socialism is the worst of all three worlds. At least in communism, the government owns everything. In socialism, the private sector does the work and the government "suggests" through tax breaks, tax hits, and unknown crony caitialism who gets the profits and how those profits must be used. Pure captitalism is hard to find these days. I want my government to be communist, and my business to be capitalist and have no use for busybody socialists who don't want to do the work but want to sit around and decide what I should do with my profits for the public good.
42% of Democrats are in favor of socialism
- Thread starter FortuneTeller
- Start date
Cam Newton has to pay the state of California more in taxes than he made playing in the super bowl.
http://politicalcult.com/cam-newton...ss-conference-look-what-happened-right-after/
http://politicalcult.com/cam-newton...ss-conference-look-what-happened-right-after/
That's because it would self-destruct if left unattended and unregulated. It exists only in the minds of people who are incapable of learning from history.
I suppose it depends on your view of "pure capitalism". No one I've ever heard promote capitalism is a fan of no regulation whatsoever. The crisis in 2008, for example, had plenty of regulators in place. The problem is that these regulators were corrupt or inept or both. Each gate designed to catch the problem failed, either because the regulators were on the payroll to look the other way, or lacked the skillset to figure out what was going on (even when presented with the facts in advance). What we have is more akin to cronyism than capitalism.
So regulate all you want, but that doesn't solve this issue at all. Capitalism isn't the problem.
"Pure" means pure. That is what I responded to.
I never said that capitalism is a problem. Far from it. Just that unregulated capitalism is like a car with no brakes. Faulty regulation equate to faulty brakes. Does that mean there should be little or no brakes?
There are no "free" markets. No markets can exist without regulations of enforcement. The only question then is, What are the regulations to be? And are they fair, or do they disproportionately favor one party over another? It is not a question of "more" or "less" government, but rather the nature of the regulations in place. The regulations that morphed into place that precipitated the crisis in 2008 were designed to disproportionately favor the interests who lobbied for those regulations in the first place. Therefore, "more" or "less" regulation is a moot point. It is a false argument that plays into the hands of the very people who seek the rules that specifically and disproportionately benefit them while selling the idea as flag and apple pie.
Last edited:
But nobody practices pure capitalism. Anywhere. Or advocates it. It's just as much fantasy as Santa Claus, so why even discuss it?
As for the regulations since 2008 favoring interests that lobbied them, I agree. You'd blame republicans. I'd blame both parties. The system is the problem.
That was my point to the person to whom I responded.
the person you responded to post made perfect sense late at night, In the early morning light of day I would suggest you start a new intelligent discussion. All I said was pure capitalism is hard to find. You are the one who said there is no such thing as pure capitalism, obviously confusing reality with thought. Carry on.
He's right. There is no such thing.