Is capitalism superior to socialism?

I disagree. Yes the debt continued to increase, but Obama had little power to stop it. He tried the best he could, and if one looks at the numbers objectively we can see that Obama tried pretty darn hard to lower the deficits until the end. The economy is like a huge train, that you cant stop or even slow down very easily. So when you come in and the economy is losing 800,000 jobs PER MONTH... you cant do much about it. But, Obama left office with much lower unemployment numbers, a deficit that was going down, and years of constant job gains. Something like 16 million jobs were created under Obama since the end of the recession in 2010.

These charts say it all:

Within a year of Obama taking office the massive bleeding of jobs that he inherited stopped, and we then had job grown all the way until his term ended.

If it wasnt for Obama we'd probably also have lost the auto industry, with many Republicans (including Trump) saying that they wanted the auto companies to just go bankrupt. But after Obama bailed them out, they became some of the most productive and profitable companies in the country, employing millions of Americans. The Republicans would have let that entire industry collapse and handed those jobs to the Europeans, Japanese, and Korean auto companies.

Now, before you come back and argue that Ford should not have allowed a car that would have killed a single person, please be consistent and apply that logic to the Federal government. The Department of Transportation builds highways and roads that it knows drivers will inevitably die on.

There is a critical difference here that is simple, but you don't seem to notice. Car accidents happen and that is just a fact of life. It is impossible to build a car, or a road that will not possibly be involved in the death of human beings. People will die in any car, on any road. That isn't the issue here. The issue is that Ford knew that they put out a defective product that was not safe and had the potential to cause an inordinate amount of deaths specifically because of a design flaw. Instead of fixing that flaw that they were fully aware of, they chose to put a dangerous product on the market that they calculated would result in hundreds of additional deaths.

They build bike lanes, like in DC, that they statistically know will result in more deaths than if they banned bicycles in urban environments.

Again, this is a completely different tangent. You're talking about something that is completely different than what happened in the Ford Pinto case. You aren't talking about putting a defective and dangerous product out on the market.

There are people who cannot afford cars and are 100% dependent upon bicycles to get to work, to school, and to other destinations such as stores and banks. I should know, I am one. I bike everywhere, not only because I choose to for the health and environmental benefits, but also because I cannot afford a car and all the costs that come with it such as insurance, parking, maintenance, etc. You might as well ban cars if you want to reduce deaths from accidents, but that is of course completely unfeasible. This is fundamentally a different issue than pushing a defective product to market.

Governments send people to war and know that some will die. A Secretary of State refuses to allow help and aid be sent to a US embassy knowing that it will likely result in death. Some government officials destroy 35,000 emails that are under FOIA requests being kept illegally on private servers in their bathroom and claim they did nothing wrong too. Governments give guns to Mexican cartels and lie about it, knowing that some of those guns may even kill other government workers. Some government officials ask FBI directors to help sway elections and call investigations "matters", even though it is obstruction. Some government officials lie about whether or not you will be able to keep your current health care provider and doctor to advance their agenda.

Absolutely none of this has to do with the Ford Pinto case. None of this has to do with the fact that under a capitalist system where profit seeking is given the utmost importance, human lives are treated as expendable. Cutting corners and You're trying to build a strawman to divert attention away from the fact that your original claim that corporations can regulate themselves has been exposed as utterly wrong.

Again, I keep pointing this out - just because someone works in the government does not mean they are more moral and righteous than someone who works in the private sector.

Another strawman. You can keep pointing it out all you want, it isn't addressing anything I am saying. I never said anything of the sort, or even implied one type of worker is more ethical/moral than another. That is frankly ridiculous.

I said companies in a capitalist system cannot be counted upon to regulate themselves because the profit motive and the very structure of capitalism leads them to make decisions based upon what is most profitable, even if that means destroying the environment, screwing over their workers, or putting defective and dangerous products on the market. It isn't the people, it is the system. The system that people are acting within shapes the decisions and options available to them. The capitalist system inherently externalizes important social factors such as human life and the environment and prioritizes the production of profit.

People in the private sector are much more immediately accountable for their actions though.

Are they? I would say both sides have a disturbing lack of accountability that is hard to distinguish between. There are bad people, who do bad things and do not face the consequences for it on both sides of the divide. You could spend all day throwing different examples back in forth. Again, the difference is that a capitalist system isn't a blank slate, its structure inherently promotes decisions like that which was made with the Ford Pinto.

I'm not arguing that some business men never cut corners. But if they get caught doing wrong, not only will the government punish them but their customers will leave them. Power corrupts people. Ever tried to get a government guy fired? Trust me, its hard to fire a government employee even with mass amounts of evidence. Have you ever heard about that guy from the DC council who refused to take a bribe? Me neither. Its commonly laughed about in the district about how you can't run for DC public office unless you have a least two felony convictions for bribery. Having a single felony conviction means you are not yet qualified to be on the council.

You're arguing that businesses can and should be trusted to regulate themselves, which the history of capitalism has taught us is incorrect. As entertaining as this paragraph is it I could pull out just as many examples of misconduct in the private sector. Again, we could go back and forth with our own examples of corruption and misconduct all day. We could trade cases about rich men who didn't face justice for their crimes all day. The point remains that yes, people are easily corruptible, and yes power corrupts, but the very foundation of capitalism encourages the pursuit of profit over the health, security, and welfare of society, individuals within society, and the environment.

Regarding the coal mining incident you mentioned. Again, you absolve the government of negligence and only blame the coal company. As someone from coal country, let me tell you that government officials do regularly inspect mines. It is not uncommon to find minor violations, its practically impossible given how the rules are stated, nor would it be hard to find minor violations at a restaurant by a health inspector that still gets an A rating. So to say that all violations are equal is BS. If the violations were serious and overlooked by the government officials, or if non compliance was not acted on, then the government bears some responsibility.

Of course the government bears responsibility, but that isn't helping your argument that corporations can and should be trusted to regulate themselves. You are trying to argue that corporations don't need to be regulated and will regulate themselves by admitting that the company in question did not regulate itself, and then trying to pass off the blame at the government regulators insufficient enforcement. You may or may not be correct, but your argument only reinforces my point.

Furthermore, in this case one superintendent was found guilty of "conspiring to 'impede the [MSHA]'s enforcement efforts'". The company CEO was convicted in 2015 of conspiring to willfully violate safety standards. This doesn't sound like companies can regulate themselves. Not only did this company utterly fail to regulate themselves, but they knowingly and purposely attempted to undermine the work of those trying to enforce regulations. Doesn't sound like I would trust them, but maybe you're a little more trusting than me...

Prior to this incident they were cited for 1,342 infractions of safety regulations in the preceding 5 years, totaling $382,000 in fines. Two men also lost their lives at this mine in the 8 years preceding the explosion. Clearly they are not capable of regulating themselves as you seem to believe. Despite the company's track record of poor safety they continued seeing profits and employing workers. None of this would lead any logical, rational thinker to believe that corporations can regulate themselves.

Why do you believe that people in government with power are more honest and noble, than the guy who is running a business?

I don't. I never said this. You can look through my entire posting history and you will never once see me make that claim. It's called a strawman. If you are not familiar with what a strawman is, allow me.

"The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition and the subsequent refutation of that false argument instead of the opponent's proposition."

You know that my criticism of your claim was correct and that you could not defeat my actual argument, so you replaced it with another one that I did not advance that was easily refuted. You originally claimed that companies could be counted on to regulate themselves because they have a strong interest in regulating themselves. This claim is not borne out by the history of capitalism and is not supported by real world experience. My argument refuted your claim, and you responded by creating a different fictitious argument that was easier for you to deal with.

People do not make decisions in a vacuum. Every decision they make, every opportunity or option available to them is determined by the totality of larger societal forces. The structure of capitalism itself externalizes issues like the environment, worker health, and product safety while prioritizing profit. This is a simple fact, supported by mountains of evidence. I am not saying that people in the private sector are inherently bad or less ethical. I am saying that capitalism itself is a corrupting force that by virtue of its most basic premise encourages the prioritization of profit over everything else. Furthermore, much of the corruption within government can be directly attributed to capitalism. If a company bribes a Senator to pass a law that benefits that company, capitalism is the root of that corruption. Companies having as much sway as they do in the government to promote their own profit over what is best for all of society is a result of capitalism.

@just_sayin

@willpayton: diverting attention away from my point, which was the debt increased a lot due to his reckless spending.

I did address the debt issue. Like I said, the debt rose so much mainly because Obama inherited a cratering economy and multiple wars. All that needs to be paid for. Also, a President's first year's budget is set by the previous President. Given all the payments to interest on the debt, non-discretionary spending, the wars, and the needed stimulus spending, there was not very much that Obama could do. He basically did as much as he could do to lower the deficits... which is how you eventually get to a balanced budget.

@willpayton: doesn't help that his last term had the second largest deficit in his eight years of office. If he inherited a financial problem, he sure didn't do a thing to manage it, and still spent more than Bush by quite a lot.

Obama pretty much reduced the deficit as a percent of GDP since it topped out at 2009, which was the budget he inherited from Bush Jr and was due to the massive financial meltdown that Bush left him.

2016 did bump up a bit, but the projected deficit for 2017 (has Obama budget) is 2.9% which is lower than 2016, and lower than the average deficits for the last 40 years which is around 3.2%.

So the claim that Obama didnt do anything to manage the deficit is clearly false just from looking at the data. And the claim that Bush somehow was better is ridiculously false, since that large peak in that graph above is that budget deficit that Bush left him. When Bush left office the economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month.

Bush Jr tanked the economy then left Obama to deal with it.

@willpayton: he increased the 10 trillion in debt by almost another 10 million in his two terms, he didn't get 9 Trillion in his first year which means when his spending and financial opinions led to a much more severe problem. I can't post graphs on my phone so I will have to wait for when I get home from my vacation.

@edamame: well it is shorter than a socialist permanent vacation at the expense of capitalist.

Reminder Fidel Castro died on a Black Friday :P

AHEM!

Socialism only works when humans are not present.

Ask anyone from an actually "socialist" country what socialism does to the economy you brainwashed college Marxists

Venezuelan Bolivar still worth less than World of War craft Gold last I checked

Yup.

This thread is making me loose faith in humanity

Hell no! Capitalism is horrible & only beneficial to greedy selfish ass holes. With Socialism you get what you give, with Capitalism you get more than you've really worked for or deserve.

In a capitalist society those who work the hardest make the least & those who make the most do little to nothing.

I'll admit socialism can only function properly on a small scale within an individual state or community so maybe a combination of both is ideal, use socialist policies within a state or community & capitalist policies when dealing from state to state or province to province or whatever.

Let me put it this way. The average annual income of a Cattle Rancher in the US is in the ball park of $65,000

The average annual income of an Insurance CEO in the US is in the ball park of $10,000,000 or more

But in a socialist society they wouldn't need insurance.

Yes

A combination of the two is probably the best solution.

That depends on the surrounding conditions. For the last hundred years for example, capitalism was superior.

It is strange to see this question through various opinions and different semantics

In Canada we don't regard Socialism as the opposite of Capitalism, more like socialism is the opposite of fascism and communism is the opposite of capitalism. Most Canadian politicians whether left or right are socialist in terms of social policy and capitalist in terms of economic policy.

With that said though, the USA doesn't seem to learn from its mistakes a lot of time, and socialism is decent proof of that. If offered the possibility of moving to the USA I would take a pass and stay with the polar bears and igloos.

Why wouldn't they need insurance?

Also, I'm laughing if you think a CEO of a massive company either doesn't work when they go to work, or that they didn't work to get there. Seriously, people massively underestimate how much CEO and various other C suite individuals do/have to do to get and keep their jobs. I've never bet one that doesn't have at least 2 degrees.

Seems like you know the obvious here but still want to prove the other way; if a lot of the cases, they haven't worked hard to get there and hard work alone will usually never get you there; just think of getting a promotion at a large company; you can work your butt off but everyone isn't going to get that promotion, and that's exactly like a CEO; both luck/blessings from some source, hopefully God, in some cases and hard work will get you there, but, if you knew what you were trying to say and suggesting that there will be as many CEOs as people with a college degree, than you need to go learn better; people who make this type of argument are also the people who suggest that African Americans, especially those who also have to contend with discrimination based on looks and perceived disability, are not facing a facially oppressive system but rather are lazy and avoid hard work, in all the cases where they are impoverished.

I think that a society to is socialist leaning, but really capitalistic would be the idea system and most consistent with Christianity; or basically, work hard, but find ways to help the less fortunate instead of looking to look down your noise on people for being poor; and, thing about it, that's actually producing an unnecessarily far less efficient type of society; basically, this society and improve and modernize the ideas of FDR and LBJ, mostly by Congress just simply deciding to catch up with the courts in terms of workers' rights laws and Title VII, and extending protections to job applicants, as the most heavily focused of the efforts; Title VII would need a slight amendment by making it legal, officially, at the federal level, to discriminate based on looks and perceived disability; and, than, with this, extend funding to substantially increase the number of judges in the courts and administrative agencies like the EEOC, where perhaps a separate agency would be created as an arm from the EEOC for cases of discrimination based on looks; and, naturally, the laws would be created to hinder the ability or necessity for courts to create guidances like creating a prima facie case of discrimination, when it is clearly getting to the point of becoming mechanistic or has become mechanistic, as a way of making it hard for worker's to prove their cases and get the justice that they're clearly entitled to be receiving; the burden and hardship should be shifted where it belongs, and that's to companies, especially those that have become multi billion dollar companies, as well as state and federal agencies; don't want to be faced with a problem, simply don't have plans to treat someone unfairly.

And, with this, laws and policies would be put in place for the extension of protections for entrepreneurials so that it would become much easier to start a business; loans with 100% funding for projects would become required and would be much easier to obtain, provided you've earned certification of some sort, but the current ways of creating a small business would be still in place, and made much easier on those wishing to create their own business; just put something in place like a trial period and someone who isn't being the most responsible with funding and loans would be band from using it; but, as in the current system, no one is prevented from extending private loans to those sorts of people.

That way, fairness and hospitality at companies would literally become competition of sorts; so, a big company being brought down by increased law suits would be replaced by smaller company's that follow the worker's rights laws and are fair to people who apply and seek and opportunity; this could also counter the treat of a company shifting most of their resources outside the United States; in response, they'd just get replaced by a number of small businesses that grow; company's that have shifted their resources due to a history of workers' rights law suits would be penalized by tariffs and the such.

Maybe.

Capitalism & Mining VS. Socialism & Mining

Capitalism

The mine is owned by a single individual who gets filthy rich without doing any actual mining himself & rather than pay the miners in gold or actual money he pays them in tokens that can only be spent in the general store he owns so then unions are formed & battles ensue & people die because of capitalism & one man unimaginable greed & sense of entitlement.

Of course things have change & it's up to the prospector to strike a deal with the claim owner but it's still stupid & unfair practice that the claim owner can take up to half when it's the miners risking their lives because he owns the land he likely acquired through unfair practices. It's total bullshit that one person would even be allowed to own vast swaths of land he doesn't really need, he's just simply that greedy, although there are states like Montana that don't allow shit like that.

Socialism

The mine is owned by those who actually work it & at the end of the day everyone gets their fair equal share. Now doesn't that sound much better?

Because although taxes may be much higher stuff like heath care & education are free & crap like car & homeowners insurance is just a scam anyway.

In every possible way.

Fact is, almost all the benefits of modern life (cell phones, computers, cars, etc.) did not come about through taxation, or through government regulation. They came about through men who had one goal in mind; money. The list of inventions that came about through socialism vs the list of things that came about through capitalism is overwhelmingly skewed in favor of capitalism.

You do have a pretty good point there I guess although I personally wouldn't consider cell phones & cars as good examples but advances in medical science & the computers needed to do so are great examples. I can agree with that but I nonetheless still favor socialism.

Yes, because capitalism works better than anything else, and socialism is terrible.

@i_like_swords: ILS...d-do we actually agree on something????

@banthabot: It appears so!

This is basically saying freedom(Capitalism) V.s. equality(Socialism)

History would certainly indicate as much.

Anarcho-Capitalism is the only real free and fair economic system.

@i_like_swords: You an Ancap 'Swords? Or is this just mockery :)

@chingchangwalla: I am a proponent of ancapistan, indeed.

@i_like_swords: Ooo this is exciting, I really like ILS now.

