By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is socialism endan^gered in The United States?

I was raised to live a life where it isnt about wanting everything but living with what you have. It isnt that danged hard. Will I have a lot more as I progress in my career? Sure, but that doesnt mean I just spend way more than I need to now. I would feel bad spending welfare or food stamps or anything like that. And dont say jobs arent available...cause sams is literally understaffed nonstop.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
MDMAlliance said:

The United States and China are not Capitalist states.  Part of the reason China became such an economic power has to do with their population.

Last I check the way that they both do business is pretty much a capitalist system. They both do the whole free enterprise system. If a part of the reason why China became an economic power was because of a population then why isn't india having the same affect ?


I don't really hear people call it a "free enterprise system" so I had to look it up to make sure I knew what you were referring to.  One thing is that the definition where we fit as a "Capitalist system" is by a rather broad definition.  On Wikipedia, it says "Capitalism is an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit in a market economy."

However, our system has elements of this rather than being exclusively this.  Not all capital assets are privately owned and not all goods and services are produced for profit.  Same goes for China.  

The reason why India isn't a major power has to do with the fact that India still heavily believes in their caste system, which is very anti-Capitalistic.  This, among with some other things here and there about their predominantly agrarian society also contribute.  I also should point out that I'm not saying that China's population is the only reason, there are many other factors as well.  

edit:  The wikipedia article redirects from the "free enterprise system."  It doesn't look like people really call it this anymore, which is why I was confused on what you were saying.



MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:
MDMAlliance said:

The United States and China are not Capitalist states.  Part of the reason China became such an economic power has to do with their population.

Last I check the way that they both do business is pretty much a capitalist system. They both do the whole free enterprise system. If a part of the reason why China became an economic power was because of a population then why isn't india having the same affect ?


I don't really hear people call it a "free enterprise system" so I had to look it up to make sure I knew what you were referring to.  One thing is that the definition where we fit as a "Capitalist system" is by a rather broad definition.  On Wikipedia, it says "Capitalism is an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit in a market economy."

However, our system has elements of this rather than being exclusively this.  Not all capital assets are privately owned and not all goods and services are produced for profit.  Same goes for China.  

The reason why India isn't a major power has to do with the fact that India still heavily believes in their caste system, which is very anti-Capitalistic.  This, among with some other things here and there about their predominantly agrarian society also contribute.  I also should point out that I'm not saying that China's population is the only reason, there are many other factors as well.  

Maybe not all capital assets are privately owned but a large portion of it is.



fatslob-:O said:
MDMAlliance said:

I don't really hear people call it a "free enterprise system" so I had to look it up to make sure I knew what you were referring to.  One thing is that the definition where we fit as a "Capitalist system" is by a rather broad definition.  On Wikipedia, it says "Capitalism is an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit in a market economy."

However, our system has elements of this rather than being exclusively this.  Not all capital assets are privately owned and not all goods and services are produced for profit.  Same goes for China.  

The reason why India isn't a major power has to do with the fact that India still heavily believes in their caste system, which is very anti-Capitalistic.  This, among with some other things here and there about their predominantly agrarian society also contribute.  I also should point out that I'm not saying that China's population is the only reason, there are many other factors as well.  

Maybe not all capital assets are privately owned but a large portion of it is.


There's a lot of Government control in our market.  Too much to be accurately described as a "Capitalist state."  This is true for most places, actually.  Capitalists would prefer the government to be as small as possible, or not even there.  A completely free market unhindered by things such as taxes and laws.  That is if we are going for a purist argument.  Even if we weren't going for the purist argument, though, we still contain many non-Capitalistic features. 



MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:
MDMAlliance said:

I don't really hear people call it a "free enterprise system" so I had to look it up to make sure I knew what you were referring to.  One thing is that the definition where we fit as a "Capitalist system" is by a rather broad definition.  On Wikipedia, it says "Capitalism is an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit in a market economy."

However, our system has elements of this rather than being exclusively this.  Not all capital assets are privately owned and not all goods and services are produced for profit.  Same goes for China.  

The reason why India isn't a major power has to do with the fact that India still heavily believes in their caste system, which is very anti-Capitalistic.  This, among with some other things here and there about their predominantly agrarian society also contribute.  I also should point out that I'm not saying that China's population is the only reason, there are many other factors as well.  

Maybe not all capital assets are privately owned but a large portion of it is.


There's a lot of Government control in our market.  Too much to be accurately described as a "Capitalist state."  This is true for most places, actually.  Capitalists would prefer the government to be as small as possible, or not even there.  A completely free market unhindered by things such as taxes and laws.  That is if we are going for a purist argument.  Even if we weren't going for the purist argument, though, we still contain many non-Capitalistic features. 

And that right there is the reason the US is going in the toilet because of government control and regulation but it's single handedly being done by democrats and maybe a little bit of republicans but mostly dems.



Around the Network

The United States can send money to other countries but not give its own people.



fatslob-:O said:
MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:

Maybe not all capital assets are privately owned but a large portion of it is.


There's a lot of Government control in our market.  Too much to be accurately described as a "Capitalist state."  This is true for most places, actually.  Capitalists would prefer the government to be as small as possible, or not even there.  A completely free market unhindered by things such as taxes and laws.  That is if we are going for a purist argument.  Even if we weren't going for the purist argument, though, we still contain many non-Capitalistic features. 

And that right there is the reason the US is going in the toilet because of government control and regulation but it's single handedly being done by democrats and maybe a little bit of republicans but mostly dems.

I wouldn't say so.  The Democrats and Republicans are very similar.  They are very centrist compared to many other parties that exist in other countries.  If you think about it, there aren't very many issues that the Republicans and Democrats fight over.  The reason you probably don't think about it is because of the fact that the things they don't fight about are second nature.  

edit: When I say "second nature," I mean that it would SEEM like it is.  Not that it literally is.



MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:
MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:

Maybe not all capital assets are privately owned but a large portion of it is.


There's a lot of Government control in our market.  Too much to be accurately described as a "Capitalist state."  This is true for most places, actually.  Capitalists would prefer the government to be as small as possible, or not even there.  A completely free market unhindered by things such as taxes and laws.  That is if we are going for a purist argument.  Even if we weren't going for the purist argument, though, we still contain many non-Capitalistic features. 

And that right there is the reason the US is going in the toilet because of government control and regulation but it's single handedly being done by democrats and maybe a little bit of republicans but mostly dems.

I wouldn't say so.  The Democrats and Republicans are very similar.  They are very centrist compared to many other parties that exist in other countries.  If you think about it, there aren't very many issues that the Republicans and Democrats fight over.  The reason you probably don't think about it is because of the fact that the things they don't fight about are second nature.  

edit: When I say "second nature," I mean that it would SEEM like it is.  Not that it literally is.

They don't exactly fight each other because those pesky corporations are lobbying them like puppets LOL.



fatslob-:O said:
MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:
MDMAlliance said:

There's a lot of Government control in our market.  Too much to be accurately described as a "Capitalist state."  This is true for most places, actually.  Capitalists would prefer the government to be as small as possible, or not even there.  A completely free market unhindered by things such as taxes and laws.  That is if we are going for a purist argument.  Even if we weren't going for the purist argument, though, we still contain many non-Capitalistic features. 

And that right there is the reason the US is going in the toilet because of government control and regulation but it's single handedly being done by democrats and maybe a little bit of republicans but mostly dems.

I wouldn't say so.  The Democrats and Republicans are very similar.  They are very centrist compared to many other parties that exist in other countries.  If you think about it, there aren't very many issues that the Republicans and Democrats fight over.  The reason you probably don't think about it is because of the fact that the things they don't fight about are second nature.  

edit: When I say "second nature," I mean that it would SEEM like it is.  Not that it literally is.

They don't exactly fight each other because those pesky corporations are lobbying them like puppets LOL.

The funny thing is that most of the members of Congress are already rich.  That's how they became members in the first place, sadly enough.  

Though there is some truth to what you say.  Those with money do have quite a large amount of control over the people.



MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:
MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:
MDMAlliance said:

There's a lot of Government control in our market.  Too much to be accurately described as a "Capitalist state."  This is true for most places, actually.  Capitalists would prefer the government to be as small as possible, or not even there.  A completely free market unhindered by things such as taxes and laws.  That is if we are going for a purist argument.  Even if we weren't going for the purist argument, though, we still contain many non-Capitalistic features. 

And that right there is the reason the US is going in the toilet because of government control and regulation but it's single handedly being done by democrats and maybe a little bit of republicans but mostly dems.

I wouldn't say so.  The Democrats and Republicans are very similar.  They are very centrist compared to many other parties that exist in other countries.  If you think about it, there aren't very many issues that the Republicans and Democrats fight over.  The reason you probably don't think about it is because of the fact that the things they don't fight about are second nature.  

edit: When I say "second nature," I mean that it would SEEM like it is.  Not that it literally is.

They don't exactly fight each other because those pesky corporations are lobbying them like puppets LOL.

The funny thing is that most of the members of Congress are already rich.  That's how they became members in the first place, sadly enough.  

Though there is some truth to what you say.  Those with money do have quite a large amount of control over the people.

LOL XD. We could have chosen Paul or Johnson but nooo instead they advocate a threat to bigbrother.