5 reasons capitalism is better than socialism

dogtowner

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
17,849
Location
Wandering around
pretty simple really


1) Capitalism produces faster growth than socialism. Ever heard someone say, "A rising tide lifts all boats?" It's very true. Why do you think most poor people in this country have refrigerators, microwaves, and televisions that we think of as basic necessities even though those items are considered to be luxuries in much of the world? For all the Occupy Wall Street talk about the "1%," if you make $34,000 a year after taxes, you are part of the worldwide 1% -- and Americans make up half of the total 1%ers on the planet. You can thank the growth created by capitalism for that. Even nations like China have figured this out and have seen their economies lift off by moving towards capitalism. If China keeps at it long enough, eventually the hundreds of millions of Chinese who're still living in huts and shacks will be able to have the sort of lives and technology even the American poor take for granted.

2) Capitalism works in concert with human nature while socialism works against it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That famous quotation from Karl Marx is at the heart of communism and socialism. It runs completely contrary to human nature. As a general rule, people will work hard for themselves and their families, but it's considered an imposition so large that only God can ask them to pay other people’s bills without resentment. Put another way, the vast majority of human beings care far more about what they're going to eat for lunch today than they do about whether someone they've never met can pay his rent. (PS: And most of the people who claim to be part of that exceptional few are lying).
Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on a philosophy best described by Adam Smith.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Because capitalism works hand in hand with human nature and asks people to serve themselves as they serve others, it creates a much more productive society that gets the maximum out of its citizenry.

3) Capitalism rewards merit. Socialism rewards mediocrity. Who gets rewarded in a capitalist society? People who can produce. If you come up with a hot new product, give people a service they want, or entertain them better than they can find elsewhere, they will pay you handsomely to do it. Some people complain about the people who get rewarded in a free market. Why should Peyton Manning make so much more than a school teacher? Why should a bank CEO make so much more than a teller at the same bank? Capitalism offers a simple solution to that problem: If the market rewards NFL quarterbacks and CEOs more than teachers and tellers, you can become a quarterback or a CEO -- if you're capable. If you can't and you don't like what you get paid as a teacher or a teller, the good news is that you're free to move on to somewhere that better rewards your talents. In this fashion, capitalism encourages people to make the best use of their talents.
Conversely, socialism rewards people for failure. Can't find a job? Great, here's your welfare and your food stamps. You haven't worked in a year and a half? Fantastic, we'll keep incentivizing you not to work by extending your unemployment insurance. Are you a mediocrity who is so unskilled and unambitious that you'll stay at the lowest paying job you can find long-term instead of learning from it and moving on? No problem! We'll raise the minimum wage for you.
If you incentivize success like capitalism does, you get more growth, prosperity, and success. If you incentivize failure like socialism does, you get more sloth, poverty, and failure.

4) Capitalism is freedom while socialism is slavery. Socialists often use envy to trick people into becoming angry at successful people instead of the ones who are really taking away their freedom.
Bill Gates, the richest person on the face of the earth — what can Bill Gates make you do? That is, during the 70s and 80s, the era of busing, could he have made you send your kid to a school that you did not want him to go to? Can Bill Gates deny you the right to dig holes on your property or put up a little shed on your property? He cannot do any of those things, but a lowly town clerk can…destroy your life just by denying you a permit to add an addition to your house. Bill Gates can’t stop you from doing that. I think that politicians and those that want to control our lives get us to focus away from the power that government has over our lives and cast our attention to rich people. -- Walter Williams
For socialists to gain authority over your life, your own power has to shrink. The more the socialists take, the less of their own money the people get to spend. Capitalism reacts to the citizenry, while socialism tries to control and enslave the citizens. Capitalism will give you what you want for the right price, while socialism will give you what it thinks is best for you and tell you that you better like it!

5) The marketplace does a much better job of allocating resources than socialism's central planning. As Ronald Reagan noted, "Millions of individuals making their own decisions in the marketplace will always allocate resources better than any centralized government planning process." How could it be otherwise? Is there any one person on the planet who truly understands all the ins-and-outs of making a television, an airplane, a computer, and a vending machine? No, of course not. So, how can some bureaucrat in a central location, who may have no practical experience with business at all, make wise decisions that impact tens of millions of products and hundreds of millions of consumers? They can't. That’s why some people have to wait more than six months for hip operations under socialized medicine in Britain. It's also why people used to wait in long lines to buy poor quality toilet paper and toothpaste in the Soviet Union.
Conversely, under capitalism, the market reacts almost like a living thing and allocates resources where people want to spend their money. You may think that people aren't using their money "as they should." I might even agree with you in some cases, but the only thing the market "cares" about is finding a way to make a profit giving people what they want. Complain all you want about capitalism, but you won't be waiting for hours to get toothpaste and toilet paper while you do it.
 
Werbung:
Great post. If only it was taught in the p-schools the past few decades we would not be in the mess we are in or have mind numbed commies running things.
 
Great post. If only it was taught in the p-schools the past few decades we would not be in the mess we are in or have mind numbed commies running things.


maybe if schools concentrated on the three R's we would have more competitive workers coming out the end...
 
If this thesis was correct, then Haiti would be in much better shape than Cuba.

It isn't.

Comrade Stalin
 
If this thesis was correct, then Haiti would be in much better shape than Cuba.

It isn't.

Comrade Stalin

So.....in your.....MIND.... you think Haiti operates a capitalist economy.

If so, you really should seek mental help or get a real education.
 
Well it would have a socialist one, and be prospering if Aristide was still in charge, but of course, the meddling US and it's proxies got rid of him and will not let him back in the country.

People like the Duvaliers, lavishly support by the egregious US, and the current crook in charge would be shot in Cuba and the only bad thing would be the cost of the bullet.

Comrade Stalin
 
Here are what made Aristide an enemy of the US, which saw another Cuba

"
Under Aristide's leadership, his party implemented many major reforms. These included greatly increasing access to health care and education for the general population; increasing adult literacy and protections for those accused of crimes; improving training for judges, prohibiting human trafficking, disbanding the Haitian military (which primarily had been used against the Haitian people), establishing improved human rights and political freedom; doubling the minimum wage, instituting land reform and assistance to small farmers, providing boat construction training to fishermen, establishing a food distribution network to provide low cost food to the poor at below market prices, building low-cost housing, and attempting to reduce the level of government corruption.

During the fragmented rule of Lavalas, Jean Bertrand Aristide and Rene Preval built 195 new primary schools and 104 secondary schools. Prior to Aristide's election in 1990, there were just 34 secondary schools nationwide. Lavalas also provided thousands of scholarships so that children could afford to attend church/private schools. Between 2001 and 2004, the percentage of children enrolled in primary school education rose to 72%, and an estimated 300,000 adults took part in Lavalas sponsored adult literacy campaigns. This helped the adult literacy rate raise from 35% to 55%.


In addition to numerous educational advances, Aristide and Lavalas embarked on an ambitious plan to develop the public primary health care system with Cuban assistance. Since the devastation unleashed by Hurriance George in 1998, Cuba entered a humanitarian agreement with Haiti whereby Haitian doctors would be trained in Cuba, and Cuban doctors would work in rural areas. At the time of the January 12th earthquake, 573 doctors had been trained in Cuba.

Prior to the election of Aristide, health care services had been primarily concentrated in the capital of Port-au-Prince. The Aristide government renovated and built new health care clinics, hospitals and dispensaries throughout the country, spending more on health care than any previous government.Despite operating under an aid embargo, the Lavalas administration succeeded in reducing the infant mortality rate as well as reducing the percentage of underweight newborns.[92] A successful AIDS prevention and treatment program was also established, leading the Catholic Institute for International Relations to state, the "incredible feat of slowing the rate of new infections in Haiti has been achieved despite the lack of international aid to the Haitian government, and despite the notable lack of resources faced by those working in the health field."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bertrand_Aristide

Comrade Stalin
 
Funny! Socialism fails everywhere its tried yet you still believe in the lie. What does that say about you?

How can a country be capitalist when money is manfactured just like another commodity i.e. to excess and then relentlessly marketed to the public.

What is the meaning of capital then ?

Comrade Stalin
 
How can a country be capitalist when money is manfactured just like another commodity i.e. to excess and then relentlessly marketed to the public.

What is the meaning of capital then ?

Comrade Stalin

You really are terribly confused. What you describe is NOT capitalism.

You must realize that EVERYTHING you know....IS WRONG!
 
Gipper, as usual you are out of your depth.

Like most consrvatives, you are content to bask in the voodoo economic afterglow of the terrorist
Reagan who exhumed the failed laissez-faire policies which lead to the Great Depression.

When a real socialist policy, which works spectacularly as the Worgl shilling is posted, you say nothing.

Why ?

Because you cannot deny it's efficacy.

Throwing ad hominen slogans around doth not a competent debater make.

Give me your address so that I may send your a good book on logical fallacies for Xmas.

If you are going to use them so liberally ( the correct use of the word ), you should at least know
what they are and how they work.

Comrade Stalin
 
Gipper, as usual you are out of your depth.

Like most consrvatives, you are content to bask in the voodoo economic afterglow of the terrorist
Reagan who exhumed the failed laissez-faire policies which lead to the Great Depression.

When a real socialist policy, which works spectacularly as the Worgl shilling is posted, you say nothing.

Why ?

Because you cannot deny it's efficacy.

Throwing ad hominen slogans around doth not a competent debater make.

Give me your address so that I may send your a good book on logical fallacies for Xmas.

If you are going to use them so liberally ( the correct use of the word ), you should at least know
what they are and how they work.

Comrade Stalin

Can you really be this crazy? I mean really....can you? I find it hard to believe anyone anywhere thinks as you do.

Reagan in your mind is a terrorist and Stalin is a hero. Can someone really be so screwed up? Reagan murdered no one and liberated MILLIONS from the Evil Empire you so admire...Your idol Scummy Joe murdered 50 million take a few million. After all your hero did say "One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic."

And if you knew ANYTHING about ANYTHING, you would know America was not operating a laissez-faire economy in the 1920s. The socialist Woodrow Wilson saw to that and the consequences are still causing harm. I would take laissez-faire over the current crony Socialism we are suffering ANY DAY!

