US Capitalist or Socialist.

[mrsticky005]

Ok first of all the U.S is neither. It's a mixed economy.


But what does it lean towards?

Capitalism?

Or Socialism?

Debate.

[Bacon]

Considering all the fail that a half committed capitalist society produces, I'd say it relies a lot of socialist methods such as Price floors and pumping money into the system to sustain growth.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Bacon

Considering all the fail that a half committed capitalist society produces, I'd say it relies a lot of socialist methods such as Price floors and pumping money into the system to sustain growth.

We're pretty much a "worst of both worlds" situation .

For as anti-socialist as I am, I almost think going full blown socialist
would be better than this half and half nonsense where it's Big Business
and Big Government stomping and trampling all over the little dude.
Of course again as I said I'm anti-socialist. Capitalism for the win.

[Danielle]

Well as my political party suggests I am particularly all for the socialist school of thought, however we should all note that extremes never work as planned. Regulation for these big businesses is def a must, but you can't heavy hand with government. I am also for more taxes, or rather fair taxes. People need to start living withing their means, or even lower their lifestyle (i.e. the minority of wealthy need to become a lot more moderate, and start paying their damn taxes...sheesh). Also, I agree that the age of retirement should be raised, and I agree with an article I read earlier in the Economist that suggested with higher retirement age there should be better employment opportunities for these older workers.

[Bacon]

Originally Posted by Danielle

Well as my political party suggests I am particularly all for the socialist school of thought, however we should all note that extremes never work as planned. Regulation for these big businesses is def a must, but you can't heavy hand with government. I am also for more taxes, or rather fair taxes. People need to start living withing their means, or even lower their lifestyle (i.e. the minority of wealthy need to become a lot more moderate, and start paying their damn taxes...sheesh). Also, I agree that the age of retirement should be raised, and I agree with an article I read earlier in the Economist that suggested with higher retirement age there should be better employment opportunities for these older workers.

List response: xD

1. Agreed, regulation is essential to prevent child labor and other abuses.

2.Define fair. -.-

3. If I am not mistaken, the Wealthy pay an @ssload of the taxes in America and their living within their means is useless. A wealthy person goes broke, who cares? It's the average joe,everyday man, and cindy loos who need to stop paying for 200 dollar cell phone bills and cut down on meat consumption. :3

4.Let's see what you think about higher retirement age when you get there lol. As it is, having employment for the able bodied is scarce as it is. :3

[Jutsu Junkie]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

We're pretty much a "worst of both worlds" situation .

For as anti-socialist as I am, I almost think going full blown socialist
would be better than this half and half nonsense where it's Big Business
and Big Government stomping and trampling all over the little dude.
Of course again as I said I'm anti-socialist. Capitalism for the win.

You mean the "worst of both worlds" that has flowered into the most powerful economy in human history? That "worst of both worlds"? And which "little guy" are we talking about? My local newspaper magnate who owns most of the small local papers up and down the coast in the region and several large houses? Haliburton? GE? Because if you aren't talking about them, then you are talking about people who are paying the least taxes since the 1950s, so I don't see how they've been trampled on.

I see no evidence that our half-and-half system has actually harmed us relative to the state of affairs in other times and places. There isn't a sufficiently better system waiting in the wings such that the average person wouldn't complain about it -- unless in that system they happen to be rich. Even then, they would likely complain, because wealth is relative. To a Somali, even beggars in the States are lucky. Come to think about it, I hear rich people moan about the economy all the time -- while they sit back with a glass of expensive wine. Or is it whine?

I wouldn't be so quick to trash the System. I know, I know, all the cool kids are doing it...

As for the matter in question, I think our civil religion is capitalist -- it just isn't laissez faire, but I neither consider that necessary or even desirable.

[Danielle]

Originally Posted by Bacon

List response: xD

1. Agreed, regulation is essential to prevent child labor and other abuses.

2.Define fair. -.-

3. If I am not mistaken, the Wealthy pay an @ssload of the taxes in America and their living within their means is useless. A wealthy person goes broke, who cares? It's the average joe,everyday man, and cindy loos who need to stop paying for 200 dollar cell phone bills and cut down on meat consumption. :3

4.Let's see what you think about higher retirement age when you get there lol. As it is, having employment for the able bodied is scarce as it is. :3

I believe in socialism, what do you think I mean by fair?

They do not pay their taxes, they have so many tax cuts and other ways to skirt around paying all their taxes that it is unreal.

As to higher retirement age, think about: As all these baby boomers are retiring or getting ready to retire, the subsequent generations are left to support them, however there are significantly fewer of this generation and the older generation end up running out of funds while they are still alive. Basically, we are run out of resources trying to catch up with all those retiring...the article I mention does a better job of explaining. >.>

[Rasengan-]

America is not mixed.

The socialism characteristics you are refering to is not socialist at all but 'monopoly capitalism'. There are varieties of capitalism.

[Jutsu Junkie]

Originally Posted by Rasengan-

America is not mixed.

The socialism characteristics you are refering to is not socialist at all but 'monopoly capitalism'. There are varieties of capitalism.

That view is in the vanishing small minority.

Most economists regard the US as a mixed economy, and they are right. Why? Because the nature of stemocap (state monopoly capitalism) that you are referring to requires that the state protect monopolies exclusively, whereas the truth is that even small businesses are subsidized by the US government -- and not merely in order to aide monopolistic firms. Not only that, but the Federal Reserve's control of interest rates constitutes a blanket planning regime. So it is mixed, not monopoly capitalism. Further, there are very few true monopolies that could be the clients of this purported stemocap, and efforts to bust and prevent monopolies, rife in national history, are actually planning regimes in themselves.

[Ur Mom]

Oh wow, if you think about it to hard, you just can't decide on one single one it leans to. At first I naturally said Capitalism, but then I thought of everything a little more thoroughly, and now my brain hurts. I'm out of this one

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Jutsu Junkie

You mean the "worst of both worlds" that has flowered into the most powerful economy in human history? That "worst of both worlds"? And which "little guy" are we talking about? My local newspaper magnate who owns most of the small local papers up and down the coast in the region and several large houses? Haliburton? GE? Because if you aren't talking about them, then you are talking about people who are paying the least taxes since the 1950s, so I don't see how they've been trampled on.

I see no evidence that our half-and-half system has actually harmed us relative to the state of affairs in other times and places. There isn't a sufficiently better system waiting in the wings such that the average person wouldn't complain about it -- unless in that system they happen to be rich. Even then, they would likely complain, because wealth is relative. To a Somali, even beggars in the States are lucky. Come to think about it, I hear rich people moan about the economy all the time -- while they sit back with a glass of expensive wine. Or is it whine?

I wouldn't be so quick to trash the System. I know, I know, all the cool kids are doing it...

As for the matter in question, I think our civil religion is capitalist -- it just isn't laissez faire, but I neither consider that necessary or even desirable.

It is true that we have always been mixed and we are the most powerful economy in human history. However I don't think it is because of the mixture we have now. I think at one point we had a good mix that was
the foundation of the country's economic success but now I think the
mix isn't what it used to be and now the economy is going downhill.
Or rather I think our "success" was really just a bubble that has now busted. I think it's like a Jenga game where the tower is getting taller
but we are losing the foundation that supports it. Sooner or later. It falls.

[Bacon]

Originally Posted by Danielle

I believe in socialism, what do you think I mean by fair?

They do not pay their taxes, they have so many tax cuts and other ways to skirt around paying all their taxes that it is unreal.

As to higher retirement age, think about: As all these baby boomers are retiring or getting ready to retire, the subsequent generations are left to support them, however there are significantly fewer of this generation and the older generation end up running out of funds while they are still alive. Basically, we are run out of resources trying to catch up with all those retiring...the article I mention does a better job of explaining. >.>

Socialist reminds me of equal,but you don't have to be socialist to implement different methods of taxation. :3 For me, I would suggest a flat tax,but I don't know much aboot it.

I'm not informed about taxation,but maybe the chart I viewed was full of balogna.

I get that to a point, the United states' population is growing every decade or so,but to suddenly cut people off who live on that income would be devastating. Meanwhile, determining who really needs it will have costs of its own to go through millions of people's records to see who most deserves the benefits. >.> Essentially, we'd have to say screw you to a lot of people if the retirement age was raised without letting some of the current reciprocates keep their benefits.