Is being pro-capitalism a conservative position?

Page 2 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

09 Feb 2014, 3:06 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:

The reason wealth is concentrated is because labor unions, socialists, democrats don't want to share the wealth with the very poor people.

Capitalist want free trade that will enrich the world's poor. As shown before, tens of millions of Chinese people are being raised out of poverty by capitalism.

Capitalism is about "sharing the wealth". While socialism is about nationalism, and keeping the wealth for oneself and within one's country.

This is why the labor unions, democrats, socialists want to stop free trade agreements because they don't want to share the wealth.


These are all lies. Under free trade, wealth doesnt 'trickledown', it gravitates to the top.

The wealthy don't share their wealth, they horde it. That is why they are rich. Only socialism shares the wealth.

This is why in the worlds countries hat have liberalised econimies you have a burgeoning majority class of serfs ruled, ostracised and dominated by super wealthy oligarchs. Whether it be from the run down urban deserts of Detroit to the filthy, crowded sky rise tower blocks of Hong Kong and Singapore. The Chinese situation isn't improving in the slightest for the vast majority of Chinese. All that is happening is a huge gap in social divide.


Not lies ... it seems like simple math to me ...

1, Capitalist will take manufacturing jobs to less expensive countries. Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE is famous for saying, "The theoretical best location to build your product is on a ship so you can dock it into whatever country is the least expensive at the time".

2. Jobs taken away from people generally hurt the people they are taken from, and jobs given to people generally help those that get the jobs.

3. This overall results in "wealth sharing". Wealth is transferred from higher cost person A (American person) to lower cost person B (Chinese person).

Capitalist want to share the wealth. I can empathize with the Socialist. They want to hold onto their high paying jobs. I showed above 29 million Americans are the 1% of wage earners in the world. That is 29 million out of 9 billion people. Capitalists will help address that inequality by moving jobs overseas, lowering the standard of living of people in America and raising the living standard of much, much poorer people.


Umm you show a very clear lack of understanding as to what socialism is. Also moving jobs overseas much of the time does NOT result in raising living standards.. there is much neglect of the environment, exploitation of the people who never actually end up seeing an improved quality of life. Perhaps read the book Economic Hit Man or do more reasearch in some of the problems free trade contributes to. Capitalism is sort of a psuedo-survival of the fittest system in which having more wealthy makes you 'fitter' and having less makes you unfit. And you claim Capitalism is about 'sharing the wealth' and Socialism is about essentially greed....think you got things a wee bit backwards.


I read the entire USA socialist party platform and cited in a thread yesterday. You tell me I got it "wrong", but fail to articulate how.

According to your logic ...

IT jobs to India does not result in a higher standard of living for the people who get these jobs?
Ford Motor Company moved their research center to India to hire engineers to develop their future cars that does not raise the standard of living?
Foxcon Chinese workers who build a lot electronics and just got a huge pay raise - those people are worse off now that they got a job ?

You appear to believe that jobs do not raise living standards.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,826
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Feb 2014, 3:12 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:

The reason wealth is concentrated is because labor unions, socialists, democrats don't want to share the wealth with the very poor people.

Capitalist want free trade that will enrich the world's poor. As shown before, tens of millions of Chinese people are being raised out of poverty by capitalism.

Capitalism is about "sharing the wealth". While socialism is about nationalism, and keeping the wealth for oneself and within one's country.

This is why the labor unions, democrats, socialists want to stop free trade agreements because they don't want to share the wealth.


These are all lies. Under free trade, wealth doesnt 'trickledown', it gravitates to the top.

The wealthy don't share their wealth, they horde it. That is why they are rich. Only socialism shares the wealth.

This is why in the worlds countries hat have liberalised econimies you have a burgeoning majority class of serfs ruled, ostracised and dominated by super wealthy oligarchs. Whether it be from the run down urban deserts of Detroit to the filthy, crowded sky rise tower blocks of Hong Kong and Singapore. The Chinese situation isn't improving in the slightest for the vast majority of Chinese. All that is happening is a huge gap in social divide.


Not lies ... it seems like simple math to me ...

1, Capitalist will take manufacturing jobs to less expensive countries. Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE is famous for saying, "The theoretical best location to build your product is on a ship so you can dock it into whatever country is the least expensive at the time".

2. Jobs taken away from people generally hurt the people they are taken from, and jobs given to people generally help those that get the jobs.

3. This overall results in "wealth sharing". Wealth is transferred from higher cost person A (American person) to lower cost person B (Chinese person).

Capitalist want to share the wealth. I can empathize with the Socialist. They want to hold onto their high paying jobs. I showed above 29 million Americans are the 1% of wage earners in the world. That is 29 million out of 9 billion people. Capitalists will help address that inequality by moving jobs overseas, lowering the standard of living of people in America and raising the living standard of much, much poorer people.


Umm you show a very clear lack of understanding as to what socialism is. Also moving jobs overseas much of the time does NOT result in raising living standards.. there is much neglect of the environment, exploitation of the people who never actually end up seeing an improved quality of life. Perhaps read the book Economic Hit Man or do more reasearch in some of the problems free trade contributes to. Capitalism is sort of a psuedo-survival of the fittest system in which having more wealthy makes you 'fitter' and having less makes you unfit. And you claim Capitalism is about 'sharing the wealth' and Socialism is about essentially greed....think you got things a wee bit backwards.


I read the entire USA socialist party platform and cited in a thread yesterday. You tell me I got it "wrong", but fail to articulate how.

According to your logic ...

IT jobs to India does not result in a higher standard of living for the people who get these jobs?
Ford Motor Company moved their research center to India to hire engineers to develop their future cars that does not raise the standard of living?
Foxcon Chinese workers who build a lot electronics and just got a huge pay raise - those people are worse off now that they got a job ?

You appear to believe that jobs do not raise living standards.


I think you missed the point, also show me where in any socialist ideology it implies socialism is about keeping high paying and keeping wealth to yourself rather than sharing/redistributing it? I will humour you and look at their platform and see where it implies they want to keep all the wealth to themselves even though that is entirely contrary to socialism. Also no jobs do not always raise the standard of living...people have to be paid a living wage for that to be a possibility and can you honestly say no foreign workers are exploited and paid next to nothing still keeping them in poverty.


_________________
We won't go back.


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

09 Feb 2014, 3:18 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:

1. The article does not state that those people are capitalists. They could be kings, princes, communist oligarchs, dictators, the King of Brunei, crony-capitalists.

2. Walmart puts American businesses out of business, and provides much, much poorer Chinese people with jobs.

Yes, it will suck. The standard of living in Americans is going to fall dramatically. That is the whole point of "sharing the wealth".

29 million Americans are in the 1% "fat cats" income earners of the world, and all the rest of America is in the top 1/3 of income earners in the world. Yes, it will suck for these 309 million "fat cats" Americans to have to share with the 9 billion people on the world.

Hundreds of millions of people live on only a few dollars per day, and have no car, no phone, none of the multitude of goodies that Americans have.

However, this is humanitarianism and it puts a smile on our face at the end of the day :)


Wow.. just WOW!

I gotta say, you are a master of Orwellian BS.

Bravo.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

09 Feb 2014, 3:20 pm

GivePeaceAChance wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
1. The article does not state that those people are capitalists. They could be kings, princes, communist oligarchs, dictators, the King of Brunei, crony-capitalists.

2. Walmart puts American businesses out of business, and provides much, much poorer Chinese people with jobs.

Yes, it will suck. The standard of living in Americans is going to fall dramatically. That is the whole point of "sharing the wealth".

29 million Americans are in the 1% "fat cats" income earners of the world, and all the rest of America is in the top 1/3 of income earners in the world. Yes, it will suck for these 309 million "fat cats" Americans to have to share with the 9 billion people on the world.

Hundreds of millions of people live on only a few dollars per day, and have no car, no phone, none of the multitude of goodies that Americans have.

However, this is humanitarianism and it puts a smile on our face at the end of the day :)

those people ARE NOT getting any money they are slaves

the monied interests atr the top are getting it ALL - this is Capitalism

the last time I say it you are obviously ignoring facts

No, she is not (although I might like to point out that the latest world population estimate is 7.1 billion, not 9 billion).

Image

Source:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... the-world/

The very rich are getting richer... and the poor are getting richer.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

09 Feb 2014, 3:30 pm

GGPViper wrote:

The very rich are getting richer... and the poor are getting richer.


lovenothate is telling the truth. Capitalists want to share the wealth... They want to share American middle class wealth with the poor of the 3rd world while they hold on to their own!

The tricky bashtids!

:lol:


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,826
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Feb 2014, 3:31 pm

That graph doesn't really say a lot...and 2008 was 6 years ago....yes it implies rising incomes in china, and for the very wealthy. Then the very poorest aren't seeing any improvements and are locked out of growth and the middle class of developed countries is declining...which means more class division as there will soon just be the wealthy and the poor.

I've learned many times to take graphs with a grain of salt.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,826
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Feb 2014, 3:34 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
GGPViper wrote:

The very rich are getting richer... and the poor are getting richer.


lovenothate is telling the truth. Capitalists want to share the wealth... They want to share American middle class wealth with the poor of the 3rd world while they hold on to their own!

The tricky bashtids!

:lol:


Maybe there are capitalists that genuinely want to share the wealth, can't say they don't exist.....but Capitalism is certainly not based on sharing the wealth.


_________________
We won't go back.


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

09 Feb 2014, 3:41 pm

^^^ No, the capitalists don't really care about sharing the wealth. They care about making money. Right now they are making money by strip mining the American middle class. This is also having the effect of making Chinese peasants slightly less poor, but that's just a random side effect.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

09 Feb 2014, 3:42 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
That graph doesn't really say a lot...and 2008 was 6 years ago....yes it implies rising incomes in china, and for the very wealthy. Then the very poorest aren't seeing any improvements and are locked out of growth and the middle class of developed countries is declining...which means more class division as there will soon just be the wealthy and the poor.

I've learned many times to take graphs with a grain of salt.

If you have any data that disprove my conclusions, then I would love to see it.

Until then, I have - at the very least - 500 million reasons why capitalism is good (which is the number of Chinese citizens lifted out of poverty due to capitalism, and more than 1.5 times the entire population of the US).



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

09 Feb 2014, 3:52 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWcsFIxOUKE[/youtube]



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

09 Feb 2014, 4:28 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
^^^ No, the capitalists don't really care about sharing the wealth. They care about making money. Right now they are making money by strip mining the American middle class. This is also having the effect of making Chinese peasants slightly less poor, but that's just a random side effect.

So, the American middle class deserves more attention than the much larger group of Chinese peasants?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,826
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Feb 2014, 4:37 pm

GGPViper wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
^^^ No, the capitalists don't really care about sharing the wealth. They care about making money. Right now they are making money by strip mining the American middle class. This is also having the effect of making Chinese peasants slightly less poor, but that's just a random side effect.

So, the American middle class deserves more attention than the much larger group of Chinese peasants?


I think the point is more, it doesn't do much good to neglect an entire class of people in the U.S to raise the wealth of the chinese poor, that would just lead to more american poor....and that is not a form of wealth distribution that makes any sense. Do you think China is going to want to share the wealth with the poor in america who will grow in numbers due to all the outsourcing of jobs? The best thing to do is find a way to help both without sucking one dry to help the other.


_________________
We won't go back.


TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

09 Feb 2014, 7:28 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:

You appear to believe that jobs do not raise living standards.


And you refused to believe there's a scenario in which they don't, which is so naive I don't even know what to say anymore.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

10 Feb 2014, 4:04 am

Jacoby wrote:
Believing in economic freedom has become conservative because socialists have stolen the term liberal.


Funny, most of these "socialists" who've "stolen the term liberal" would be moderates or even moderate conservatives in most Western countries.

Modern social liberalism, by the way, has a rather non-socialist pedigree.

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


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

10 Feb 2014, 7:03 am

In a world of huts and people starving, disease untreated, there is still the public expense of carting away the dead.

There has never been enough, never will be.

The Conservative view is, "It was that way when I got here."

Capitalists see it the same, but seek to gain the best of labor by paying wages, and ignoring the rest.

Capitalists are the only ones putting more money in circulation, and increasing the overall wealth. More than wages, it is also goods and services produced, that were not available, or at a price that more could afford, which further increased the general wealth.

Capitalists do seek better labor, and pay a living wage. The main limit on Capitalism is a lack of workers that can fill the jobs that are needed to increase output.

A Classic Liberal is about herd management. Pest Houses and Poor Farms remove the non productive, and those that spread disease. The forced education of children does them no good, is an expense on threir parents, that better prepares them for later employment.

Education, food, health care, is spent with the idea that it will produce stronger workers and soldiers in a short time.

The expense is put on current workers, with the employers and government adding more.

It has reduced poverty, disease, increased education, and produced a better skilled workforce.

It's focus is to make the best better. It is Capitalism applied to population.

Neo Liberal wants the same applied to everyone, and someone else to pay for it.

They also want to be paid like a Capitalist to manage this everything to everyone program.

Their view is make the rich to fund it, but at best, taxes are passed along to customers, or taken from workers wages.

Socialists just want to take over Capitalists, enslave them, and force them to make goods for the Masses.

These last two are an economic drag, and are opposed by the very forces that produce wealth.

Worse, half of all US spending is for war, which does nothing for the very people they claim to be helping.

Those same funds left in the pockets of Capitalists and Workers, would be spent many times over through the economy, and would increase it. Capitalists are better able to protect themselves.

This is money that Workers should have invested in Stocks, Bonds, and held as personal wealth.

Neo Liberals steal from Workers, and do not add to production, produce a better workforce, or increase the economy.

Socialism works until you run out of other people's money.

Then it steals from future generations by running up the National Debt. Now the future has less chance of being productive. At normal interest rates, the income of the US Government is barely enough to make the payments on it's debt.

The first thing stolen, Social Security, has to be paid. The second, aid to education, has put the cost of a defective product on the students. Student Loans are a new invention. Next First Graders will have to bring $10,000 the first day of school.

Healthcare seems to be a new tax, on everyone, but we already paid the highest price for the worst healthcare of any developed nation. Now it will cost more, for less service.

Most spending has been for the last six months of life, now people with hopeless medical conditions will get maxium healthcare.

Compared, it would cost much less to provide medical care, food and education to everyone under 25. Raise a healthy generation, health costs go down, production goes up, the economy grows.

Putting Neo Liberals in the Pest House, Work House, Poor Farm, is our best hope. Their income can be applied to the National Debt.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

10 Feb 2014, 10:34 am

Inventor wrote:
In a world of huts and people starving, disease untreated, there is still the public expense of carting away the dead.

There has never been enough, never will be.

Prove it
Quote:
Capitalists are the only ones putting more money in circulation, and increasing the overall wealth. More than wages, it is also goods and services produced, that were not available, or at a price that more could afford, which further increased the general wealth.

Capitalists do seek better labor, and pay a living wage. The main limit on Capitalism is a lack of workers that can fill the jobs that are needed to increase output.

We do not live in a producer side economic system. It's a consumer side one. Busnesses need paying customers.
Quote:
Socialists just want to take over Capitalists, enslave them, and force them to make goods for the Masses.

Who makes the goods? The worker or the capitalist? In socialism the former capitalist becomes a equal rather than a ruler.
Quote:
These last two are an economic drag, and are opposed by the very forces that produce wealth.

You mean the worker and consumer (in capitalism)?



Last edited by RushKing on 11 Feb 2014, 12:04 am, edited 3 times in total.