The Great Depression was only GREAT because of the socialist BS imposed by Stalin's STOOGE FDR.
 
Werbung:
Gipper, as usual you are out of your depth.

Like most consrvatives, you are content to bask in the voodoo economic afterglow of the terrorist
Reagan who exhumed the failed laissez-faire policies which lead to the Great Depression.

When a real socialist policy, which works spectacularly as the Worgl shilling is posted, you say nothing.

Why ?

Because you cannot deny it's efficacy.

Throwing ad hominen slogans around doth not a competent debater make.

Give me your address so that I may send your a good book on logical fallacies for Xmas.

If you are going to use them so liberally ( the correct use of the word ), you should at least know
what they are and how they work.

Comrade Stalin
What about the poor under capitalism?

The other side of that question is: what about those who are not poor?
What of them? Let us not forget that the “rich” are people too, and they also have the right to their life, their right to liberty, and their right to their property, and their right to pursue happiness.
Is the fact that one is poor, a justification to rob the rich?

That a man does not have riches and another does, is no excuse for the first to rob the latter — neither is it a moral justification for the state to rob the first for the benefit of the latter.
What is welfare?

Welfare — the extortion of wealth from those who produce by the “humanitarians” in government, to be distributed to those who consume (but do not produce), is to render the producers slaves and the “humanitarians” thieves. Whether the thief is wearing a ski mask, or is a dressed in a pinstripe suit with the letters IRS labeled on it, does not change the nature of their actions in principle: both are looters as both are initiators of force. With one exception, the man wearing the ski mask is more honest: he is not a big enough hypocrite to tell the citizen that he is robbing him of his hard earned wealth “for his own good”, or even worse “for the good of the people.”
What of the poor under capitalism?

As for poverty, under capitalism, no poor man is prohibited from creating a fortune — observe that in late 19th century and early twentieth century America how hundreds of really “poor” immigrants, who could not even speak a word of English, came to America and within a generation were America’s newest elite — and they did it without the government on their backs, or on the backs of others. Even today, in semi-free America, many such immigrants come here starting with nothing and create fortunes — though this is a rarer occurrence due to the vast weight of the volumes of incoherent and irrational regulations that punish those who have an urgent need to accumulate capital (the poor).
Your question accepts the collectivist premise that wealth is a static quantity owned by that amorphous super-organism the “collective” to be looted from those individuals who create it. The “poor” don’t need government handouts — they need government off their backs and most importantly off the backs of those who can really help them — the “rich.”
Who is the poor man better off under: Mother Teresa or Bill Gates?

A Mother Teresa who hands them bowls of slop every day, so they can barely exist — or a genius like Bill Gates who creates a fortune for himself by helping others to create fortunes for themselves, i.e., “where the first feeds them for a day, the second helps them feed themselves.” Observe that it is the Bill Gates of the world who are not allowed to exist in India — and the Mother Teresas who are.
What do you mean by “rich”?

Now when I mean “rich”, I do not mean those scabs who gained their fortunes by political pull, by having government grant them favors and franchises at the expense of their fellow-men. When I mean “rich” I refer to businessmen who who achieved their fortunes by economic means — through production and trade.
What is the cause of mass poverty?

To answer the question, “What about the poor under capitalism?” one must first answer, “Why are there poor people in the first place?” The source of all poverty is the lack of wealth, which must be produced. The source of production (and thus wealth) is man’s mind, which politically has only one requirement: freedom. Politically, this is the single cause of mass poverty: the lack of freedom. Observe the poorest countries are those where capitalism is lacking.
What is the solution to mass poverty?

Capitalism did not create poverty, but it inherited it. Far from being a cause of poverty, laissez-faire capitalism is the only solution to solving it.
Observe that the freedom that a rich man needs to maintain and add to his wealth, is the same freedom a poor man needs to create his wealth — and the creation of wealth for both, has the same root — reason. The only requirement of reason from the state is entirely singular in principle: freedom, that is, the banishment of the initiation of force from all social relationships. Yet, this is precisely the freedom that the “humanitarians” do not wish to give either of them, since this “right” to freedom and liberty, can only come at the expense of the alleged humanitarian’s “might.”
“Those humanitarians who claim to help the poor, but oppose capitalism, do not really have the interests of the poor in mind.” [AR paraphrase I think, need to check.]
Since all men are free to create wealth under capitalism, no one is forced into poverty, as in non-capitalist countries. In a capitalist country, the only poor are those who choose to remain so of their own free-will (such as many of the “back to nature” types who wish to live like hippies).
Keep in mind that the moral justification of capitalism is not the it serves the “needs of the many”, but that it protects the rights of every individual — in particular, it protects the individual from the “many” (majority). Capitalism is not egalitarian, nor “compassionate”; Capitalism is just.
What of those who cannot truly help themselves?

The few individuals in a capitalist society who are incapable of taking care of themselves — such as the retarded, crippled, and orphans (which are a small and tiny minority in any free country) — are provided for through voluntary means, i.e., private charity.
 
Back
Top