I found this very interesting article written by two Notre Dame university business professors. It is short and succinct but very interesting considering Notre Dame was so heavily embroiled in the controversy of President Obama speaking to last year's graduating class (though for other reasons than his marxist outlook).
This line just shot out right at me. "But, if a person is not responsible for his own well-being, how can we expect him to take responsibility for the well-being of others?"
I have yet to meet a socialist who wasn't either funded by a capitalist or used capitalist activities to build the wealth to afford their socialist outlook.
Rehabber · Tucson, AZ · Member since 2008 · 1k+ posts · 802 votes
16y
"The US is ranked as one of the lowest in education among the industrial nations, not all of which are considered "capitalist" the way US is."
Liberal BS! This is completely in accurate from many standpoints the first being the US education system ranks very high when compared to countries who provide well-rounded or multi-disciplined educational systems.
We also provide many for-profit educational opportunities giving many people chances to re-educate, retrain, or reinvent themselves.
Lastly, in many third-world and other developing countries, little education is offered and often ar not accounted for in statistics. For instance, in India, china, Pakistan, many south american countries, there will be a maximum of one child born to a family that will be allowed to even seek an education.
Lastly, I have a friend who is a doctor who holds an administrative position with the local college of medicine. And a statistic which is hardly ever discussed is nearly 30% of the student are foreign born. A high percentage of them are from northern european countries.
In talking with many of them, they do not want to return to their countries and often times marry in order to stay here.
In fact, one nurse, whom got pregnant actually returned to finland to have her baby and then returned here and eventually married the father.
The reason is because the government will not only pay for the birth expense but would also pay her for six months to sit on her ***.
If our education system is so lowly, then why are our colleges booming with foreign students?
Reality is, many people in socialist countries dream to be able to have the freedoms we take for granted here.
Many Americans and wannabe socialists idealize these countries when in fact, many citizens in these countries would gladly trade places with them.
I say some of us should set-up a socialist / capitalist foregin exchange website inviting Americans who want government run healtcare, 60% income tax, 17% interest rates, can trade places with budding capitalists in non-capilistic countries.
Government run healthcare is ridiculous... They can't even run the VA medical system, what makes liberals think they can run a health system 100 times larger?
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
16y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:
US drug manufacturers rarely market curing drugs?
Separate topic. Here's what was said,
"Kudos to Finland's health care system...whatever they're doing must be working! "
They're drugging up their patients. There's what "must be working".
I'm not going into a discussion on big pharma. I'm merely pointing out that their only solution came in the form of a US created product. A product that you and Jason don't seem to like, but it was their ONLY solution meaning that the socialist system couldn't even deliver what you perceive as a "bad" solution.
My point in this was that the pharma company work within the framework of the capitalist system. The goal is profit not cure which is very relevant to the discussion here!!
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
I don't see anyone here moving there to pursue their dreams.
Tim -
No doubt there are many countries with horribly oppressive governments where no one in their right minds would want to live.
But that doesn't mean the U.S. is the only country worth living in or the only country where people can pursue their dreams.
I will be moving overseas in a couple years to "pursue my dreams." If it weren't for my extended family here, I would have moved already. I know plenty of others who have done the same (moved overseas); they've pursued their dreams and many of them are tremendously happy (that's the goal, right?).
Of course, I also know many who have moved here from overseas, and many are tremendously happy. I also know many people who have moved here from overseas and have gone back, because there are better capitalistic opportunities for them in their birth country.
Many Americans think there is no other place in the world worth living; in my experience, those are the people that tend to have very little cultural exposure.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Scott Hubbard:
I say some of us should set-up a socialist / capitalist foregin exchange website inviting Americans who want government run healtcare, 60% income tax, 17% interest rates, can trade places with budding capitalists in non-capilistic countries.
Scott -
Would it seem reasonable to you if I suggested:
"I say some of us should set-up a pro-choice / pro-life foreign exchange website inviting Americans who want abortion made illegal, can trade places with pro-choice citizens in countries where abortion is illegal."
Sounds crazy, right? Well, it's the same thing...
Just because you don't like something about this country doesn't mean you want to move to a random country that has that one benefit.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:
The goal is profit
And in the pursuit of profit, they made the drugs that J Scott referred to when he said,"Kudos to Finland's health care system...whatever they're doing must be working! "
So clearly capitalism brought the success to Finland he was referring to.
