, people that didn't have insurance got free health care. Sometimes it was inferior health care, but it was health care none the less. And it wasn't inferior by world standards, just inferior to the type of care available here which has the most available advanced technology, which is very expensive.
There will be corruption on any system. But that's because of human nature, not because of a particular economic sytem.
The US is the richest, most powerful country in the World, yet it is one that has one of the largest differences between rich and poor people. If Argentina didn't have Socialist leaning policies in terms of health and education, more than half of the population wouldn't have access to them.
I can't speak to whether or not socialism is good for South America. It's true that corruption exists in any form of economic system because of human nature. It's true that there is a large difference between rich and poor, but that doesn't mean that the poor here are des ute like they are in other parts of the world. For example, poverty in say, Paraguay, that I've seen is much lower than what the standard poor person in the US deals with unless they absolutely choose to live in those cir stances. The opportunity here for a higher lifestyle, even for a poor person, is significant.
that old washed up mother er just needs to go back to his socialist roots... canada! get the out of our country you has been millionaire!
No, he's actually doing something for society. You're not. You should leave instead.
he's not doing blake. stop being the cuck for all of the far left. you're ing pathetic man.
carrey is just like the rest of the lot; he's deranged and has too much money/notoriety that he thinks he can tell all of society how to act. celebs and those like you who fluff them endlessly.
btw, i'm american and carrey is just a ing from canada. him and you.
Good take. I would split the cases of bureaucracy and corruption.
The thing with government run programs (in the US anyways) is that they’re intrinsically money losers. There’s also the added factor of being taxpayer dollars on a society that’s ingrained to think about taxes as a personal penalty. So what you actually normally get is a large number of regulations and oversight that require additional paper pushers. That breeds bureaucracy on a system that’s already losing money. So you get the feeling that you describe.
That said, no sane capitalist company wants to lose money, nor they can afford to, so privatizing management in these kind of endeavors normally simply results in an added cost to the taxpayer (maybe not initially, but typically in the long run).
The case of corruption is simply inherent in any power structure and normally tied to excesses, it can happen on any domain where power is involved. That includes socialism, capitalism, communism, etc.
The thing is, if you don’t have money you get socialized healthcare, in the US.
The US has a safety net, and it does because of the situation you describe. It figured out a while ago that capitalism wasn’t gonna solve that problem and there’s no shame in that.
sooner or later, the oligarchy is gonna destroy the safety, and 10Ks of people, babies, diseased will die.
That's Capitalism by Capitalists.
the winner-take-all system is a big baddy, rather than proportional distribution of electoral votes. thats what drives us towards a 2-party system. to a lesser degree, the first-past-the-post system (plurality needed, not majority) also renders third parties useless. in the UK for instance they often have to put together a coalition, which gives strength to third parties...
I wasn't talking about the US in particular with that example. Just comparing the pure Capitalist ideology to the Socialist one.
To me it is clear that, in strictly theoretical terms, Socialism is a lot more human, solidary and heart driven than Capitalism. Then we can discuss about actually putting those ideas in practice, but in terms of pure theory where we would have a World where every person is equally good natured and hard working, Socialism would work better than Capitalism.
He's doing more than you. And you're an admitted druggy.
You should leave.
Eh. Rich people need poor people to do the menial work.
10k's? That is not many
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions