[kka25]

(Original post by PAPAdawg)
My view as an economics student, shared by the vast majority of fellow students i know, is that the overwhelming majority of socialists are totally economically uneducated and most people tend to become more capitalist the more they learn about economics. So, sorry but i honestly think that, although they might not be thick, the majority of socialists, when it comes to economics, are totally flawed

Mind telling me more - very intrigue.

*I'm not an economist btw

[kka25]

(Original post by nikdc5)
Socialism doesn't say there should be absolute equality at all, it says money should be distributed according to work-done and desert i.e. harder worker and more skilled workers should get more. There would be less variation in wages though. I think the variation in incomes between richest and poorest in Russia was between 7 and 14 to 1. I imagine it was different at different points in the ussr's long existence though.

But isn't that the idea of Capitalism?

[Hermóðr]

(Original post by cl_steele)
evil capitalist through and through (Y)
people should be rewarded for success not criminalized for it ... if you've advanced in life to make a **** load of money fair play to you ... its just jealous people who complain about it.

This is an incredibly stupid and simplistic argument, just as the argument from socialists that the working classes are being oppressed and that we proles must all overthrow the elites in a bloody Marxist revolution is stupid and simplistic.

I'm too young and inexperienced to have fully decided what my political outlook is, but at the moment I lean towards classical liberalism, as has already been mentioned. I do however have some contempt for "western" capitalism. I subscribe to the functionalist idea that inequality is necessary in order for societies to function effectively, but I dislike disparity in wealth being as large as it currently is.

[cameronuk]

(Original post by Hermóðr)
inequality is necessary in order for societies to function effectively

That is correct

[Hermóðr]

It's a silly thread, anyway. The world isn't divided between socialists and capitalists.

[JuKaMy]

How many socialists does it take to change a light bulb?
Ans: Trick question - they would still be using candles if it wasn't for capitalism.

It is a known fact by those who are either in the middle of the scale (somewhat educated and accepting of the truth) or capitalists (educated) that socialists are those who would fail in a society where hard work = success. It's easier to tax the successful to support those who want not support themselves.

Also pretty much every 'justification' of socialist policies falls apart in the long run, because in the long run only a capitalist system - where resources are allocated to successful individuals, successful enterprises, and useful charitable causes - can maintain a healthy society where the bottom of the genetic and corporate pool are not kept artificially alive by the state that only cares for short term intervention (which let's admit - always fails anyway)

Capitalism has been given a very dirty name by those who would prefer to maintain a socialist system so that they themselves do not fall victim to natural competition. Worst of all is the way people think Capitalism = [mean, harsh, greed] just because socialists try to provide an easier alternative to reality where nobody has to do anything useful to survive.

[kka25]

(Original post by JuKaMy)
How many socialists does it take to change a light bulb?
Ans: Trick question - they would still be using candles if it wasn't for capitalism.

I think I know why you put it this way but mind elaborating

It is a known fact by those who are either in the middle of the scale (somewhat educated and accepting of the truth) or capitalists (educated) that socialists are those who would fail in a society where hard work = success. It's easier to tax the successful to support those who want not support themselves.

Also pretty much every 'justification' of socialist policies falls apart in the long run, because in the long run only a capitalist system - where resources are allocated to successful individuals, successful enterprises, and useful charitable causes - can maintain a healthy society where the bottom of the genetic and corporate pool are not kept artificially alive by the state that only cares for short term intervention (which let's admit - always fails anyway)

Capitalism has been given a very dirty name by those who would prefer to maintain a socialist system so that they themselves do not fall victim to natural competition. Worst of all is the way people think Capitalism = [mean, harsh, greed] just because socialists try to provide an easier alternative to reality where nobody has to do anything useful to survive.

I was thinking the same thing just now

[Sammydemon]

(Original post by funsongfactory)
Yes, there probably was an element of chance involved in him getting to where he is now, but it was far more down to hard work. Around the time I was born my Dad was earning £8000 a year and my parents were living almost exclusively of cornflakes and beans on toast, because that was all they could afford. He stayed in that career path, and worked his way up and worked damn hard. That's why he's where he is today.

However, without that single element of chance that many rely on, no matter how small it may seem, they would not be in their current position.

[sunnydude959]

Capitalist!

*edit: I actually put 'capitalist' in capitals because the word capitalist contains the word capital, which has a dual meaning of money and of type of letters and so i thought it was a sort of pun, however TSR put it in lower case*

[Sammydemon]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
I am sorry but in this country we have free education up to 18, seemingly unlimited online resources like the Khan Academy and a lot help for students to finance university. Being poor or going to a crappy school is becoming an increasingly **** excuse as far as I am concerned for not doing well.

And even if you fail there, there are plenty of qualifications people can get as adults.

People who have been brought up with a poor attitude find it difficult to study at school/home and there for to succeed.

If an adult has a family to support and works most hours of they day, how can they get a good enough qualifications alongside working/caring?

[JuKaMy]

(Original post by kka25)
I think I know why you put it this way but mind elaborating

I was thinking the same thing just now

haha hi-five!

[stac4321]

If money was a direct result of hard work than every woman in Africa would be a billionaire...

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Sammydemon)
People who have been brought up with a poor attitude find it difficult to study at school/home and there for to succeed.

What do you propose the state do? Invade peoples homes and command kids to get on with their homework....

If an adult has a family to support and works most hours of they day, how can they get a good enough qualifications alongside working/caring?

That is their business. It is their trade off. But they have the chance to make the trade off if they choose. You can't do everything forgodsake.

[stac4321]

(Original post by Azzer)
Im a Capitalist.

Socialism only works in theory. Practically all men strive to be better and stronger than others, and since Socialism wants people to be equal that can never happen. Good in theory though.

Socialism doesn't necessarily assert that. One of the main reason's the USSR's economy flourished under Stalins 5 Years Plans was because of the incentive (and punishments) given to workers. One of the reason's Mao's industrialisation failed was that there was only punishment and no incentives.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by JuKaMy)
It is a known fact by those who are either in the middle of the scale (somewhat educated and accepting of the truth) or capitalists (educated) that socialists are those who would fail in a society where hard work = success. It's easier to tax the successful to support those who want not support themselves.

A society where hard work = success would be a form of socialism. Capitalism, on the other hand, is based around a powerful minority leeching of those who do genuinely work hard.

[bulgy]

as someone wise once told me
'if you weren't a socialist when you were young, then you had no heart. if you're not a capitalist in your older years then you have no head'

[Torrresss]

Capitalism may make more economic sense, but is completely floored ethically. Capitalism only works through the exploitation of others, which I believe is wrong in itself.

[Garam Masala]

I believe that 'incentive' benefits society as a whole. Unfortunately socialism offers little monetary incentive, and for that reason I would say I support capitalism more.

However I don't believe in total capitalism. I believe that there should be regulation in the economy and that there is a dire need to reduce the wealth gap. Even though the wealth gap in the UK isn't relatively malign, it should be reduced. I don't believe anyone deserves to be a billionnaire, especially when at the other end of the spectrum you have hard working poor individuals, and that the 'rich' should be taxed even more. However this is how the global economy works and further taxation would only discourage entrepreneurs and the rich from remaining in the UK, which in turn could have an adverse effect on the British economy.

[EffieFlowers]

(Original post by animalnitrate)
Likewise

Sorry if I annoyed you in some way, I often don't take things too seriously and they sometimes come across more serious/ harsh than I really mean.

[blueray]

(Original post by PAPAdawg)
simple question i'm sure. Are you a poverty creator or a wealth creator?

I'm a capitalist. A real liberal not like the crap namby pamby imitations we have today who mistook liberalism for populism. IMO socialists are outright idiots and almost always peasants.

You just got negged by all the socialist party