My point is simple. The best Finland's socialist system can do is copy the advancements (from the 1970s btw) of the US's capitalist system. And we agree - the best they can do is probably some of the suckiest means of treatment we have to offer...but it's just one means. The great thing about the US is as capitalists we can choose the best treatment. We don't have to accept the suckiest means of treatment that another capitalist country has to offer.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
My point is simple.
Okay, I originally made a crack about many of your points being "simple," but I'm not interested in name calling.
You have some very insightful ideas, even I disagree with many of them...so I retract any of my personal insults...
The best Finland's socialist system can do is copy the advancements (from the 1970s btw) of the US's capitalist system.
Wow, from one example of anti-depressants, you can make this wide sweeping generalization about Scandinavia?
I don't think that's very fair. Scandinavia is very small compared with most industrialized nations, so it's not surprising that they have fewer technological innovations.
That said, the spray can, the aerosol spray can, carbonated water, Legos, paper clips, zippers, etc, all came out of Scandinavia.
Yes, we've developed a lot in this country...including lots of stuff that has been tremendously detrimental to society (we invented crack!)...when evaluating the value of a country, there are more questions to ask than just, "What drugs were developed in that country?"
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Perhaps YOU should do some research...
Perhaps you should. Finland is not part of Scandanavia, despite many Americans making this mistake. Also not a single item you mentioned was invented in Finland.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
Finland is not part of Scandanavia...
Technically, you are correct...
Of course, if you'd prefer to stick with the self-proclaimed Scandinavian countries (where all those things were invented), those countries are all socialist as well...
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Scandinavia is a relatively new term to describe a subset of the Nordic countries...Finland is certainly a Nordic nation and is very commonly considered to be part of Scandinavia.
Scandanavia is a term from the 1830s. It's not new. Greenland is a Nordic nation but not considered part of Scandanavia. Scandanavia and Nordic are not interchangeable terms.
I nitpic because I was challenged to do my research - much of which I just happened to know. Finland is vastly different from the countries of Scandanavia. The countries of Scandanavia have political systems that are completely different from Finland but a constitutional monarchy that works for countries the size of Scandanavian counties won't work for the US in the governing of states of our number and size.
Had you said Denmark would be a great place to live or preferably retire I probably would have agreed with you. Denmark's a wonderful place where the monarchy (much like Sweden) understands the value of capitalism - which is why Scandanavia in general is trusted with so much of the world's money. But again it's an apples to oranges comparison with the US.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Double post but Scandanavia brings up something interesting. Socialists and capitalists can co-exist quite efficiently so long as socialists keep in mind that they're funded by capitalists and the better the capitalists do, the better they do - much like a landlord would do well to wish every single one of his tenants financial success.
This is why I have no problem with my socialist friends being in charge of charities so long as they don't get in my way when it comes to making money to fund their charitable work. That's the perspective you pick up being the child of missionaries turned entrepreneurs who raised you in Belgium for your first couple years.
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
16y
Lets back of for a second and look at the reasons for this debate. We all live under and embrace the essence of capitalism. (Otherwise, we are all free to go somewhere else and live. Right?) The difference between those who accept it as if it was the holly bible and those who criticize it, is that the embracers think that the system is perfect ideologically and practically and there is nothing to change or improve. They believe that Capitalism is the best system that fit human nature.
Those who criticize it and want to change or modify it, believe that the system is by no means perfect and maybe if we learn from history, we'll be able to modify it so we will not loose it to a detrimental collapse as other economic systems experienced.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:
They believe that Capitalism is the best system that fit human nature.
Those who criticize it and want to change or modify it, believe that the system is by no means perfect and maybe if we learn from history, we'll be able to modify it so we will not loose it to a detrimental collapse as other economic systems experienced.
To take this a step further, even the purest capitalists support some socialist ideas. Public education is a socialist idea, but most people wouldn't argue against the provision of government-funded education.
Does that mean that someone who supports public education is a socialist? Of course not...
Just like someone who believes that all people are entitled to health care isn't necessarily a socialist...
Just like anything, there's a spectrum. I don't think there is anyone who believes that nothing should be funded by the government (that's the far opposite extreme of socialism), so everyone is socialistic to some degree. In fact, paying taxes at all is a socialist concept.
But, that doesn't mean that you have to be against the idea of paying any taxes to not be considered socialist.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Mike M:
As a side note, I wonder how much MONEY Michael Moore has made on his movies? Darn Capitalism!!!!
There are people on this forum who think government subsidized housing is a horrible, socialistic thing, but are collecting Section 8 rents every month...
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:
Those who criticize it and want to change or modify it, believe that the system is by no means perfect and maybe if we learn from history, we'll be able to modify it so we will not loose it to a detrimental collapse as other economic systems experienced.
That's just it Eddie. If you "change" or "modify" Capitalism....it's no longer Capitalism. There is nothing wrong with using some principles of Socialism to maintain a decent/compassionate society but the Socialists MUST be controlled and must be prioritized behind keeping the system running and it's Capitalism that keeps the system running. Socialists out of control would sell parts of the machine to buy cookies for the workers - and leave the workers without a working machine tomorrow. The central point of the debate is Michael Moore is wrong - Capitalism is not the enemy. Socialism can't survive without Capitalism. Last I saw the US wasn't receiving any foreign aid packages from socialist countries.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by J Scott:
There are people on this forum who think government subsidized housing is a horrible, socialistic thing, but are collecting Section 8 rents every month...
Does that make them as bad as Michael Moore?
Frankly if the socialists let tenants keep more of their take home pay we wouldn't need Section 8 to begin with.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
16y
Stick to the subject J, "Is Michael Moore making PROFIT by railing against Capitalism?"
Absolutely. 100%.
Just like doctors who rail against greedy insurance company practices, but then get rich by treating customers of those insurance companies.
Just like teachers who get angry that our educational system sucks, but then continue to make money by teaching.
Just like lawyers who rail against the parts of our legal system that don't work, but then make lots of money by being part of that legal system.
Just like a slumlord I know who owns about 2000 units, many of them Section 8. He makes millions each year off Section 8, but rails against government welfare.
Just like every employee who hates their boss and their company, but continue to work there to earn their living.
In fact, it's just like Glenn Beck, who used to rail against the media (before he was part of it), but now he makes tens of millions of dollars being part of that same system he railed against.
Should I go on? Just because you question something doesn't mean you can't profit from it at the same time...
If you spend a couple minutes thinking about it, hopefully you'll understand why it's really not a big issue...unless you are trying to make it one.
Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
I know what you mean J. I am totally against the "Clash for Clunkers" program, but if it helps my child get a car, I think it's great! Isn't life a biotch!!! :D
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Mike M:
I know what you mean J. I am totally against the "Clash for Clunkers" program, but if it helps my child get a car, I think it's great! Isn't life a biotch!!! :D
That's a really great example!
Just like personally, I'm 100% against the $8000 Home Buyer Tax Credit (I think it's ridiculous for our government to be throwing money at our economic problems), but as an investor, I'm not going to stop profiting from it!
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
16y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
Originally posted by J Scott:
There are people on this forum who think government subsidized housing is a horrible, socialistic thing, but are collecting Section 8 rents every month...
Does that make them as bad as Michael Moore?
Frankly if the socialists let tenants keep more of their take home pay we wouldn't need Section 8 to begin with.
Actually, by definition they would. They just take more from the rich.
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
16y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
That's just it Eddie. If you "change" or "modify" Capitalism....it's no longer Capitalism. There is nothing wrong with using some principles of Socialism to maintain a decent/compassionate society
First, as much as some of us want it, we do not live in a pure capitalistic society so in essence Capitalism in it's pure form is gone, never to return. With regard to "using some principles of Socialism to maintain a decent/compassionate society' Where do you draw the line? My definition of "decent/compassionate society" maybe different than yours. The fact of the matter is that the reasons for "injecting" socialist value into our society shows that capitalism in its pure form doesn't stand a chance. The word "Social" derived from Society and being a member of society, an individual does not live in a vacuum.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:
With regard to "using some principles of Socialism to maintain a decent/compassionate society' Where do you draw the line?
10-15% of collected revenue, which at the federal level last year gives them a budget of a little over 267 to 400 Billion. Socialism is a country's marketing program and as we're not an international banking center like Scandanavia with a small geography and population, we can't afford to invest the same percentage of money into our "image" to keep up foreign investor confidence.
Now if an individual state has a different need for their marketing and can attract sufficient foreign income they can do as they like. I can respect states' rights.