Also in what way are the wealthy stealing from people? Are they sneaking into peoples houses at night and taking shit. Because statistics show that poor people are more likely to steal.
its pure logic that the rich take from the poor. Its a fact that the rich tend to get richer and its a fact that money is finite. So when a rich person gains a dollar it has to come from someone else and it doesn't come from the government printing that money because if it did we we would have inflation on the scale of zimbabwe.

Socialism fails in practice because of human's nature. We are lazy, selfish and greedy. Not everyone is born equal, some people are just more clever or determined than others at the end of the day. However, everyone is placed in an environment with a lack of incentives for betterment or innovation, and thus little takes place.

Capitalism encourages and rewards risk-taking, efficiency and progress through competition. The nature of unfettered capitalism creates massive wealth inequality however, for obvious reasons.

"its pure logic that the rich take from the poor. Its a fact that the rich tend to get richer and its a fact that money is finite. So when a rich person gains a dollar it has to come from someone else and it doesn't come from the government printing that money"
Jesus fucking Christ. This kid believes in zero-sum. Okay, what you have to realize is that most of the time the rich are getting richer, they are not getting hundred-dollar bills, they are getting property and investments. Wealth isn't about money. As one person gets wealthier, that wealth creates more wealth. There is a set amount of dollar bills in the world, but there is no set amount of goods or stock slips. I'm no economist, but zero-sum is a joke. Socialism uses it - rather than creating wealth from wealth like capitalism does, it just moves it around. Which would you rather have: creating wealth, or shifting it? I know which I prefer

Caleb, you already know my opinion on Socialism, and my opinion on why Capitalism is the best!

Edited 1/24/2016 16:09:31

its a fact that money is finite. So when a rich person gains a dollar it has to come from someone else and it doesn't come from the government printing that money

Go read any economics book...literally anyone. You clearly don't understand how a free-market capitalist society works.

Money is not finite. That's why we (as in the entire world) have more wealth today than we did 500 years ago.

Pure socialism would most likely fail. It requires everyone to agree on the goal of the state (or community) and not have the government forget the needs of the people.
Pure capitalism would most likely fail. If businesses have little to no accountability, then the businesses would disregard human health just for profit (asbestos). Also, with little to no government interference, monopolies can and would form, then prices spike, causing the poor to get poorer, the rich to get richer, and the middle class disappears.

It doesn't matter which is in theory better; Theories like this often don't play out nicely outside of La La land where socialists live.

Capitalism gives us countries like Western european countries and the Unites states. Socialism gives us ruinous corrupt dictatorships like the USSR, North korea, China, Vietnam, and Laos. in fact, the only possible example of a successful Socialist state in history is Cuba. With a relatively Decent HDI, it is ranked 67, about on par with countries like Iran, Serbia, and Lebanon. Cuba still is a very poor country, and is nowhere near comparable to western european countries or the US, but they do decently at least.

Now, I know I hear that desperate socialist saying something like "nordic countries nordic countries nordic countries". The countries ARE NOT Socialist states. They do not claim to be in their respective constitutions, and they have capitalist economies. We are not really debating the pros/cons of Welfare states vs small-government states, but the merits of socialist/capitalist economic systems, of which the Nordic countries are definitely capitalist.

pure Classical economic theory is flawed, and is used to support pure free market economies.
Pure Marxism is flawed, and is used to support a pure socialist economies.
Here are the economic theories generally summed up going from right to left

Pure classical Economics declares, established by Adam smith and Malthus
1. No gov't intervention of any shape or form in the economy outside defending property rights
2. Supply creates demand
3. And a belief in that overall wealth will go heavily towards the top 1%(Iron law of wages)--Almost every economist agrees that this portion is flawed
4. All prices perfectly flexible in all directions
5. Markets don't break

Then, We have neo classical Economics, which drops the third rules, and that seems to be what Jai and General PE are arguing. I Have Issues with this, but to avoid getting sidetracked, I'll address them at the end of this post. Generally established by Ricardo

Then Monetarism, which was established by the work of Milton Friedman, which argues for a Central Bank to run the system and declares
1. No Federal intervention, the Central Bank and Monetary policy work in restoring the economy, as economic well being is tied to monetary supply
2. Supply creates demand
3. All prices reasonably flexible in all directions
4. Markets don't break

Then Supply side economics, which can be argued was invented by Reagan and it declares
1. Supply creates demand
2. Minimal fiscal policy, with more leverage towards Monetary policy.
3. All prices somewhat flexible in all directions
4. Markets don't break

Then we have Mainstream left, which is what is taught in most economics courses today, and the policy followed by Liberals and left-leaning moderates, and the all the heads of the Central Bank since Reagan they declare
1. Demand Creates Supply
2. Fiscal and Monetary supply must work in tandem to fix the economy
3. All prices minimally flexible downward, and very flexible upwards
4.the gov't can run a deficit as the Financial market breaks