@chingchangwalla: Free the roads!

There is nothing fair about capitalism, its pretence at fairness relies on a (totally false) belief that those who work hard/are talented will be rewarded appropriately which in 90% of cases is not how it actually works.

The worst thing that could have happened for the spread of socialism was the post-Lenin USSR because it too was a thoroughly unjust state and had the “Western” world convinced left-wing politics were dangerous/the enemy. Of course, the ruling class would have insisted that was the case anyway but they really lucked out when the Soviet Union proved to be every bit as bad as they hoped.

Obviously.

@purpleperson: So the problem with Capitalism in your eyes is the government or 'the ruling elite' (we all know who they are)

Welcome to Ancapism son! Where you work hard and get to keep your money!

The USA is Semi-Socialist under Democrats and Crony Capitalist under Republicans, both just as bad so why not get rid of it all?

@purpleperson:

There is nothing fair about capitalism, its pretence at fairness relies on a (totally false) belief that those who work hard/are talented will be rewarded appropriately which in 90% of cases is not how it actually works.

The way capitalism works is an exchange of value between two parties. Party 1 has a product, party 2 has dollars. Party 1 says I want this many dollars for my product, party 2 says okay, I voluntarily give you these dollars.

Party 1 wants the dollars more than the product, party 2 wants the product more than their dollars. Both of them walk out as winners.

In addition, party 1, depending on how complex the product is, likely had to engage in a bit of capitalism on the reverse end to get the product made. They would have to pay workers and suppliers to get the materials and expertise together to create this product. Those people who created that product valued their paycheck over the time spent making it, party 1 valued the creation of the product over their money. Both walk away as winners.

In a free market, if one side is offering a crappy deal, there is this great thing called competition, where 12 other people pop up to offer a better deal, a better product for less money. Then, those parties who provide the best deal garner the most profits and do the best, those who offer crappier deals tend to fail or go bankrupt. Every transaction is voluntary and based on an exchange of value, and that value is agreed upon by the two parties. So to say capitalism is unfair... is only a rational argument in the broadest sense that life is intrinsically unfair. That in life, some people will do better than other people for reasons outside of their control. That isn't something you can regulate without in turn imposing unfair regulations on people and being a fascist.

The whole system relies on people being kept in their place, it actually needs and breeds inequality. Any system where profit > people is not something I can get behind, regardless of whether each individual transaction appears reasonable, sorry.

@purpleperson: So are you suggesting the people at the top inherited their wealth, and didn't have to elevate their economic status to get there? Are you suggesting people of low economic status are there because they are just being "kept in their place", and it couldn't be because they make some poor life decisions? There's of course exceptions in certain cases, but no, I don't accept that capitalism keeps people in their place inherently. I don't understand your reasoning.

It's not to say profits are more valuable than human life. It's to say that people get to choose how much value they place on commodities, currencies, their own time etc. You need to give something to receive something, so that everyone wins, everyone moves up. It's a rejection of parasitism.

@i_like_swords: of course there is some room for social mobility, people can and do change their economic status and those people are to be lauded but they are a lucky few. The reality for the vast majority of people is that you will die in the class you were born. Those born to wealth will have countless advantages over average people and even moreso over impoverished people obviously. But my point really is that the system relies on having workers that are doing just enough to get by and unemployed people who are struggling even more to put pressure on the workforce.

It’s not that profits are more valuable than human life exactly, but that extreme profits for the few are more valuable than comfortable life for the many. And I reject that notion. Look at the environmental issues: businesses and governments don’t want to do what’s best for future generations of people at the expense of their own (already wealthy) pockets. Look at the treatment of living, thinking animals as nothing more than products to be exploited. Does it reject parasitism? I guess so, but like I said it also requires legions of unemployed people who are wrongly vilified for exactly that.

@purpleperson:

The reality for the vast majority of people is that you will die in the class you were born. Those born to wealth will have countless advantages over average people and even moreso over impoverished people obviously.

How do you reconcile the fact that the "rich people" who come from rich backgrounds tend to multiply their wealth, whereas the vast majority of people who win the lottery piss all of their money away and end up poor? Just asserting that wealth breeds inequality isn't an argument.

