English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It's been proven that the extreme of either is horrible.

2007-11-18 09:35:44 · 17 answers · asked by You 2 in Politics & Government Politics

17 answers

Capitalism with products and service where there is choice.
Such as auto's
Clothing
Food
Housing
etc

Socialism with services and products where there is not choice.
Such as power
medical care and pharmaceuticals
needed services such as garbage collection, police, fire, prisons, etc, most of which is already socialistic.

Also, we need a limit on how much a CEO can make. I believe Britain has such a system in place. Pretty easy to make into law, that no CEO or anyone making a salary can make more then 1,000 times the lowest worker, or something along those lines. That should include perks, such as stock options.

I am a firm believer in capitalism and a firm disbeliever in communism. However, I see the real danger in unfettered capitalism, especially in relationship to war.

Example:
The USA is responsible for 36% of the worlds trade in arms according to a congressional study done in 2005. Some private studies put that as high as 60%. There should be no profit in making war related material so as to take out the incentive for corruption, and those that profit off of human suffering. Exports of arms needs to be banned world wide.

I could go on and on, but I think you get my drift, that capitalism is fine, unfettered greed is not.

Peace

Jim

.

2007-11-18 09:55:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I would like to know how you come to the conclusion that the extreme of capitalism is horrible. Can you give us any examples of extreme capitalism? Like modern Hong Kong, perhaps? Or 19th century America? If those are the worst examples of capitalism, then you need to rethink your premise.
Communism, on the other hand has been proven horrible: Stalinist Russian, Mao's China, North Korea, and many more examples where people are treated as property of their unelected dictators.
Communism appeals to the worst instincts in people: hatred, greed, vengence. It is constantly trying to destroy freedom, and the modern political struggle in the USA is proof. The Democrats want to enact more socialist programs, the spineless Republicans go along with it, and the wealthy and powerful make it happen but keep themselves insulated from it, so the only ones who suffer are the poor and middle class.

2007-11-18 10:18:54 · answer #2 · answered by freedom_vs_slavery 3 · 0 0

It happens every few years or so around election time. The pendulum swings in the opposite direction from one side to the other as administrations change. Never reaching the extremes of Communism or Capitalism. But still, swinging back and forth averaging a sort of balance over time.

Both extremes are bad. Self destructive. But here, as long as we don't give on side too much. It all works out. The people, determin their own outcome based upon their quality of life, morals, values, and ethical standards of the time.

2007-11-18 09:55:03 · answer #3 · answered by Robert S 6 · 0 0

Personally, I think they can coexist. People would sign up every five years to live under the economic system of their choice.

All citizens would pay taxes to the government for defense, border control, and enforcement of the bill of rights. But that would be all they pay for.

People in the Communist system would hand their property over to the collective, and everyone would be paid the same thing by the collective for their labor. They would have guaranteed health, welfare, and any other social programs they wanted.

Capitalists would keep their assets and invest them as they wish, and would need to fund their own medical and retirement plans through savings and insurance. Their welfare system would be based on charity, like it always was before FDR.

This general idea is based on a separation of Church and State, in which the government got out of the religious business and made it an individual right. It worked out amazingly well. In this case, we separate economy and state, and leave the choices up to the individual.

The question is, which system would you sign up to be in? And how long before the Communists turned into lazy leeches with no incentive?

2007-11-18 09:54:43 · answer #4 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 0 0

Can you site where Capitalism and free enterprise have been proven horrible? We now that communism has been tried many times and has always failed. I don't believe it's ever possible to have anything in a fine balance, there always tends to be a leaning one way or another.

2007-11-18 09:42:48 · answer #5 · answered by sorry sista 7 · 2 0

It's ridiculous to think that anyone has "proven" that capitalism is horrible. It's what has made America great. Communism has already failed all over the world. Any political system that has to be enforced militarily to keep it's citizens from leaving the country has already failed.

2007-11-18 09:43:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

The extremes of both are hardly horrible. Its true in communism you end up with bureacratic zealots like Hugo Chavez that will murder their opposition; and in extreme right you have thieves that deserve prison and will eventually end up there...but when comparing the extremes I'd rather have a thief then a dictator who kills.

That said there is no room for communism in America. It does not belong in our capitalist system which has done more to improve your life then any other form of society in history.

2007-11-18 09:48:57 · answer #7 · answered by netjr 6 · 1 0

In capitalism, the "loose marketplace" controls the elements of production. meaning persons and businesses own the land, make the products, promote them to the community at great, negotiate wages, etc. at the same time as capitalism can shop the wealthy better and the undesirable down, it does enable for a variety of of circulate between instructions, and if someone is inspired and wise sufficient, they could prevail. In communism, the authorities controls those factors. They administration who receives the land, what's produced and at what priced, etc. at the same time as communism, at the same time as defined as sharing, does sound positive and equivalent, it not often works like that. Communism, like all different authorities, is concern to a huge quantity of corruption, so issues at the prompt are not as honest and equivalent as they sound, and are in reality, extremely oppressive.

2016-10-24 10:59:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There is no balance between the two. They are totally incompatible with each other. That is why politics have gotten so ugly the past few years.
Both parties were capitalists, although with different ideas, but after the great depression came a converted democratic party - converted to the principles of Marxism.
So, you will have to decide which is better and fight for it.

2007-11-18 09:43:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

After over half a century, I haven't seen too much communism in our country, capitalism is alive and well.

2007-11-18 09:41:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers