Capitalism

Response Point 1: In Finland, the people don't mind giving their wealth away? Does anybody recognize the flaws in this statement? Think of it this way: You mow 10 yards and earn $150. Now how would you like it if $100 of that was taken away? I'm sure you won't be happy. And plus, socialism ONLY works in small countries (a.k.a the Scandinavian Counries). And it still does not work as well as Capitalism. It is very inefficient. Response Point 2: Again, you think the foreign countries are going to give their profit to save a country by making the price of their product lower? Really? Think of it this way: You mow 10 yards and earn $150. Now would you then go and freely give that profit away to help a business or government that ruins itself through bad decisions? I don't think so. And plus, two things; one, the Government ruining of a business happens all to often (look at us). This would happen at least once a month because Socialists are terrible at economics. And two, increasing supply will decrease prices, but then, the law of diminishing marginal returns, then negative marginal returns sets in, and you begin losing profit, then making a loss. Believe me, businesses know how to maximize profit. They are at equilibrium quantity for their product. They will NOT make more or less becuase it would eat into their profit. Response Point 3: Again, fiscally responsible? Having more money does not decrease fiscal responsibility (unless of course, you are the US Government). And classes are eliminated; is that a good thing? Plus, with the Government managing unconstitution healthcare and using stupid economic policies (like us), do you again think that this is a good thing? Response Point 4: http://harvardmagazine.com... http://www.salon.com... "In economics, economic growth is defined as the increasing capacity of the economy to satisfy the wants of goods and services of the members of society": http://en.wikipedia.org... In other words, economic growth puts more money into the Americans, it means there is no recession, it means that businesses are becoming more efficient, it means that more American jobs are being created, and it means that the economy is getting stronger. Clear? Response Point 5: Yes. But it is a aspect of hard-line Socialism that will come into being sooner or later in the Socialist state. With people getting to decide where they work for is better than the Government getting to decide, even if the person looks "qualified" (this is very subjective), the job market is more efficient. Defense Point 1: Forward progress is good for all. For the poor and rich. What happens when the CEOs of businesses and top 1% get richer? It means that more Americans are getting the products that they want. It means that employee's salaries are being raised. It means that there is Economic Growth. Defense Point 2: Competition is great. It lowers prices, which is good for the consumer, and amazingly, bad for the 1% (because they have to sell their product for less). Defense Point 3: Having generic, substandard products makes the higher-quality products have lower prices. It helps the poor by being able to get an alternative that is still very good, and it helps the middle class by making the higher-quality products have lower prices so that they can buy them. Defense Point 4: Businesses can not stay alfloat by selling substandard products. That is impossible in a Capitalistic society. Impossible. Why? Becuase consumers will always buy the higher-quality product (so long as they can afford it). Defense Point 5: As in the same reasons mentioned above, economic growth is good for all. Attack Point 1: "It's a mistake to think that poor people get the benefit from the welfare system. It's a total fraud. Most welfare go to the rich of this country: the military-industrial complex, the bankers, the foreign dictators, it's totally out of control. [...] This idea that the government has services or goods that they can pass on is a complete farce. Governments have nothing. They can't create anything, they never have. All they can do is steal from one group and give it to another at the destruction of the principles of freedom, and we ought to challenge that concept.": http://en.wikiquote.org.... A Ron Paul Quote. Attack Point 2: "Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!": http://en.wikiquote.org.... A Ron Paul Quote. Attack Point 3: http://www.financialsamurai.com...; a great analogy. Please read and debate if you want. http://www.rochesterconservative.com...; Please read and debate if you want. http://toddweber.wordpress.com...; Please read and debate if you want.