Better for all, Capitalism or Socialism?

[Lolcislaw]

NintendoMan said:

TheRealMafoo said:

NintendoMan said:

Apparently, because I took a break from this thread I also left on a permanent basis and received a moderation warning for doing so. So, I guess I'll just have to keep on posting or face a ban. How come this has become a thread about the NHS? The NHS is fine for what it is. Anyway: As for the whole capitalism vs socialism thing. Capitalism only benefits the wealthy. It does not really help poor people to get better quality of life nor does it spread wealth equally. It rewards only greed. Now, socialism that would be great, for me and the town I live in (which is dying and made up predominantly of poor people like me) socialism would result in a massive increase in quality of life for the whole town. Trying to say that capitalism has made the poor better off is like trying to say that natural disasters decrease the surplus population - utterly wrong in every measurable sense. The last 10yrs especially have seen the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. This is unsustainable as sooner or late the poor people will get so infuriated that you will have another peasants revolt.

 

So your “The Poor”

200 years ago, if you were “The Poor”, (1)you got to eat 1 meal a day, if you were lucky. (2)That meal was most likely potatoes. (3)You had one, maybe two sets of cloths. The only medical treatment you got was something made up by someone you knew. You had to shit in a hole, and (4)heat was something other people had.

Today, you have the internment, (5)a computer, video games I assume, TV, electricity, (6)access to the same over the counter medicine the rich have, (7)access to a lot more food (hell, by those standards fast food would be so much better), plumbing, the list goes on.

(8)Someone from 200 years ago, if we could pull them through time, would look at you complaining, slap you in the face, and say get over yourself.

You think if 200 years ago we started living in socialism your live would be better? Give me a break.

Now, use that capitalist technology, and flame me.

1) I do have only 1 meal a day actually and furthermore they are not hot meals either.

2) I do not have the luxery of choice, often it is one type of food for the week or month. For example last week I only had bread

3) I may have more than one set but all are of poor quality and most are stolen

4) Still true, there is no heating in my house because its too expensive

5) Because when I was in college I received Eudcation Maintence Allowance - in effect the goverment has paid for my computer, I could never afford one on my own and I can't afford to replace it either

6) Acess yes, but can I afford it - No. So I do not have availability to over the counter medicine, furthermore the rich can stay in private hospitals which are usually of a higher standard than goverment run hospitals

7) Access to more food yes, but can it be afforded. Again the answer is no. Why do you think I have one meal per day and none of it hot

8) From 200yrs ago, probaly but thats out of context. The fact is, in the modern world, currently, today, as of now (am I getting through to you yet) there is a substantial difference in quality of life between the rich and the poor. Why for example does a premiership footballer get paid a £150,00 a week (Lampard, Ronaldo et al) while nurses are unlikley to get even half that, most likley less. Capitilism is why. You see, capitilism has made the world an unfair and harsh place. Greed is rewarded.

I could go on but you're quite clearly a deluded individual with no idea what life is like for those of us who don't have 80k a year and don't live in ivory towers. Your arrogance and ignorance are off the chart. tombie123 is the only person in this thread who has demonstrated any common sense.

Dude you're talking bullcrap and you know it. With current benefit system in the UK , there is no way you cant have hot meals and heating in your house. Benefits in the UK are fairly high, and like you said EMA can cover your expenditures.  And if you do not like your situation just get a job, you finished college you should be capable. You're being arrogant by claiming that only you understand life because you're to some extent worse off. Anyone with work in the UK is capable of living in a decent standard, its not like employed people starve here.

 

About Footballers, they being payed by people who are willing to pay them those sums, how can you judge who spends their money on what? If Abramovich wants to pay lampard 150 grand a week he is free to do so, like you're free to buy yourself a can of coke. Nurses on the others side are payed by the Govt. and yest i agre they should be payed more, but there is simply no money in NHS to increase their wages? (why? becasue NHS wastes so much of taxpayers money, especially its beauracracy)