But my point really is that the system relies on having workers that are doing just enough to get by and unemployed people who are struggling even more to put pressure on the workforce.

I don't see how capitalism or as you have dubbed it "the system" benefits from people being unemployed, people not producing anything of value. Capitalism does indeed benefit from ordinary workers, because there are lots of ordinary jobs that need doing. The more value your job produces, the more money you will be paid. The more value that you produce, the more you receive.

And you know what else happens when you simply "tax the rich! tax the corporations!"? They take spending out of their employees pay, reduce it as close to the government-appointed minimum wage threshold (which is pitiful) as they can, and reduce their quality of living.

It’s not that profits are more valuable than human life exactly, but that extreme profits for the few are more valuable than comfortable life for the many. And I reject that notion. Look at the environmental issues: businesses and governments don’t want to do what’s best for future generations of people at the expense of their own (already wealthy) pockets.

You seem to think capitalism = multinational corporations and governments. Capitalism rejects crony capitalism, which is what you're describing.

Look at the treatment of living, thinking animals as nothing more than products to be exploited.

Yes, and the animal agriculture industries are propped up by the government, given massive subsidies paid for by the tax payer. These industries would collapse to their debts without these subsidies. Capitalism would reject the idea that people's tax money should go towards bailing out select businesses.

Does it reject parasitism? I guess so, but like I said it also requires legions of unemployed people who are wrongly vilified for exactly that.

I think you're just disillusioned with the current state of affairs and are deciding to blame capitalism for problems it hasn't caused. Many of the issues you're describing are the result of crony capitalism, bribed politicians, government regulations/funding and so on.

I think too many people on this thread are confusing socialism with a communist dictatorship.

You can have democracy in a socialist society. Why do people seem to think socialism=no freedom?

Social Capitalism is the way to go in my book. Let the sucessfull become more sucessfull without the less lucky falling into poverty.

The best system would include aspects of both capitalism and socialism

@i_like_swords:

“How do you reconcile the fact that the "rich people" who come from rich backgrounds tend to multiply their wealth, whereas the vast majority of people who win the lottery piss all of their money away and end up poor? Just asserting that wealth breeds inequality isn't an argument.”

I guess there could be any number of reasons for this. Maybe because they have a constant flow of money rather than just one massive sum that they don’t know what to do with? Not really sure what point you’re making here but I concede that having a lot of money doesn’t guarantee success if that’s what you’re getting at. That doesn’t mean that capitalism isn’t heavily skewed in favour of the privileged few.

“I don't see how capitalism or as you have dubbed it "the system" benefits from people being unemployed, people not producing anything of value. Capitalism does indeed benefit from ordinary workers, because there are lots of ordinary jobs that need doing. The more value your job produces, the more money you will be paid. The more value that you produce, the more you receive.

And you know what else happens when you simply "tax the rich! tax the corporations!"? They take spending out of their employees pay, reduce it as close to the government-appointed minimum wage threshold (which is pitiful) as they can, and reduce their quality of living.”

Haha, I didn’t mean to keep calling it the system, I just didn’t want to overuse “capitalism.” Anyway, the benefit of the unemployed is that they will be willing to work for low incomes. A worker is in no position to get a raise if there are millions of people who can and will replace them for the same or lower income.

Your other points are salient, I’m not saying it’s an easy fix.

“You seem to think capitalism = multinational corporations and governments. Capitalism rejects crony capitalism, which is what you're describing.”

I disagree here. Capitalism isn’t just multinational corporations and governments, but they obviously play important roles. I don’t think capitalism can ever free itself completely from crony capitalism. There is always going to be a link between those who have the political power and those who have the financial power in any system, but particularly capitalism. Businesses can and will use their power to influence policy.

“I think you're just disillusioned with the current state of affairs and are deciding to blame capitalism for problems it hasn't caused. Many of the issues you're describing are the result of crony capitalism, bribed politicians, government regulations/funding and so on.”

Maybe capitalism hasn’t caused these issues directly but it is the root cause of them. Maybe these things aren’t a result of pure capitalism but it is what breeds them and they are realities. You may want to say that this is a tainted vision of what capitalism should be, but I don’t see these problems being eradicated anytime soon.

P.S. sorry, I can’t/don’t know how to quote on mobile.