Capitalism

Response Point 1: I wouldn't give a single cent to substandard Government healthcare, substandard education, and substandard insurance. In America, all three of these things, under Government supervision, have turned to be complete disasters and massive debt increases. Heck, Obamacare is so bad that it is expected to increase the debt over 5 trillion in the next 25 years. It is so bad that it is unconstitutional. And the education is so bad that homeschooling has turned from a few kids into millions, and increasing very rapidly. And Government Insurance is so bad that it either raises the debt by trillions, or cheats Americans. Think of it this way now: "You mow 10 yards and earn $150. $100 of that is spent on healthcare, education, and insurance (private or Government). He has two choices: A very low priced and great coveraged healthcare and insurance, and great education, or, he can pay into the Government, and then pay for it again with taxes, and the services are terribly substandard. I take Choice 1. Response Point 2: "Ruins itself through bad decisions". What do you think that means? It means that if a Business is stupid enough to run itself in to bankruptcy, the Government has no responsibility or obligation to bailout that business. And it means that if a Government is stupid enough to run itself in to bankruptcy, the citizenry has no responsibility or obligation to give money to the Government. They will just make another Government that actually abides by the Constitution. And here is a crash course in economics: Businesses make the number of products and sell them at the price that maximizes profit. Businesses are very smart. After years of quantity and price probing, they finally settle on an equilibrium price and quantity that more or less of each would lower profit. Either two only changes with a Consumer demand or market change. Business WILL NOT make more of a product just to prop up a failed nation's economy if it will lower their profit. Here is another example: If your neighbor's neighborhood car wash fails becuase it's prices are too high, are you going to give it money so it can stay afloat? Are you this bad at economics and logic? Response Point 3: I am saying that more money does not decrease fiscal responsibility. On the other hand, it increases fiscal responsibility. Why do you question facts? Here is an example: You make $50,000 a year, then next year you make $55,000. Are you going to put more into your savings accounts? Of course you would. Response Point 4: Wikipedia is one of the most reliable and non-biased sources on the internet. Anyway, you are saying that Economic Growth is bad? That is probably one of the stupidest statements I have heard in a long time. I had a good laugh whe I first read it. If Economic Growth outpaces inflation and population increase (which it usually does), then the regular consumer is making money. More money. More buying power. And logic destroys your comment that the money must come from somewhere: Practically every single country has had economic growth between the year 2000 and 2010. The citizens are richer. The money certainly does not come from them. And if the socialist country does not grow, then it's citizens get poorer. Response Point 5: Allowing the individual business to decide who they hire is a lot more efficient than the Government either deciding directly who is going to be employed by who, or placing quotas on minorities (such as your employee base must be at least 7% Hispanic). Individual businesses decide who's best because they know what they want for their business. The Government does not necessarily know, and a lot of times, can not make wrong decisions. Response Point 6: Refer to my response to your point 4. I do not have room to repeat paragraphs. But for the part not included, the definition of a strong economy is not a general improvement in living standards necessarily. It is an effect of economic growth. But it is not and should not be the goal of Capitalism. Response Point 7: Competition can not logically either increase prices or decrease product quality. That is impossible. If a company makes a higher-priced, substandard product that is not as good as other alternatives, the company will go bankrupt. By nature of it's definition, competition can not do the things you say. Again, impossible. Response Point 8: Again, refer to my response to your point 7. And the people that buy the substandard product can not afford the legitimare, higher-priced brands. There are three types of products, substandard, normal, and rich. We will focus on the first two since the latter is rarely ever bought. One, substandard products are not bad if the people that buy them can not buy the legitimatly priced normal product. And two, most products are more expensive not becuase of quality, but of name. Like Italian suits are better than the normal suit. But they are by no means better. Response Point 9: Refer to my responses to your points 7 and 8. Response Point 10: Scrap this point. It is being covered in other points. Response Point 11 (Ron Paul Quote 1): To elaborate, it is something that I like to call the "welfare effect": "It states that "once a person is on enough welfare to sustain themselves for a long period of time, most people, even once their financial situation improves, will not want to go back to work because they can just get free money from the Government, and they don't even have to do anything". More simply, if you worked a hard job and earned $50,000 a year, then you became unemployed, and got $45,000 in unemployment benefits per year, would you give that up and go back to your job? No. Why? Becuase you get money for nothing." Response Point 12 (Ron Paul Quote 2): "Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism." I only wanted to put this in because you can not condemn Capitalism for the American Economy's (i.e. The Recession, The Stagflation of the 1970s, and the Great Depression). America has not been purely or even half way Capitalist for over 80 years. And the last 40 or 50 have been Socialist. Response Point 13: I don't think you read this article. First the article, then the rebuttal. The article was saying that the Socialistic idea of being lazy should not grant you free welfare. If you don't store food for the winter, you shouldn't expect someone else to freely give you food. Now the rebuttal. People can not and will not get out of the greed mindset. In pure Capitalism (as in the 1800s), everyone works and does not expect something for nothing. That hard working mindset has destroyed this nation, and it is all because of Socialistic ideas. Response Point 14: People knew how how to use power properly in the 1800s. In this era, there were no big recessions, unemployment, or economic collapse. And, the technological improvements in that era were astounding. Competition destroys your whole argument. People only starved more because of the standard of living. Now it is better. Response Point 15: Scrap this. Apparently you don't like debating something that you can not think of a comeback for. That is understandable. Attacks: Competition: http://www.ftc.gov... "Without competition Apple would have never created their Ipod, Microsoft would have never created Windows, and Google would probably be non-existent. Competition is essential because it leads to one very important thing, innovation.": http://www.jmorganmarketing.com... Finland: This destroys your Finland arguments: "Finland has a highly industrialised, mixed economy with a per capita output equal to that of other western economies such as France, Germany, Sweden or the United Kingdom.": http://en.wikipedia.org.... Finland's economy is by no means Socialistic. Only a few policies are. More sources to come, but out of room.