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

Forums - General - Better for all, Capitalism or Socialism?

tombi123 on 12 April 2009
mrstickball said:
Socialism is fine...If practiced by the populace, and not the government.

Tombi, do you have any idea as to why solar isn't a currently viable option for electricity generation?

 

Because companies can make more money making people buy fossil fuels? It certainly isn't because the technology isn't available.



Around the Network
vlad321 on 12 April 2009

Well we can also go into cell phones. We ahd the technology to have WiFi on them for the longest time. Why didn't until the iPhone then?



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

SciFiBoy on 12 April 2009

Renewable Energy FTW! im very pro solar, wind, tide power, etc, i think that we should invest alot more in all of them!



tombi123 on 12 April 2009
vlad321 said:
Well we can also go into cell phones. We ahd the technology to have WiFi on them for the longest time. Why didn't until the iPhone then?

 

Guess what!? Phone companies wanted you to buy an expensive phone without WiFi, then a couple of years later, try and make you buy another expensive phone with WiFi.



Slimebeast on 12 April 2009
tombi123 said:
I think it is very pessimistic to suggest that money is the greatest motivator. In fact it makes me ashamed to be human.

In a world with no money, technology would advance to improve the lives of the population and their children. Instead in a capitalist world, the rich get what they want, which doesn't necessarily improve the lives of the population, but it does improve their bank balance.

It just is. Just think about the line of events all the way from invention to use in practice. There's so many factors there where money comes in as a motivator. Yes, many scientists and researchers are probably altruistic and passionate people who aren't in it for the money, not at all, but think of the rest of the line of events. There's people who must organise it and put inventions to use, and usually companies are better in organizing stuff and making things happen efficiently than public institutions are.

Blah blah, sigh... I can't xplain what I'm trying to say, there's just so many reasons why a market economy - yes, driven by money hunger - makes things work better (including implementation of science and technology)



Around the Network
vlad321 on 12 April 2009
tombi123 said:
vlad321 said:
Well we can also go into cell phones. We ahd the technology to have WiFi on them for the longest time. Why didn't until the iPhone then?

 

Guess what!? Phone companies wanted you to buy an expensive phone without WiFi, then a couple of years later, try and make you buy another expensive phone with WiFi.

 

It was more about their expensive as hell data plans than the phones themselves.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

vlad321 on 12 April 2009

Also for people praising the science and technology incentives. My father, as a professor, earns less than just about any business. Let's not go into athletes or the even more useless actors and models. How so? Shouldn't professors and teachers be at the top considering all these things are what actually make the human race better, not some retarded CEO?



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

GamingChartzFTW on 12 April 2009
fmc83 said:

 

TheRealMafoo said:
GamingChartzFTW said:

TheRealMafoo said:

 

A world with no money, is socialism. Communism

*face palm*

The Soviet Union and China = Semi Communist. After the initial 'state revolutions' (the Russian revolution was actually a Coup d'état spawning a civil war between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks) command economies/central sector planning was implemented.

Romania, Yugoslavia etc. used to be Socialist States.

Denmark (already mentioned in this thread) is a Capitalist (Social Democratic) Northern European Nation. Not a socialist country. The average yank don't know European Geography, nor do they know that much about the Economic History of Europe (there are exceptions to this rule). Denmark is a capitalist society with an independent central bank, stockexchange etc. A free market in every sense of the word. France, Ireland, UK, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Italy etc. all resemble capitalist Denmark. Again.. Europe is not socialist. Fact.

america is the "extreme" capitalist state on this planet. This explains why so many uneducated americans (some of them news anchors) view every other capitalist nation on earth as ''socialist' or "almost socialist". Lecturers and professors always had a hard time explaining this to their student masses.

Btw..interesting discussion.

Good Luck with your thread mafo

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist

“As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism.”

So if it's Communism, it's Socialism, as Communism is a form of Socialism.

And I am not talking about Denmark. Last I checked, they have money :p

Wrong. Communism is, according to Marx, the final stage in human society, therefore an utopia, where people don't care for themselves alone any more but just what's best to improve society and every advancement helping to improve it, because that's what going to improve their own lives. Simply because they all know, what is the best thing to do and in this again utopian stage, you wouldn't need any money. Socialism was/is the approach to get to that stage and it simply failed/ fails, because humankind will be never capable of getting there because of greed. By the way there was/ is money in socialist countries.

TheRealMafoo you're Real wrong on that one!

fmc83 knows what he is talking about.

 



tombi123 on 12 April 2009
vlad321 said:
Also for people praising the science and technology incentives. My father, as a professor, earns less than just about any business. Let's not go into athletes or the even more useless actors and models. How so? Shouldn't professors and teachers be at the top considering all these things are what actually make the human race better, not some retarded CEO?

 

Yes absolutely! Professors and teachers are the most important people/jobs in the world. What does your father teach in?



blazinhead89 on 12 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
Wait am I reading this right? Capitalism invents stuff and everything? WOW. Again, under Bullionism the world advanced far more than has under Capitalism. As for why things get invented in the US faster now it's simple: 2 World Wars.

2 world wars completely decimated every power in the world except, you guessed it, the US who have NEVER fought a war on their soil, not even an attack. With the WWs of course most sensible people and anyone who could fled to the US, it was the only safe haven. Capitalism doesn't have SHIT to do with it. It's purely geological reasons and luck.

So people don't want to go where people pay them the most?

The world war 2 defense would of been more credible 20-30 years ago... but currently?

 


That's not necessarily true, I could get paid the Most amount of money from company A (But I hate the working Environment , Boss etc), But I could go to company B that pays less (But I enjoy my working environment and get on with staff etc). Money is only a motivational factor to a certain degree and also varies in priority from person to person .