Then, we have Keynesian economics established by Keynes, you can put Bernie sanders and other progressives here, which declares
1. No Long run
2. Demand Creates Supply
3. Fiscal policy to fix the economy, the gov't can run a deficit as the Financial market breaks, monetary policy only works in short recessions or against inflation.
4. All prices only flexible upward

Then we have Blanc Socialism, which declares, and is not really an economic theory, but may be used to support its own form of Socialism
1. No Long Run
2. Capitalism creates economic downturn
3. The rich only look out for themselves

Last, we have Marx Communism, which declares, he applied Hegelian dialectic to Adam smith.
1. Wealth goes to the top 1% and only the top 1%
2. This issue leads to a revolt, and then a Blanc Socialist society until counter revolutionary sentiment is eliminated
3. State disappears due to a lack of usefulness

I'm a Keynesian, as my tagline states. Here's my issues with the right ones
1. Supply creates Demand, how does that work?(someone please explain, I just can't understand it, and that annoys me)
2. Markets don't break, I don't see why companies would secure loans from the financial market during a recession, and why people won't put more money in the bank during a recession.
3. In regards to Monetarists, you can't force a bank to loan, and as such expand the Monetary supply, but you can transfer money from the Rich to poor, and since the poor hold more of their wealth collectively as M1(The economic definition of money), doesn't this actually accomplish your goal?
4. Prices are somewhat to completely flexible downwards, what, why would Anyone accept lower wages, so supply cost doesn't change, and if input costs don't change, how do the prices of goods change?

Issues with Marx and Blanc
1. You guys are too revolution happy, people don't just revolt for fun
2. You don't account for the human personality to make land grabs.

Issues with Mainstream left
1. How does monetary policy work in a long recession?, you can't force banks to loan out.

Everybody making good points.

My thoughts are

As much as i want everybody happy and working 3 hours for 3 hours' worth of food, the fact is that 2+2 would always come to equal 5 in that system. There's a point where i want to simply be lazy, enjoy being wealthy.

And a belief in that overall wealth will go heavily towards the top 1%(Iron law of wages)--Almost every economist agrees that this portion is flawed

To be precise, the iron law of wages states that: real wages always tend, in the long run, toward the minimum wage necessary to sustain the life of the worker. Of course this isn't true though because we know that many American companies have been paying American workers far more than what they could have been paying to laborers in the 3rd world. The general idea is that employers will pay employees above the subsistence levels in order to incentivise workers and reduce turnover.

The only way (and the most efficient) way to reduce poverty and increase societal wealth (across the spectrum) is to increase productivity...and you can't achieve higher productivity by federal government fiat.

As a sociopath I just don't care about wealth inequality. Most people are poor due to their own apathy. If they don't care enough to lift themselves out of poverty why should I?

Edited 1/24/2016 19:49:24

Actually, with today's minimum wage, which is a working wage for some persons, they can work 80 hours a week, and still fall beneath poverty for a family of 4, so no. There are people out there working their A**es off, and can't get out of poverty due to a lack of a wage. And they lack the funds to improve their skills via schooling, as it doesn't pay well enough, and school costs are F***ing insane.

Also, you should care about wealth inequality, when looking at post-industrial nations, you have an pretty clear correlation between wealth inequality and crime rate.

Edited 1/24/2016 20:12:11

Rich people have too much money.

Poor people don't work hard enough and complain too much.

Edited 1/24/2016 20:16:33

idc about wealth inequality. People can easily get out of poverty if they're intelligent enough. If they resort to crime then thats just more money for the prison system. People are paid what their positions are worth and thats just the way it is. Don't like it? Get a better job.

Edited 1/24/2016 20:23:02

You do realize that now we're just arguing economic theory right, It's keynes v Classical

My Issue with your statement, is that people cannot obtain the necessary items due to class-based discrimination thanks to the high costs of a university education. There are smart people stuck in poverty.

Second, when did I imply that the person was/had committed a crime. I'm arguing that some a** who got lucky like the current generation of the walton family shouldn't be able to just live off stocks while an intelligent hard working person is stuck in poverty due to their family not being able to pay for his/hers college education. That is why free college is actually a good thing, we reduce the lengths of these sh***y generations that descend from wealthy families due to higher taxes on the wealthy, while providing people in poverty a chance.

Edited 1/24/2016 20:30:12

No free college just puts a burden on people who have non stake in the future of random people they may never meet. Also you don't have to go to college to make use of your intellect. '' I'm arguing that some a** who got lucky like the current generation of the walton family shouldn't be able to just live off stocks '' sounds like jealousy to me. Why shouldn't they? Because its unfair? Well tough shit life isn't fair.

Edited 1/24/2016 20:45:40

Well, this has become pointless, I'm out, I'm not spend more anymore hours arguing against an entrenched classical economics believer who's probably been through some school like U of Chicago or just listens to Fox news, without actually thinking about economic theory.

k

I figure if your a fit male (or female) in you 20's or 30's, just join the Army. When I see capable young men in ghettos and stuff saying they have no options, I have little sympathy.

+1 General