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

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

Slimebeast on 12 April 2009
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
 

 

Even if the Scientist doesn't work for money, the tools he uses only exist because someone does.

A computer today allows us to calculate things that would take a thousand years without one. Without capitalism, those computers would not exist.

 

As for the robot thing...

you must be talking about a futuristic world with technology we have yet to discover. That technology would only be discovered in a Capitalistic society. (or at a minimum, orders of magnitude sooner)

 

The technology has already been discovered. The technology and resources are already available for creating robots to perform everyday jobs. The only thing stopping it happening in the immediate future is money. It costs to much to create these high tech robots. In a society without money, this problem doesn't arise.

 

The problem us you're looking at a world created with Capitalism, and all it's advantages, and thinking “if we were only socialistic, we could apply these things so much more efficiently”.

If we had that kind of world in the past, we would not have the technology.

To illustrate my point, let's say we did what you proposed, we turned the world into a place without money. We could then employ all the technologies we have learned to this point, and make a world better then we have today.

Fine, we do that. When that's done, in 200 years, we have roughly the same world.

What if we didn't do what you propose, and in 200 years due to continued advances in technologies, we have pills that cure cancer in the grocery store, and fission generators the size of a car that power cities.

Which world is better?

 

Why would technological advancements stop in a world with no money?

It wasn't capitalism that invented satalite communications, nuclear energy, the internet etc, it was brilliant minds. Capitalism just made it possible in a world were resourses cost money. 

In a world with no money, these scientists and brilliant minds don't dissapear. Instead they have better resourses (because they are free) to invent better technology. I think, in a world with no money, technology advances quicker than in a capitalist society.

 

 

 That's just silly. I can't believe there's still educated people that believe in such miths.



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 12 April 2009

@Mafoo

Question: When NASA was formed to beat Russia to the moon... did it receive funding from the Government?



tombi123 on 12 April 2009
Slimebeast said:
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

Even if the Scientist doesn't work for money, the tools he uses only exist because someone does.

A computer today allows us to calculate things that would take a thousand years without one. Without capitalism, those computers would not exist.

 

As for the robot thing...

you must be talking about a futuristic world with technology we have yet to discover. That technology would only be discovered in a Capitalistic society. (or at a minimum, orders of magnitude sooner)

 

The technology has already been discovered. The technology and resources are already available for creating robots to perform everyday jobs. The only thing stopping it happening in the immediate future is money. It costs to much to create these high tech robots. In a society without money, this problem doesn't arise.

 

The problem us you're looking at a world created with Capitalism, and all it's advantages, and thinking “if we were only socialistic, we could apply these things so much more efficiently”.

If we had that kind of world in the past, we would not have the technology.

To illustrate my point, let's say we did what you proposed, we turned the world into a place without money. We could then employ all the technologies we have learned to this point, and make a world better then we have today.

Fine, we do that. When that's done, in 200 years, we have roughly the same world.

What if we didn't do what you propose, and in 200 years due to continued advances in technologies, we have pills that cure cancer in the grocery store, and fission generators the size of a car that power cities.

Which world is better?

 

Why would technological advancements stop in a world with no money?

It wasn't capitalism that invented satalite communications, nuclear energy, the internet etc, it was brilliant minds. Capitalism just made it possible in a world were resourses cost money.

In a world with no money, these scientists and brilliant minds don't dissapear. Instead they have better resourses (because they are free) to invent better technology. I think, in a world with no money, technology advances quicker than in a capitalist society.

 

That's just silly. I can't believe there's still educated people that believe in such miths.

 

Why?

Genius' aren't driven by money.



TheRealMafoo on 12 April 2009
tombi123 said:

 

Why would technological advancements stop in a world with no money?

It wasn't capitalism that invented satalite communications, nuclear energy, the internet etc, it was brilliant minds. Capitalism just made it possible in a world were resourses cost money.

In a world with no money, these scientists and brilliant minds don't dissapear. Instead they have better resourses (because they are free) to invent better technology. I think, in a world with no money, technology advances quicker than in a capitalist society.

 

 

Well, history disagrees with you.

let's look at the last 60 years of advancements from, say China, and the US.

China is much bigger, arguably better educated, and has some brilliant minds. Who has contributed to technology more?

Ironically, the country has started putting huge amounts of funding into technology. The reason? They have become more connected in the Global Economy over the last several years, and realize how technologies can make there country a lot of money.

Even for China, Capitalism works ;)



Kasz216 on 12 April 2009
tombi123 said:
Slimebeast said:
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

Even if the Scientist doesn't work for money, the tools he uses only exist because someone does.

A computer today allows us to calculate things that would take a thousand years without one. Without capitalism, those computers would not exist.

 

As for the robot thing...

you must be talking about a futuristic world with technology we have yet to discover. That technology would only be discovered in a Capitalistic society. (or at a minimum, orders of magnitude sooner)

 

The technology has already been discovered. The technology and resources are already available for creating robots to perform everyday jobs. The only thing stopping it happening in the immediate future is money. It costs to much to create these high tech robots. In a society without money, this problem doesn't arise.

 

The problem us you're looking at a world created with Capitalism, and all it's advantages, and thinking “if we were only socialistic, we could apply these things so much more efficiently”.

If we had that kind of world in the past, we would not have the technology.

To illustrate my point, let's say we did what you proposed, we turned the world into a place without money. We could then employ all the technologies we have learned to this point, and make a world better then we have today.

Fine, we do that. When that's done, in 200 years, we have roughly the same world.

What if we didn't do what you propose, and in 200 years due to continued advances in technologies, we have pills that cure cancer in the grocery store, and fission generators the size of a car that power cities.

Which world is better?

 

Why would technological advancements stop in a world with no money?

It wasn't capitalism that invented satalite communications, nuclear energy, the internet etc, it was brilliant minds. Capitalism just made it possible in a world were resourses cost money.

In a world with no money, these scientists and brilliant minds don't dissapear. Instead they have better resourses (because they are free) to invent better technology. I think, in a world with no money, technology advances quicker than in a capitalist society.

 

That's just silly. I can't believe there's still educated people that believe in such miths.

 

Why?

Genius' aren't driven by money.

Name a poor genius... Knoweldge used to just be the past time of the rich.  The people in the past like Darwin weren't geniuses.  They were largely just rich.

Arcimedes for example is a genius who was motivated by money.

 



Around the Network
tombi123 on 12 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

A world with no money, is socialism.

I disagree. A completely socialist nation would distribute all the money equally. How can a world with no money distribute it? A socialist nation takes from the rich and gives to the poor. In a world with no money, there is no rich and poor.

 

 

Money is nothing more then a country putting a value on your contribution to society.

If you work at a jib that requires more skill, you get paid more. If you work at a job that requires more talent, you get paid more

Taking the money and distributing it equally, just means you feel everyones contributions holds the same value.

Having no money at all, means you feel everyones contributions holds the same value.

it's the exact same thing.

 

??? Everyone has an equal amonut of money because there is no money??? I suppose it is socialistis in the sense that everyone has the same amount of money... but in a world without money, nobody has any use for money...

I'm going to watch Lost now, so I won't reply for about an hour



TheRealMafoo on 12 April 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
@Mafoo

Question: When NASA was formed to beat Russia to the moon... did it receive funding from the Government?

Of course.

But NASA spent it on contractors in a very capitalistic way. let's say NASA has a pool of 10 contractors, and 10 million dollars to spend. NASA needs the best technology from these people. NASA could either go the socialistic way, and just give each one 1 million, and then say “now build me something cool”, or they could go the Capitalistic way, and say “only 1 of you is going to get the 10 million, and that's the company with the best stuff.”.

Which one yields the best technology, do you think?

 



tombi123 on 12 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
tombi123 said:
Slimebeast said:
tombi123 said:

 

Why would technological advancements stop in a world with no money?

It wasn't capitalism that invented satalite communications, nuclear energy, the internet etc, it was brilliant minds. Capitalism just made it possible in a world were resourses cost money.

In a world with no money, these scientists and brilliant minds don't dissapear. Instead they have better resourses (because they are free) to invent better technology. I think, in a world with no money, technology advances quicker than in a capitalist society.

 

That's just silly. I can't believe there's still educated people that believe in such miths.

 

Why?

Genius' aren't driven by money.

Name a poor genius... Knoweldge used to just be the past time of the rich. The people in the past like Darwin weren't geniuses. They were largely just rich.

Arcimedes for example is a genius who was motivated by money.

 

 

I said that (the majority) weren't motivated by money, not that they were poor. I doubt Darwin came up with the theory of evolution to pay the bills. More likely was on a quest for knowledge. Darwin was a genius, how can you say he wasn't?

Einstien worked in the swiss patent office doing physics in his spare time when he wrote his 5 papers in 1905.



TheRealMafoo on 12 April 2009
tombi123 said:

 

??? Everyone has an equal amonut of money because there is no money??? I suppose it is socialistis in the sense that everyone has the same amount of money... but in a world without money, nobody has any use for money...

I'm going to watch Lost now, so I won't reply for about an hour

 

In a world with no money, everyone would drive the same quality car, live in the same quality house, eat the same quality food.

If there is no money, there is no way for one person to have anything better then another. So the guy who cleans up poop at the zoo lives the same lifestyle as the doctor who saves peoples lives.

If you come up with a way to somehow give the doctor a higher standard of living, then whatever you end up devising is called money.

if you think they deserve to live the same lifestyle, it's called socialism.



SamuelRSmith on 12 April 2009

The problem I have with the system that tombi123 is suggesting is that we use money to ration resources.

The problem is that there is unlimited demand and only a limited amount of resources on the planet, with the use of prices we can cap demand which is relative to a good or services' perceived value.

Even if everybody had the same amount of money, things would still be rationed because of opportunity cost (you deciding what you spend on your money on, and sacrificing the purchase of something else).

A resource-based economy is simply unsustainable.