2022Follow

I rated you up.

I haven't been here in a dogs age, but apparently I still remember my password.

Gearing up to be a rough year. Hopefully that changes

Hello!

I dont thats why I use a password manager :)

I pretended to rate you up (the system is broken now) and I need you to pretend that I posted the picture of Green Arrow and Speedy CosPlay I had when my account was premium.

Jesus....people still lurk here.

Long time old friends, hope you are well <3

From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me.

Also.. how is this forum still here? I was under impression everything is a VR app that changes seasons.

Obligatory “who the **** are you?”

I wish I could forget you, angrymnk.

The question was for the sub 1k posts poster.

I don't know if PR has anything to do with it (and the Dems are far far better at messaging than the GOP IMO). There's just a point where the best PR in the world still can't convince people that a turd isn't still a turd. And frankly, continuing to try (which they have been) just becomes embarassing.

Also. You forgot abject immigration policy fail. Well, unless the objective was to allow a million plus folks to illegally enter the country per year

I can't speak to art (and where did that come from anyway?), but you seem to be suffering from some incredibly poor word association issues here.

A capitalist (assuming we're talking about free market folks and not the more traditional "economic system based on use of capital to build wealth" definition), is someone who believes that if you allow producers of goods and services the freedom to choose what goods and services to provide in an environment where consumers are also free to purchase the goods and services that they actually want, then over time, competition by both producers and consumers will ensure that we all benefit from better quality goods and services at more affordable prices and that we will have sufficient employment opportunities to ensure that we all have enough money to buy those good and services as well. The end result is a better socio-economic benefit for all.

A socialist is almost the exact opposite of what you claimed. Socialists have no trust in "the people" to make good choices at all and so believe that the greatest socio-economic good will be obtained by having government control the goods and services that are produced, and to manipulate the consumer choices made as well. They do not at all trust the "free market" to work, and assume government must be involved in order for any positive outcome to occur. This is why they have to place regulations on what can be produced with taxes on some goods and subsidies on others. They further will create social programs to push people towards outcomes they want either by direct subsidy or via punishment of activities they do not think promote a common good.

You're free to lean toward either of these positions, and there are certainly arguments to be made for/against both, but you should at least know and understand *what* the actual positions are. Otherwise, you're just going to be eternally subject to silly word games.

Assuming the "other side" believes the same things you do about what works and doesn't, but just chooses to do the "wrong thing" anyway, presumably because they are all just "evil" or something is a childishly simplistic way of viewing the world around you. People who support the free market side of things don't do so because they just really want rich powerful greedy people to control the world (along with some mustache twirling or something). That's... dumb. No, we actually believe it's a better way of doing things that provides greater freedom to individuals and also creates greater economic prosperity and opportunity as well. We don't support these positions because we hate the poor, but because we believe it's the best way to make poor people actually not be poor anymore via a process that actually lifts people up and gives them control over their lives and a sense of personal accomplishment, versus the socialist alternative, which makes poor people eternally dependent on government largess to provide for them.

Again. Arguments for both sides (socialism is certainly more direct and faster), but how about actually trying to understand the issue before forming strong positions? Just a thought.

Edited, May 23rd 2022 9:32am by gbaji

To be fair to stupidmonkey, there is a "greater good" argument present on the socialist side, but it's not really about "the people" acting for the greater good. It's an argument used by those in power to get "the people" to hand them power. Both sides act on the assumption that "the people" will by and large act in their own personal best interests. The difference is that capitalists attempt to build an economic system where that self interest best reflects itself on the supply side by creating new and better goods and services to draw in consumer dollars, while on the demand side it's reflected in consumers choosing to buy goods and services that they each individually feel will be the best value for them. The capitalist system allows for different people placing different valuations on different things by naturally adjusting to this. Some people want to buy "organic" food for some social value? A market will grow that provides organic food (and compete to provide the best version of that good to that customer base).

Socialists will pick "social goods" that they care about and then use government to put their thumb on the scale to manipulate the outcome. Organic food is better for the environment and health, so we'll subsidize one, tax the other, and maybe even pass regulations mandating the percentage of organic goods in markets in a given region. This will result in more of the "greater good" outcome, but has the risk of eliminating the competitive aspect of things.

Worse, we still have that pesky self interest thing going on. So if I'm a maker of organic food, I might not be satisfied with the percentage of the total food market I'm getting, so I'll go to the "socialist" side of the political spectrum and support their elections knowing they'll reward my business by putting their thumb on the scale in a way that benefits me. Over time, we see scenarios where what started out as a "greater good "argument (and is still sold that way to voters), becomes a bit of a bait and switch, with the real power motivation being businesses in specific industries buying politicians who will turn around and use their power when in office to funnel more money back to the business.

We've been seeing this exact effect with covid vaccinations. The capitalist side says to rush to provide a needed good (vaccines). Then provide them to the people to use as they wish. However many people want them will take them, and that's your market. The capitalist side in government (let's call them Republicans), don't care how many people sign up for the vaccines. They are happy with the market naturally determining this and feel no need to force any outcome at all. The socialist side in government (let's call them Democrats), see yet another case where they can put their thumb on the scales in the pursuit of a "greater good" (protect the people from covid), that also happens to funnel large amounts of taxpayer dollars into the pharmaceutical companies who are producing and providing the vaccines. So they will do so via various forms of punishment for anyone who doesn't take the vaccine. But this has long since become the bait and switch. The politicians are really more about funneling the money, and the businesses are more about supporting politicians who funnel money to them, so they've lost sight of their starting point of "greater good".

This became abundantly obvious when, even after data from Delta and Omicron (omicron really proved this), showed that vaccinated people were still capable of being exposed to covid and spreading it, so there was no actual "greater good" argument anymore, the folks on the socialist side (Demcrats) still continued with their mandates. Forcing people to take the vaccine no longer even had the excuse of "protecting others from the spread of covid". But they barely even missed a beat. Not because they switched from one argument to the other, but because for them (the political folks), it was never actually about a "greater good". It was always about gaining the power to make those decisions in return for making them in ways that enriched the people who helped them gain power. They were always pushing vaccines for this reason. The curtain was just stripped away from them, making it obvious to everyone what they were doing.

And that's the real issue here. The socialist side pretends that it's doing things for the greater good, and that they are fighting against greed and self interest, but the reality is that the methods they employ along the way are extremely vulnerable to a self interested motivation to take hold. They provide another path for the businesses to get rich instead of "make something people are willing to buy". The new path is: Lobby politicians and get them to force people to consume your product. And that leads to far far worse abuses in the name of self interest than anything the capitalist side could cause because market greed can be checked with government regulations (anti-trust, environmental regulations, work place regulations, etc). But there is no higher power to check things if it's the actual government and the folks running it that are involved in the self interest in the first place.

So yeah. Both sides use self interest. One is just far more dangerous and harmful. And that's not the capitalist side. It's the socialist.

But that's just my opinion. You're free to have your own.

Edited, May 25th 2022 1:54pm by gbaji