Seriously, CobraA1 you had better be rich and own tons of property, including that car. Are you one of the top 10% living in the US while spending your days posting on the Demigod forums, I don't think so. The fact that you can obtain all the desired goods that you dream about is just that, a dream. An illusion.

Here in the US we get a weak public education, no free medical care, no protection against bad mortgage deals, a war that we don't have a say in, stock market scandles (which everyone who has money in it has lost an average of 35% of their retirement) all under the name of FREE MARKET ECONOMY.  So who benefits from this?  hmmm...  Oil Tycoons, Bank CEO's, Pharmaceutical Companies, Politicians, Judges...  THE TOP DOGS OF OUR COUNTRY.  NOT YOU.

Believe in the fantasy all you want, hell, i'm gonna go watch a movie tonight. I need to forget about all the money i've lost in the stock market. Do you see what i'm saying? Just like how all of you complain about balance issues with Demigod. US is the Vampire Demigod sucking the blood from our veins... and yes I do believe he's OP. Tell me now where the hell is the balancing patch... Politicians keep on talking but I still cant download it...

And i would like to add this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH5oStkdw8I
not because its some quality video, its more like a propoganda
but there are few points in there one should notice
in addition i would like to point out the vast ammount of pro socialism videos and articles
while its quest difficult to find a quality pro capitalism videos
i think there is a good point in this fact as well..

Pay attention... it was said as one of the reason of the fall of USSR

I thought I was rather specific in what was wrong.  The great depression was a collapse of the fractional reserve banking system, capitalism is irrelevant to the problem.  Certain individuals(probably most of you) have been educated stupid on the matter, but it's very simple.  Most of the wealth in a fractional reserve system isn't even on paper.  No one has it.  When you lose a large chunk of it, you're fucked.

With a fractional reserve system, a hundred bucks turns into nearly a thousand at a 10% reserve, what we've been using coincidentally.  The banks make a lot of money with very little in reserve.  Your deposits get turned into a mortgage, which pays for someones house, gets deposited, and lent back out, repeatedly.  It makes a lot more money than just lending it out once would.  The reverse is, unfortunately, just as substantial.  If you default on a 200k mortgage, you've just pulled the plug on nearly two million dollars in concurrent loans.

It hit communists, socialists and fascists even harder than it did the US.  The Europeans were making jokes about stupid Americans driving to the food lines.  Then we did the same things that put them in that worse position and stayed there years longer than our relatively resource deprived Canadian neighbors did.  Calling it a failure of capitalism is stupid.  They aren't related.

Your rationalizations on government ending the crisis are absolutely hilarious.  Government doesn't end a crisis simply because they print enough money to put the country further into the toilet.  Stagflation is a sure sign that you've fucked up in a catastrophic manner.  The spending came and went, and the country was further down the shitter than when it started, higher unemployment, higher inflation, lower standards of living.  If you want to go up, you have to produce more than you consume.

Edit: Whoops, slippery mind.

Zyx, dictionary.  Individualism, read it and stop sounding stupid.  You're still harping on someone because you don't know the definition of the word.  There isn't any disagreement between your keyboards origins and his statements.  This is true regardless of whether China is communist, capitalist, or anywhere inbetween.  Unless those chinese factory workers did the work for the betterment of mankind.

Just because it never works, doesn't mean they wont keep trying...

To debunk an accusation that was made. There is this wonderful popular conservative myth that says that people that think socialism is worthwhile are either -
A: Lazy people that live off of welfare and the support of the state, or
B: Soft wealthy or upper middle class people that somehow feel guilty about their success, and feel the need to fit in to some 'politically correct' ideology.

What Bullshit. I am neither a ward of the state, not feeling guilty that I'm not. I worked to get where I'm at, I'm proud to have done so, and far too sociopathic and self-centered to feel guilty about having a comfortabale, albeit not perfect, life.

It has the benefit of being a straw man argument that makes liberals look like either whiners or wishy washy, without actually having to admit that there's any simple logic to wanting to help other people get ahead.

I can narrow my views on socialism down to three sets of premises - if you reject one or more, you can logically reject setting aside some money to aiding others. If you accept all three, then it makes no sense to *not* use the government and taxes to help others.

First set of premises: I gained my position through a combination of hard work and luck, not hardwork alone.

By 'Luck', I mean that entire combination of factors that you had no control over - being noticed by a boss, being born into wealth, having the right editor take a chance on your work, by lumping all these things into the category of 'luck' we come across an obvious implication.

That one *could* be just as able, just as qualified, just as worthy, and yet not achieve the same things.

Second Set: When I do badly it causes problems for those around me. When I do well, those around me benefit.
Corollary: Other people having problems causes me problems. I benefit from other people doing well.

I confess, it is for me, an axiom so obvious I have difficulty conceiving of someone else not accepting it. Maybe it is egotistical for me to believe my life affects others, but if I accept that, it is far more egotistical for me to assume I'm somehow immune to the same effect.

So, when I set out to help others, it's not guilt. It's greed - it turns out that eliminating some of the problems of others has a direct effect on my life - and indeed, can (Not necessarily does) have an effect in excess of that of spending the same amount of energy getting a toy for myself.

Being a self-centered arse, I feel no need to dress this up as anything else - I'm not a sweet guy, I don't feel guilt, I'm simply a very odd sort of sociopath. Miss rich snob complains about the poor and wishes someone would 'do something'. My emotional reaction comes from the exact same annoyed self-centered places as miss rich snob - I just decided to 'do something'.

Third set: That, if I want to help others, there are things the government can do more efficiently than I, working personally, can do.

This is going to take awhile - because this isn't so much an assumption or premise, as it is the logical conclusion of one of the first principles of economics. Since I have to go through it step by step, I can't simply assert it and go on.

The first principle of economics, dating back to Adam Smith, is that if I'm really good at skill A (working on a car), but extraordinarily good a skill B (Working on a program), then even if the guy I hire to do the work is not as good at working on a car as I am, it still makes more sense for me to do what I'm good at and pay him to work on the car than it does for me to work on a car. The technical term is 'competitive advantage' but my economics professor coined it as the  IGBSTD ("I've got better shit to do") principle, and we shall not debate his profound wisdom here.

Just because the other guy is the government, doesn't mean the IGBSTD principle doesn't apply. I may actually be better at something than the government, but unless I'm both better at it, and it's the single thing I do best, I'm actually still better paying someone else to do it than doing it myself.

If it's something that I want done, but it's hard to make a profit at, what we have is a case where everyone has better shit to do. But - I wanted it done! Well, you can't always get what you want. Either I have to do it myself, or I have to pay someone else that had better shit to do enough that this becomes the better shit to do.

Unless of course other people want it done too. Because a lot of stuff that needs to be done, and help society as a whole, are too expensive and don't deliver enough individual benefit to pay for it themselves, yet give the nation as a whole a competitive advantage over a nation that doesn't have it.

There is a common overly simplistic view of economics says this is impossible - that, if it delivers an advantage then, by definition, someone will fulfill that role and generate a profit - generally from people that have forgotten Ayn Rand was never actually an economist an that 'Anthem' is not actually based in any real economic model. Like Ayn Rand, they have forgotten the IGBSTD principle - To do these things, I not only have to make a profit, but I have to have *more* of a return on the energy I've invested than on anything else I could be doing instead.

This is frequently not possible. Think about it - in order for your fireman to take up firefighting, he not only has to be a great firefighter - he has to be better at that than he is at anything else he could be doing. Think about that from the point of view of pure, logical economics. He would have to make more, in the very few hours a months he's actually firefighting, than he could make any other time - enough to make up for the fact that in order to be good at this he has to spend time training that he could be fixing cars.

Either he's functionally retarded and has no other profitable skills - or it turns out you can't afford to be rescued from your burning home.

Or we come up with a third option. We agree that if we stay in the realms of pure capitalism, we cannot individually, or even as voluntary groups, pay the man what he's actually worth. So we cut a deal - on one side of the table, we make paying him involuntary - a tax. On the other side of the table, we have stated up front that we can't pay you what it's worth on the free market to have a guy come out and pull us out of a burning building - but we can make it worth your while, cover your hospital bills, and ensure you have a good life, if not as good as you would get fixing cars. Because it needs to be done, and you're good at it.

Let's be clear. This whole thing has been based on this 'Capitalist' versus 'Socialist' perspective, but that's a false perspective - from a strict point of view, the instant you're not paying for a firefighter to come to your house as an individual, you are a socialist. That's the definition - state ownership of a good or service, payed for by coercive taxation.

I am continually amazed by the number of people who make statements about the 'evils of socialism', but simply ignore simple facts like that. It's the economic equivalent of those Christian 'fundamentalists' that will argue that homosexuality is denounced as an abomination in Leviticus while stealing the shrimp from your plate at Red Lobster. I don't accept the argument in either case on principle - but if you're going to make them, live by them. That said -

Yeah - I think it's not only feasible, but econommically inevitable that the government can (with the consent of a majority of the governed) do some things better than private business or private individuals.

It's not that I am a sweet guy, or have guilt issues, or that I'm a lazy bum that (directly) benefits.

A: It is axiomatic to me that some portion of my good fortune was generated by by hard work, and some by luck. Since this perforce means that with a little luck others that have worked hard can do as well as I, energy spent assisting others is not wasted - I can, in effect, be their luck, if they will supply the hard work.

B: I take it as an axiom that doing so indirectly benefits me.

C: I believe (And feel I have shown the logical underpinnings of this belief) that there are ways of helping others that are most efficiently done by the government, simply because this releases others to concentrate on the commercial endeavors they do best at.

Taken as a whole - yes, it's an argument for socialism and welfare. Obviously there are economic arguments to be had about exactly when it is to our benefit as citizens to have the government institute a given policy - there are things that benefit society as a whole which are not efficiently done by the government, and certainly anything that doesn't benefit society as a whole is outside government purview.

But - to rationally disagree with socialism as a principle (Not individual policies), I think you have to rationally debunk one or more of those premises. I think the first two are self-evident, the third is not self evident but follows from the simple principle of competitive advantage.

So I would certainly enjoy hearing of any counterarguments.

Jonnan

At the USA level, only.

UK was tackling the gold slab to stay afloat. International trading was grinded to an halt by lack of US exports. Investors pulled whatever remained of their marbles. Banks closed to escape losses deserved for trying to cease farmers property.

Meaning, it was a MUCH more complex situation outside the US.

Psychoak - your posts are always like a guided tour of logical fallacies, but this one is new and special.

Although you give a a reasonably accurate definition of Fractional Reserve, and it's is obviously heavily intertwined with economics, it has been since at least the era of the Borgia's and de Medici's. Despite various texts on economics over the years, I have never seen anyone outside the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul crowd try to posit that the Great depression was somehow caused by the fractional reserve system. Not even Milton Friedman - {G}.

Probably because the failure of the fractional reserve happened due to the run on the banks  - in 1930. Black Thursday was in 1929.

Some people need reminded that after this, therefore because of this is a classic logical fallacy - only you could go that extra mile and assert "before this, therefore because of this".

Can we just rename you to "Psychoak [citation needed]"?

Jonnan

Then they should learn to read, Forbes is a right winger capitalist that likes his wealthy country with the large middle class population.

Jonnan, everyone with half a brain can agree that socialism is perfect in a perfect world.  Help others advance and cure the world of poverty, blah blah blah.  People aren't.  People fuck it up.  People create unintended consequences.

Maybe you have a work ethic capable of standing up under free money, I'll admit that I don't.  I'll freeload off of you if you get your way, assuming my motivation to create stays sufficiently muted.  I'm not that bad, I might even feel guilty.  There are plenty of people who already feel entitled to your money.  Your motivations are irrelevant, my lack of motivation is not.

People exploit unemployment by staying employed just long enough to collect a check, then getting another job when it runs out.  Exploitation is in our nature, some of it is horrible.  Rising and lowering to our expectations is also in our nature, those of you with any notice of peer pressure anyway, assholes like me might be immune to it.  Just the inference that someone can't make it on their own gives quite a few people the excuse to not even try.  Every time we add more programs, we add more poor people to the mix.

Our current batch of idiocy puts a moderate family dwelling in the $200k when the actual labor and materials needed to construct one is under $30k, the typical plot of land isn't $167k.  You could own your own home inside ten years working at McDonalds if they just got rid of the union protections, idiotic zoning laws, mandatory building codes, rent control and government backed credit.  Instead, some asshole that wants life to remain unchanged can block the development of a new subdivision, some jackass tree hugger can make them spend a fortune doing an environmental impact study, then block it anyway, the high school drop out morons working for them are working 6 hour shifts, doing half the work they should, and making twice what they deserve because they can.  If you want a cheap house that wont last two centuries with proper maintenance, you're shit out of luck to begin with, they're illegal.  Your house costs a fortune because your stupid shit for brains society has made it cost a fortune through unintended consequences.

It hasn't worked, it's probably not going to work, and we're royally fucking people over trying, but we'll just keep doing anyway because it's perfect if it will just work!  My last post, the one liner, would be enough to end the argument if you could grasp that people suck.  Instead I look forwards to being called an ignorant neocon that just doesn't know anything.

Edit: Zyx, since you're so accomplished, you have no excuse for not understanding the definition of individualism even after it's provided and illustrated.  If you were a five year old with downs, I'd not think of you as a jackass blowing his own horn to feel better about himself at this point.  One last time, individualism has dick to do with everything you own being created with your own hands.

Jonnan, wonderful analysis.  I just love how great depression, a decade long event, becomes Black friday, a one day event that helped trigger it.

I say the great depression was a failure of the fractional reserve system, you point out that black friday happened first(widespread losses) and then there were bank runs later that collapsed the banks.  I'd claim clairevoyance, but since it's history that would be rather fraudulent of me.

Edit again:  Fucking mind is flat gone...  I forgot to mention that the Fire department here is voluntary, and that people do indeed pay for rescue services in places.  So I'm not actually using a tax funded firefighter service, not that I need them, what with the magic water transport system known as a garden hose that wont take half an hour to show up.  By your absurd definition, I'm not a socialist.

FYI: I dropped out of the job market long before all of this started happening. I left voluntarily so I could continue my education. I was not fired or laid off.

Not a believer in luck. Big believer in being able to rise up above the circumstances.

Okay. So tell me how what I just said logically rejects setting aside money for aiding others.

It could be greed or guilt or any number of human emotions. It would be fallacious to assign your own personal emotions to other people.

Generally true, but not guaranteed. In places where dependencies are complex, it may be true in some areas but untrue in others.

True, but ignores non-government entities such as corporations.

The contrary could also be true: You (or other private entities) can do some things more efficiently than the government.

Makes sense, but may not always be possible. If there are no more jobs left for what you are good at, then it may make sense for you to work at something you are not as good at.

In addition, this may ignore the possibility of retraining - it may be possible to train you to be better at a skill and change the skill you are best at.

Let us not confuse what is generally true with what is always true. Just because something is generally true does not imply that something is always true.

Omg people i asked to avoid fighting, no insults!
both must respect the others opinnion!
If you think that someone is wrong just post a counter reply
sure some people base thair facts on overal ideas such as:
"USSR fall that means that socialism is a fail"
its stupid to say such thing and a person who said it
is just shallow with lack of knowlage, instead of fighting him
just ignore him.

If someone arguing about how right or wrong you are
just post a link with facts that strengh up your words.

anyways as i already said, people who think socialism is a fail
CANT THINK LIKE THAT OR SAY IT AS NO ONE EVER IN THE HUMAN HISTORY
SAW WHAT A TRUE SOCIALISM IS, EVER!

that fact is that what i see from this thread is that many people are still all up themselfs
while others are ready to give away for the bennifit of the whole
its only a shame that we are (the socialists) are a minoraty

I really don't know where this thread ended up in so I may be saying things that have already been said.

 Socialism VS capitalism doesn't really make sense to me to be honest, there are matters than need to be equalle distributed (health care, public transports and schooling) and matters that shouldn't. What's there to discuss about?

(I'm a european btw)

That laser-mouse-microsoft true story is interesting.

It simply confirms my point that capitalism cannot currently solve the ownership of informatio issue. On the other hand, socialism may do no better. Or may be much better.

I didn't know that. Interesting fact.

That is probobly the best balance that you can have of the two systems.

Too true.