I prefer the socialist ideals but i don't hate the idea of people owning their own things.
I do hate what capitalism does though, brings out the inherent greed in people and turns them into dickheads.
Why do so many people hate capitalism?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I don't understand what is immoral about setting your own terms for your job offer. If the pay is really so low that humans deserve better, then humans are free to decline the job offer and find another job. If they can't find a job that gives them a "moral" salary, perhaps they're expectations for what they deserve are unrealistic.Laihendi
I dont see how its unreasonable that a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen of a country has the expectation to earn a living wage from a job. Most countries in the world have minimum wages. The level of enforcement and the definition of "liveable" vary greatly among those countries, but they have them for a reason.
Where are you going with this thread?
I prefer the socialist ideals but i don't hate the idea of people owning their own things.
I do hate what capitalism does though, brings out the inherent greed in people and turns them into dickheads.
Ilovegames1992
That's money in general. Physiologists found out that when it comes to money and when thinking about it, people are more self-reliant but also more self-fish.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I don't understand what is immoral about setting your own terms for your job offer. If the pay is really so low that humans deserve better, then humans are free to decline the job offer and find another job. If they can't find a job that gives them a "moral" salary, perhaps they're expectations for what they deserve are unrealistic.XaosII
I dont see how its unreasonable that a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen of a country has the expectation to earn a living wage from a job. Most countries in the world have minimum wages. The level of enforcement and the definition of "liveable" vary greatly among those countries, but they have them for a reason.
Where are you going with this thread?
I don't see what's unreasonable about letting people decide for themselves whether working for sub-minimum wage is something they want to do. I don't see what's unreasonable about hiring workers who meet your specifications (e.g. being willing to work for the price you set).
I don't see what's unreasonable about letting people decide for themselves whether working for sub-minimum wage is something they want to do. I don't see what's unreasonable about hiring workers who meet your specifications (e.g. being willing to work for the price you set).Laihendi
Because a race to the bottom is the easiest way to destroy a stable system.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I don't see what's unreasonable about letting people decide for themselves whether working for sub-minimum wage is something they want to do. I don't see what's unreasonable about hiring workers who meet your specifications (e.g. being willing to work for the price you set).XaosII
Because a race to the bottom is the easiest way to destroy a stable system.
Something tells me he's never heard of Company Towns. There's a reason the old song goes:
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
Capitalism has its flaws? Sure. But it's the most beautiful system we've come up with to date.
Capitalism and Socialism are both nesseccary for a society to work. You cannot have one without the other, doing so would be disasterous.
People that claim they hate capitalism are hypocrites, they still shop at stores, they still wear name brand products and clothes, capitalism gives a reason for people to work, to stive to get ahead. It encourages trade which generates wealth and the more people trade the less they fight, ideas and information are introduced and mixed. Capatilism is benefical to society.
If you buy a product from a mom and pop store your supporting not only the owners but also the manufacturer, which in turn gives them money so they can buy more things, perhaps from the company you work for, which in turn gives you money and keeps you employed. It's a cycle. It also encourages competition, if there was only one car maker the car could be an over priced pice of sh!t but you would have no choice but to drive it. Because of Capatilism there are multiple cars and the consumer get's the better end of the deal because people are allowed to make and improve things for a profit. People who are against capatilism are anti-progress.
Conversly, people who say they are against Socialism are hypocrites too. Schools, police, fire departments, Social Security ect....are all products of socialism and are nesseccary for our survival. Without them people would die and society would fall apart, imagine for instance if there was no socialised school systems.Our society wouldn't progress, we would go backwards and have a bunch of uneducated kids who would then in turn become uneducated adults and not be able to compete with the rest of the world. There would be no new inventions, no new authort or poets, no new Doctors to discover cures. Our society would collapse.
So as you can see, we need both. We are an Eagle and we need two wings to fly, if one is not working then we fall.
Though this is probably a TL;DR post. But it's the truth.
because people aren't altruists. what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another person. as soon as anyone starts looking to acquire personal gain, there is a good chance they will be forced into stepping on somebody else toes. And many people would rather eliminate or absorb the competition all together than co-exist alongside of it. and so the only person who ends up being free is the person that is recognized as the 'owner' of the corporation. And everybody is expected to follow corporate policy, even if that means it's not beneficial to themselves. It's particular bad with middlemen who make themselves a necessary evil. (banks) Trade may not always be regulated by the government, but it's going to be regulated and exploited by somebody else. There is no such thing as a free economy. after all that though. I don't hate capitalism. But I don't love it either, and I don't think it results in any better life for majority of the people on the planet.What is wrong with individuals owning their own things, and choosing what to do with their things? Why can't we all be free (that means economic freedom), and respect the freedom of others? Why do so many people try to control what others do with their money/property?
Laihendi
It's responsible for this monster recession...
It's responsible for this monster recession...
TopTierHustler
No it's not. Government is.
[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]
It's responsible for this monster recession...
airshocker
No it's not. Government is.
pretty sure it was the banks.
ITT: people do not know why the recession stated. The chain of causality could have broken at the government, banking, or consumer level.
Gov't: Did not update regulations to work with new financial tools, encouraged lending via low interest rates and pushed sub prime mortgages.
Banks: Played fast and loose in pursuit of cash and played around with credit rating systems.
Consumers: Bought houses they could not afford.
This is NOT hard to understand, is old news, and shouldn't be argued about.
Because its making us miserable.GazaAli
If it wasn't for capitalism, the Gaza Strip would be powerful and prosperous nation.
[QUOTE="one_plum"]But isn't the later a result of capitalism? Unchecked capitalism, yes. That doesn't mean it can't work as a base. It just means we need to enforce things like antitrust laws, regulations, and preventing conflicts of interest.I think some people confuse capitalism with corporatocracy. I have a problem with the latter.
GazaAli
[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="one_plum"]But isn't the later a result of capitalism? Unchecked capitalism, yes. That doesn't mean it can't work as a base. It just means we need to enforce things like antitrust laws, regulations, and preventing conflicts of interest. Yea sure. Pure capitalism is garbage, and pure socialism is hilarious.I think some people confuse capitalism with corporatocracy. I have a problem with the latter.
mattbbpl
[QUOTE="one_plum"]mhm Why should the government turn down bribes in a system that revolves around greed and exploitative property? Cronyism must be acceptable under capitalist standards.I think some people confuse capitalism with corporatocracy. I have a problem with the latter.
MrPraline
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] But isn't the later a result of capitalism?GazaAliUnchecked capitalism, yes. That doesn't mean it can't work as a base. It just means we need to enforce things like antitrust laws, regulations, and preventing conflicts of interest. Yea sure. Pure capitalism is garbage, and pure socialism is hilarious. Which makes it just sad how negatively people react to suggesting a balance of the two.
ITT: people do not know why the recession stated. The chain of causality could have broken at the government, banking, or consumer level.
Gov't: Did not update regulations to work with new financial tools, encouraged lending via low interest rates and pushed sub prime mortgages.
Banks: Played fast and loose in pursuit of cash and played around with gov't rating systems.
Consumers: Bought houses they could not afford.
This is NOT hard to understand, is old news, and shouldn't be argued about.
coolbeans90
Yep this is correct. They were all responsible, it wasn't one party.
But the banks were even more dumb with giving dumb people loans in the first place. Some people are not meant to have much money beause they can't handle it correctly.
Everyone is at fault.
Conversy, people who say they are against Socialism are hypocrites too. Schools, police, fire departments, Social Security ect....are all products of socialism and are nesseccary for our survival. Without them people would die and society would fall apart, imagine for instance if there was no socialised school systems.Our society wouldn't progress, we would go backwards and have a bunch of uneducated kids who would then in turn become uneducated adults and not be able to compete with the rest of the world. There would be no new inventions, no new authort or poets, no new Doctors to discover cures. Our society would collapse.
So as you can see, we need both. We are an Eagle and we need two wings to fly, if one is not working then we fall.
Though this is probably a TL;DR post. But it's the truth.
ShadowMoses900
Mm... Looks at society today (rankings in math and science, etc)
Yeah we still have that problem. Our current system is a mess so perhaps we should do what the nordic countries do: Give the taxpayer money to the parents and they can decide what school their children go to. If it's going to be a religious or private school, they pay out of their own pockets but dont' have to pay taxes for public schools.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
ITT: people do not know why the recession stated. The chain of causality could have broken at the government, banking, or consumer level.
Gov't: Did not update regulations to work with new financial tools, encouraged lending via low interest rates and pushed sub prime mortgages.
Banks: Played fast and loose in pursuit of cash and played around with gov't rating systems.
Consumers: Bought houses they could not afford.
This is NOT hard to understand, is old news, and shouldn't be argued about.
ShadowMoses900
Yep this is correct. They were all responsible, it wasn't one party.
But the banks were even more dumb with giving dumb people loans in the first place. Some people are not meant to have much money beause they can't handle it correctly.
Everyone is at fault.
The banks weren't dumb. They played the system and made a killing. They were incentivized to do so. Moral hazard, yo.
Our society wouldn't progress, we would go backwards and have a bunch of uneducated kids who would then in turn become uneducated adults and not be able to compete with the rest of the world. There would be no new inventions, no new authort or poets,
ShadowMoses900
This alone is a priceless statement. :lol:
Capitalism is rough around the edges and is ultimately about individuals working together at the expense of Earth and each other. This is because money becomes valued more than our community, morals, and our planet. Since money is so vital to our government and our society, money directly becomes power. And it's been proven time and time again: power simply corrupts.What is wrong with individuals owning their own things, and choosing what to do with their things? Why can't we all be free (that means economic freedom), and respect the freedom of others? Why do so many people try to control what others do with their money/property?
Laihendi
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Conversy, people who say they are against Socialism are hypocrites too. Schools, police, fire departments, Social Security ect....are all products of socialism and are nesseccary for our survival. Without them people would die and society would fall apart, imagine for instance if there was no socialised school systems.Our society wouldn't progress, we would go backwards and have a bunch of uneducated kids who would then in turn become uneducated adults and not be able to compete with the rest of the world. There would be no new inventions, no new authort or poets, no new Doctors to discover cures. Our society would collapse.
So as you can see, we need both. We are an Eagle and we need two wings to fly, if one is not working then we fall.
Though this is probably a TL;DR post. But it's the truth.
leviathan91
Mm... Looks at society today (rankings in math and science, etc)
Yeah we still have that problem. Our current system is a mess so perhaps we should do what the nordic countries do: Give the taxpayer money to the parents and they can decide what school their children go to. If it's going to be a religious or private school, they pay out of their own pockets but dont' have to pay taxes for public schools.
The countries that are ranking higher than the U.S. in education, quality of living, etc. are all more socialized than the U.S, right?[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Our society wouldn't progress, we would go backwards and have a bunch of uneducated kids who would then in turn become uneducated adults and not be able to compete with the rest of the world. There would be no new inventions, no new authort or poets,
Storm_Marine
This alone is a priceless statement. :lol:
Lol typos FTW!
I'm tired and haven't had my caffine this morning yet, leave me alone :P
[QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Conversy, people who say they are against Socialism are hypocrites too. Schools, police, fire departments, Social Security ect....are all products of socialism and are nesseccary for our survival. Without them people would die and society would fall apart, imagine for instance if there was no socialised school systems.Our society wouldn't progress, we would go backwards and have a bunch of uneducated kids who would then in turn become uneducated adults and not be able to compete with the rest of the world. There would be no new inventions, no new authort or poets, no new Doctors to discover cures. Our society would collapse.
So as you can see, we need both. We are an Eagle and we need two wings to fly, if one is not working then we fall.
Though this is probably a TL;DR post. But it's the truth.
KHAndAnime
Mm... Looks at society today (rankings in math and science, etc)
Yeah we still have that problem. Our current system is a mess so perhaps we should do what the nordic countries do: Give the taxpayer money to the parents and they can decide what school their children go to. If it's going to be a religious or private school, they pay out of their own pockets but dont' have to pay taxes for public schools.
The countries that are ranking higher than the U.S. in education, quality of living, etc. are all more socialized than the U.S, right?Yes.
All three of them if we go by the HDI. :|
[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Our society wouldn't progress, we would go backwards and have a bunch of uneducated kids who would then in turn become uneducated adults and not be able to compete with the rest of the world. There would be no new inventions, no new authort or poets,
ShadowMoses900
This alone is a priceless statement. :lol:
Lol typos FTW!
I'm tired and haven't had my caffine this morning yet, leave me alone :P
...I'm not talking about typos....................................
[QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Conversy, people who say they are against Socialism are hypocrites too. Schools, police, fire departments, Social Security ect....are all products of socialism and are nesseccary for our survival. Without them people would die and society would fall apart, imagine for instance if there was no socialised school systems.Our society wouldn't progress, we would go backwards and have a bunch of uneducated kids who would then in turn become uneducated adults and not be able to compete with the rest of the world. There would be no new inventions, no new authort or poets, no new Doctors to discover cures. Our society would collapse.
So as you can see, we need both. We are an Eagle and we need two wings to fly, if one is not working then we fall.
Though this is probably a TL;DR post. But it's the truth.
KHAndAnime
Mm... Looks at society today (rankings in math and science, etc)
Yeah we still have that problem. Our current system is a mess so perhaps we should do what the nordic countries do: Give the taxpayer money to the parents and they can decide what school their children go to. If it's going to be a religious or private school, they pay out of their own pockets but dont' have to pay taxes for public schools.
The countries that are ranking higher than the U.S. in education, quality of living, etc. are all more socialized than the U.S, right?And yet they spend less on education and allow more competition as in they allow the parents to pick whatever school they like.
[QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Conversy, people who say they are against Socialism are hypocrites too. Schools, police, fire departments, Social Security ect....are all products of socialism and are nesseccary for our survival. Without them people would die and society would fall apart, imagine for instance if there was no socialised school systems.Our society wouldn't progress, we would go backwards and have a bunch of uneducated kids who would then in turn become uneducated adults and not be able to compete with the rest of the world. There would be no new inventions, no new authort or poets, no new Doctors to discover cures. Our society would collapse.
So as you can see, we need both. We are an Eagle and we need two wings to fly, if one is not working then we fall.
Though this is probably a TL;DR post. But it's the truth.
KHAndAnime
Mm... Looks at society today (rankings in math and science, etc)
Yeah we still have that problem. Our current system is a mess so perhaps we should do what the nordic countries do: Give the taxpayer money to the parents and they can decide what school their children go to. If it's going to be a religious or private school, they pay out of their own pockets but dont' have to pay taxes for public schools.
The countries that are ranking higher than the U.S. in education, quality of living, etc. are all more socialized than the U.S, right?Not nessecarily, there are many other factors involved. Switzerland for instance, probably the most capitalist society there is, has a very good education system.
It can be part of culture as well, South Korea has a very good education system, but most of their money actually goes to the military like ours do. But in their cultures (and Asian cultures in general) they value education. They have much respect for teachers, the way kids act to their teachers here (talking back ect....) is unheard of there.
I think it has to do with a combination of lack of funidng for our schools, a broken education system (IMO the whole thing needs to be changed), and more importantly a cuture that does not value it. I see more people interested in crap shows like Jersey Shore and not a National Geographic documentary or something.
I am afraid we will reach a point where people will no longer want to read books anymore. Of course it's not how much you read, it's what you read.
[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]
It's responsible for this monster recession...
airshocker
No it's not. Government is.
I hear that often. I'm assuming you mean too much regulation caused this?Capitalism and Socialism are both nesseccary for a society to work. You cannot have one without the other, doing so would be disasterous.
People that claim they hate capitalism are hypocrites, they still shop at stores, they still wear name brand products and clothes, capitalism gives a reason for people to work, to stive to get ahead.
This is like saying slavery gives people a reason to work, capitalism forces people to work for bosses due to the threat of starvation. We shop because we are traped within the capitalist system and are forced to partake in it.
It encourages trade which generates wealth and the more people trade the less they fight, ideas and information are introduced and mixed. Capatilism is benefical to society.
Ideas and information are often suppressed by bosses or hiden from the public, have you heard of "intellectual property"?
If you buy a product from a mom and pop store your supporting not only the owners but also the manufacturer, which in turn gives them money so they can buy more things, perhaps from the company you work for, which in turn gives you money and keeps you employed.
Free markets are not democracies, a dollar can not count as a vote if some have have more than others.
It's a cycle. It also encourages competition, if there was only one car maker the car could be an over priced pice of sh!t but you would have no choice but to drive it.
Top down hierarchys are not required for competition and efficiency. What if multiple cooperatives competed with each other?
Because of Capatilism there are multiple cars and the consumer get's the better end of the deal because people are allowed to make and improve things for a profit. People who are against capatilism are anti-progress.
Capitalism is not required for progress, direct democracy and self management would let everyone share their ideas and thoughts in the workplace.ShadowMoses900
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Conversy, people who say they are against Socialism are hypocrites too. Schools, police, fire departments, Social Security ect....are all products of socialism and are nesseccary for our survival. Without them people would die and society would fall apart, imagine for instance if there was no socialised school systems.Our society wouldn't progress, we would go backwards and have a bunch of uneducated kids who would then in turn become uneducated adults and not be able to compete with the rest of the world. There would be no new inventions, no new authort or poets, no new Doctors to discover cures. Our society would collapse.
So as you can see, we need both. We are an Eagle and we need two wings to fly, if one is not working then we fall.
Though this is probably a TL;DR post. But it's the truth.
leviathan91
Mm... Looks at society today (rankings in math and science, etc)
Yeah we still have that problem. Our current system is a mess so perhaps we should do what the nordic countries do: Give the taxpayer money to the parents and they can decide what school their children go to. If it's going to be a religious or private school, they pay out of their own pockets but dont' have to pay taxes for public schools.
Your idea is a sound one, it does have some pros to it. For one it would encourage competition between schools, thus making schools have to improve their quality. As it stands now, schools and many teachers (not all) do not have to improve because they will always get money and can't get fired (teachers union and all that). It doesn't matter if the kids are learning or not, they will always get money and won't feel the need to improve.
Your idea is similar to one known as a school voucher program. But that also has cons. IMO the best thing to do is to get away with the current system, when I was in school (I'm 22 now) I remember just doing a lot of pointless homework. If I knew the material why do I have to do this homework? It isn't teaching me anything new. So why do it? I learned more from watching the discover channel and going to the library than I ever did fromt he class room it'self.
We need educators, not teachers. There is a difference. We need to make kids want to learn, make it interesting for them. Teach them to be criticle thinkers, challenge them, not this crap where you just roll over and do the work. The way it works currently, you could be a kid in school and know the whole material, score perfect on the tests, but still fail the class because you didn't do the homework.
That says it's not about education, it's just about how much you work.
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
ITT: people do not know why the recession stated. The chain of causality could have broken at the government, banking, or consumer level.
Gov't: Did not update regulations to work with new financial tools, encouraged lending via low interest rates and pushed sub prime mortgages.
Banks: Played fast and loose in pursuit of cash and played around with gov't rating systems.
Consumers: Bought houses they could not afford.
This is NOT hard to understand, is old news, and shouldn't be argued about.
Abbeten
Yep this is correct. They were all responsible, it wasn't one party.
But the banks were even more dumb with giving dumb people loans in the first place. Some people are not meant to have much money beause they can't handle it correctly.
Everyone is at fault.
The banks weren't dumb. They played the system and made a killing. They were incentivized to do so. Moral hazard, yo.They were dumb and did not see the sh!t coming. They were incentivized to take risk, but it did not pan out as planned. Moral hazards being what they are, they were bailed out by the government, but they couldn't have been absolutely certain that would have been the case, and ultimately they risked being nationalized.
[QUOTE="leviathan91"]
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Conversy, people who say they are against Socialism are hypocrites too. Schools, police, fire departments, Social Security ect....are all products of socialism and are nesseccary for our survival. Without them people would die and society would fall apart, imagine for instance if there was no socialised school systems.Our society wouldn't progress, we would go backwards and have a bunch of uneducated kids who would then in turn become uneducated adults and not be able to compete with the rest of the world. There would be no new inventions, no new authort or poets, no new Doctors to discover cures. Our society would collapse.
So as you can see, we need both. We are an Eagle and we need two wings to fly, if one is not working then we fall.
Though this is probably a TL;DR post. But it's the truth.
ShadowMoses900
Mm... Looks at society today (rankings in math and science, etc)
Yeah we still have that problem. Our current system is a mess so perhaps we should do what the nordic countries do: Give the taxpayer money to the parents and they can decide what school their children go to. If it's going to be a religious or private school, they pay out of their own pockets but dont' have to pay taxes for public schools.
Your idea is a sound one, it does have some pros to it. For one it would encourage competition between schools, thus making schools have to improve their quality. As it stands now, schools and many teachers (not all) do not have to improve because they will always get money and can't get fired (teachers union and all that). It doesn't matter if the kids are learning or not, they will always get money and won't feel the need to improve.
Your idea is similar to one known as a school voucher program. But that also has cons. IMO the best thing to do is to get away with the current system, when I was in school (I'm 22 now) I remember just doing a lot of pointless homework. If I knew the material why do I have to do this homework? It isn't teaching me anything new. So why do it? I learned more from watching the discover channel and going to the library than I ever did fromt he class room it'self.
We need educators, not teachers. There is a difference. We need to make kids want to learn, make it interesting for them. Teach them to be criticle thinkers, challenge them, not this crap where you just roll over and do the work. The way it works currently, you could be a kid in school and know the whole material, score perfect on the tests, but still fail the class because you didn't do the homework.
That says it's not about education, it's just about how much you work.
Perhaps we should do away with standardized testing. As for teachers, there are those who suggest that only teachers with master degress (top of their class/game/whatever you want to call it) should be allowed to teach. Don't know what you think about it but personally, I think teaching is innate. As long as you're skilled and knowledgable in the subject and are able to prove it, I think they should be allowed to teach.
As for raising standards, I'm not entirely sure about it. Lets face it, there are kids out there that don't want to learn and their parents don't even care or know about it.
The banks weren't dumb. They played the system and made a killing. They were incentivized to do so. Moral hazard, yo.[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Yep this is correct. They were all responsible, it wasn't one party.
But the banks were even more dumb with giving dumb people loans in the first place. Some people are not meant to have much money beause they can't handle it correctly.
Everyone is at fault.
coolbeans90
They were dumb and did not see the sh!t coming. They were incentivized to take risk, but it did not pan out as planned. Moral hazards being what they are, they were bailed out by the government, but they couldn't have been absolutely certain that would have been the case, and ultimately they risked being nationalized.
With the size and power of their lobby? Naw. They knew they were too big to fail. And besides, the current system rewards huge short term growth of profit over long term stability.[QUOTE="leviathan91"]
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Conversy, people who say they are against Socialism are hypocrites too. Schools, police, fire departments, Social Security ect....are all products of socialism and are nesseccary for our survival. Without them people would die and society would fall apart, imagine for instance if there was no socialised school systems.Our society wouldn't progress, we would go backwards and have a bunch of uneducated kids who would then in turn become uneducated adults and not be able to compete with the rest of the world. There would be no new inventions, no new authort or poets, no new Doctors to discover cures. Our society would collapse.
So as you can see, we need both. We are an Eagle and we need two wings to fly, if one is not working then we fall.
Though this is probably a TL;DR post. But it's the truth.
ShadowMoses900
Mm... Looks at society today (rankings in math and science, etc)
Yeah we still have that problem. Our current system is a mess so perhaps we should do what the nordic countries do: Give the taxpayer money to the parents and they can decide what school their children go to. If it's going to be a religious or private school, they pay out of their own pockets but dont' have to pay taxes for public schools.
Your idea is a sound one, it does have some pros to it. For one it would encourage competition between schools, thus making schools have to improve their quality. As it stands now, schools and many teachers (not all) do not have to improve because they will always get money and can't get fired (teachers union and all that). It doesn't matter if the kids are learning or not, they will always get money and won't feel the need to improve.
Your idea is similar to one known as a school voucher program. But that also has cons. IMO the best thing to do is to get away with the current system, when I was in school (I'm 22 now) I remember just doing a lot of pointless homework. If I knew the material why do I have to do this homework? It isn't teaching me anything new. So why do it? I learned more from watching the discover channel and going to the library than I ever did fromt he class room it'self.
We need educators, not teachers. There is a difference. We need to make kids want to learn, make it interesting for them. Teach them to be criticle thinkers, challenge them, not this crap where you just roll over and do the work. The way it works currently, you could be a kid in school and know the whole material, score perfect on the tests, but still fail the class because you didn't do the homework.
That says it's not about education, it's just about how much you work.
Perhaps we should do away with standardized testing. As for teachers, there are those who suggest that only teachers with master degress (top of their class/game/whatever you want to call it) should be allowed to teach. Don't know what you think about it but personally, I think teaching is innate. As long as you're skilled and knowledgable in the subject and are able to prove it, I think they should be allowed to teach.
As for raising standards, I'm not entirely sure about it. Lets face it, there are kids out there that don't want to learn and their parents don't even care or know about it.
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
Capitalism and Socialism are both nesseccary for a society to work. You cannot have one without the other, doing so would be disasterous.
People that claim they hate capitalism are hypocrites, they still shop at stores, they still wear name brand products and clothes, capitalism gives a reason for people to work, to stive to get ahead.
This is like saying slavery gives people a reason to work, capitalism forces people to work for bosses due to the threat of starvation. We shop because we are traped within the capitalist system and are forced to partake in it.
You are free to shop where you want and find a new job if you want to. You are not a slave at all. Capitalism has it's flaws, and in some instances we can be "slaves" to debt and mortgage bills ect....but you are free to spend your hard earned money how you so choose. How is that slavery?It encourages trade which generates wealth and the more people trade the less they fight, ideas and information are introduced and mixed. Capatilism is benefical to society.
Ideas and information are oftensuppressed by bosses or hiden from the public, have you heard of "intellectual property"?
This makes no sense.
In terms of cultures, groups that trade live in peace and intermingle, groups that do not go to war. Trade brings peace, it also birngs quality. It is because of capatilism that we have safer cars to drive, there was a person who made car A and made money, another person decided to make a car B that was safer to make profit. The first person then improved car A to compete, eventually all cars had safety features.
You are free at anytime to come up with a new idea and introduce it. I do not see how that is oppressed.
If you buy a product from a mom and pop store your supporting not only the owners but also the manufacturer, which in turn gives them money so they can buy more things, perhaps from the company you work for, which in turn gives you money and keeps you employed.
Free markets are not democracies, a dollar can not count as a vote if some have have more than others.
They are democracies in a sense, people vote with their wallets. People buy the product that is in the most demand, or at the cheaper price or for any other number of reasons. You have every right to shop where you want to, I was explaining how they cycle worked.
If you buy orang juice at a store, your money is paying for the employees who work at the store, and they then order more orange juice which in turn pays for the truck drive to deliver the juice to that store, which then in turn pays for the manufacturers of that juice. It's a cycle and we are all part of it.
Of course there will always be some people who have more than others. Some deserve it, others do not. It is not perfect, but the current alternatives are disaterous.
It's a cycle. It also encourages competition, if there was only one car maker the car could be an over priced pice of sh!t but you would have no choice but to drive it.
Top down hierarchysare not required for competition and efficiency. What if multiple cooperativescompeted with each other?
I don't understand, what hierachy are you referring to exactly? There are multiple car manufactures, they compete with each other and the consumer get's the best deal.
Because of Capatilism there are multiple cars and the consumer get's the better end of the deal because people are allowed to make and improve things for a profit. People who are against capatilism are anti-progress.
Capatilism is not required for progress, direct democracy and self management lets everyone share their ideas and thoughts in the workplace.
Capitism combined with Socialism is nesseccary for progress. Direct democracy and self managment are both by products of capitilism, people will not share their ideas if there is no need too. If I had an idea to make a flying car, why would I do it if there was no incentive to do so? To do that I would need help to make a flying car, but who would help me if I have nothing to offer them?
That's where money comes in, which capitalism generates.
RushKing
My responses in bold.
Capitalism has it's flaws, but it is nessaccary. Someday we may come up with a better system. Capitalism mixed with Socialism is the only way for a soceity to function.
However I am planning on going to Israel soon and am going to live on a Kibbutz, which is a commune where there is no money involved. It may give teach me more about the world I'm sure, but even the Kibbutzes do trade amonst each other (a Kibbutz that grows apples will trade with others for their products).
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] The banks weren't dumb. They played the system and made a killing. They were incentivized to do so. Moral hazard, yo.Abbeten
They were dumb and did not see the sh!t coming. They were incentivized to take risk, but it did not pan out as planned. Moral hazards being what they are, they were bailed out by the government, but they couldn't have been absolutely certain that would have been the case, and ultimately they risked being nationalized.
With the size and power of their lobby? Naw. They knew they were too big to fail. And besides, the current system rewards huge short term growth of profit over long term stability.TBH, they could not be certain. Moreover, the risk of nationalization as backlash was a possibility. Fact of the matter is, they tread dangerous waters. Of course they pursued the short-term gains, which is why they found themselves where they did in '08.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment