Communism gave market competition to the Capitalist system

[RibsClock]

I think capitalism was drastically improved by having to compete.

I'd say it's ironic but I know that's not what ironic means so it's the thing everyone calls ironic. You know, funny.

[topcatyo]

I think countries strive to improve their economy and system simply because other countries out there exist. I mean, a lot of the time I hear that the incentive for the US to improve is to make ourselves look better to other countries.
Although, I'm glad we're just focusing on improving and not sucking rather than trying to take over other countries.

[AbsintheClock]

I think we as a capitalist society should do more business with communist countries. Especially places like Cuba. We are not a truly capitalist society though otherwise we'd lift these stupid trade tariffs and really let America compete with the rest of the world. This is especially true of sugar.

[RibsClock]

Alright I suppose I should provide an example to assist in explaining what I'm thinking of:

In the time of the industrial revolution the exploitation of workers was so rampant and extreme that it gave rise in itself to the popularity of communist thought. Things like the truck system, debt bondage, as well as major incidences like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and the Ludlow Massacre really increased demand for a system that would compete with the prevailing capitalist system. Hence, the socialist and communist movements gained customers supporters, and capitalism suddenly had to compete.

I'm not talking about countries, or individual corporations, I'm talking about the system which everyone was buying into suddenly had something else competing with it. Their propaganda was in reality just advertising for their particular brands, the wars and secrets were little more than industrial espionage and sabotage. Countries were really little more than franchises.

[RibsClock]

And here's another interesting thought:

If you think of communism and capitalism as two different brands, then think about how people say that regulation should be removed to let the free market decide.

The free market, interestingly enough, seems to have decided that regulation was needed in order for capitalism to compete with socialism. By the same coin, if you look at China as an example, communism has had to change and become more like capitalism in order to compete.

[BlackberryClock]

Alright I suppose I should provide an example to assist in explaining what I'm thinking of:

In the time of the industrial revolution the exploitation of workers was so rampant and extreme that it gave rise in itself to the popularity of communist thought. Things like the truck system, debt bondage, as well as major incidences like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and the Ludlow Massacre really increased demand for a system that would compete with the prevailing capitalist system. Hence, the socialist and communist movements gained customers supporters, and capitalism suddenly had to compete.

I'm not talking about countries, or individual corporations, I'm talking about the system which everyone was buying into suddenly had something else competing with it. Their propaganda was in reality just advertising for their particular brands, the wars and secrets were little more than industrial espionage and sabotage. Countries were really little more than franchises.

Interesting. Communism forced capitalism to have a heart--or at least fake it--at the expense of pure utilitarian productivity.

You have to have a good workforce to have a strong business, so the companies incorporated (allowed or forced to accept) unions or collective bargaining, which I guess could be seen as an extremely 'lite' version of socialist ideas.

[PentagramClock]

If you think of communism and capitalism as two different brands, then think about how people say that regulation should be removed to let the free market decide.

That basically sums up my argument against all of the tea-bagging neo-cons protesting Obama's healthcare bill. If they're so confident about the superiority of the current system, then they should welcome the private insurers driving the government-run system out with their better product.

[RomanClock]

That basically sums up my argument against all of the tea-bagging neo-cons protesting Obama's healthcare bill. If they're so confident about the superiority of the current system, then they should welcome the private insurers driving the government-run system out with their better product.

People tend to confuse government vs private business, they run completely differently. A government business never has to worry about money, and thus can promise anything without having to actually provide it because the only way to beat a government business is politics. A private company has to worry about money, and if they can't provide what they promise they are dead because they cannot afford to screw up.
If the government says they will provide a service for free and say it provides the same as private insurers then people will use the free version (obviously not free but w/e). The difference is you can't force the government to give the services it promised, unlike a private company.
Nearly all government businesses run at a net loss (ie they don't earn money) and the money has to come from somewhere (ie tax payers). The government can force you to pay for things through taxes to make up the difference. The reason the US has so much debt is because we have too many government programs that run at a net loss, and the only way to get rid of it is to cut down all these programs or raise taxes, and I would rather cut programs.

[GingeraleClock]

People tend to confuse government vs private business, they run completely differently.

Depending on what you are referring to, maybe. This is also not a negative.

See: MSNBC vs. The BBC vs. The CBC

A government business never has to worry about money, and thus can promise anything without having to actually provide it because the only way to beat a government business is politics.

Care to elaborate on the bolded part. All business are out to make a profit. Any business, within the government system, that fails to yield a profit - will most likely get the chopping block.

Unless it is specifically targets as a non-profit organization.

A private company has to worry about money, and if they can't provide what they promise they are dead because they cannot afford to screw up.

You are assuming bail outs and loans are not common things amongst large business.

Large steel manufacturers like Stelco and Defasco have taken multi-billion dollar loans from the Canada and United States government. The same can be said for many agricultural and lumbering industries.

IBM/Microsoft also fully utilizes these systems while never losing profit. As do most multibillion dollar companies.

and if they can't provide what they promise

Private insurers/Health care systems of America spend more than the Canadian and British government due to various lawsuit claims and battles over insurance qualifiers.

The American government, due to case battles, loans, and tax breaks - pays more than any other nation in the world.



Thus, I cannot see where you're attacks on "government run business" are founded. All things considered.

If the government says they will provide a service for free and say it provides the same as private insurers then people will use the free version (obviously not free but w/e). The difference is you can't force the government to give the services it promised, unlike a private company.

Unless you vote said government out due to that specific issue. Furthermore, assuming that said government mandated systems are not regulated by various business or other systems; cannot be harmed by a lackluster usage by the people (whom would obviously not use such a flawed system); and had no goals of making a profit in regards to being a stable form of business.

Are you also implying that if said system is flawed the alternative(s) would not be seaked dramatically? Whether Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist.

ex.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/13/news/drugs_canada/

Nearly all government businesses run at a net loss (ie they don't earn money) and the money has to come from somewhere (ie tax payers).

The CBC and the BBC both make large amounts of money from advertisement, special aired events, and the like.

The CBC more than the BBC; although, the BBC makes billions more each year simply by being the largest news media outlet in the world.

The Canadian and British healthcare system also fully utilize creating new technologies, pharmaceuticals, and marketing them.

We live in a global market - do you really think large scale [government based] companies in Britain and Canada are not playing ball?

Japan also has a similar system to Sweden (Obamacare) and is ranked the highest in medical technology and research output in the world.

The government can force you to pay for things through taxes to make up the difference. The reason the US has so much debt is because we have too many government programs that run at a net loss, and the only way to get rid of it is to cut down all these programs or raise taxes, and I would rather cut programs.

You're right!

The United States of America ran a 10 trillion dollar debt during The War of Freedom.

America is also [still] the leading Country in military spending. It is the largest government operation, with a socialist medical system.

The US military recieves more funding than any other government program and continually generates an overall net loss.

Of course, I don't get the vibe you would reduce it, dramatically.

Further (depress) reading:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...L&type=science



----

On a side note, Obamacare is not comparable to most socialist systems (besides Sweden) as it works hand in hand with private insurers and companies.

It essentially puts a fair balance onto a corrupt (see chart) market and forces basic medical care to the poor and middle class. Whom must pay a small fee - pooled.

Most socialist (or public) systems like Canada and France, do not allow a private competitor. All money is pooled, by all citizens, to any and all occupants.

Surprisingly (or not), France is ranked #1 in all forms of healthcare.

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_ce.../en/index.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

[DWARFINATOR]

Biggest burn in Plato's Playground history

Well played sir.

[RomanClock]

Depending on what you are referring to, maybe. This is also not a negative.

See: MSNBC vs. The BBC vs. The CBC

I didn't say anything about positive or negative, just that they are run differently form each other and he people don't always realize business plans for private vs non-profit vs government vs etc are all different.

Care to elaborate on the bolded part. All business are out to make a profit. Any business, within the government system, that fails to yield a profit - will most likely get the chopping block.

Unless it is specifically targets as a non-profit organization.

A government run business is not as reliant upon income based on services or goods. Their support is from the government, and as long as their is political support it will continue to be funded regardless of performance.

You are assuming bail outs and loans are not common things amongst large business.

Large steel manufacturers like Stelco and Defasco have taken multi-billion dollar loans from the Canada and United States government. The same can be said for many agricultural and lumbering industries.

IBM/Microsoft also fully utilizes these systems while never losing profit. As do most multibillion dollar companies.

Bail out and loan are not the same and it seems you are confusing it with tax law. Private business spend a lot on lawyers to maximize profit and minimize taxes, a government business has no need to worry about taxes.
And loans are of course common, but that's a strict agreement and there are more sources of loans than the government.

Private insurers/Health care systems of America spend more than the Canadian and British government due to various lawsuit claims and battles over insurance qualifiers.

The American government, due to case battles, loans, and tax breaks - pays more than any other nation in the world.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png/800px-International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png[img]

Thus, I cannot see where you're attacks on "government run business" are founded. All things considered.

That table doesn't really support your assertion, all it tells us is that it is the highest %GDP and not the reason. I would argue that it is high because we spend a lot on research and marketing. People from across the world come to America to try new surgical procedures or new technologies more than probably any other country. (More, not that it doesn't exist in other countries, just that we spend more on such things and thus have a larger industry)

Unless you vote said government out due to that specific issue. Furthermore, assuming that said government mandated systems are not regulated by various business or other systems; cannot be harmed by a lackluster usage by the people (whom would obviously not use such a flawed system); and had no goals of making a profit in regards to being a stable form of business.

Are you also implying that if said system is flawed the alternative(s) would not be seaked dramatically? Whether Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist.

ex.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/13/news/drugs_canada/

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to get across?

The CBC and the BBC both make large amounts of money from advertisement, special aired events, and the like.

The CBC more than the BBC; although, the BBC makes billions more each year simply by being the largest news media outlet in the world.

The Canadian and British healthcare system also fully utilize creating new technologies, pharmaceuticals, and marketing them.

We live in a global market - do you really think large scale [government based] companies in Britain and Canada are not playing ball?

Japan also has a similar system to Sweden (Obamacare) and is ranked the highest in medical technology and research output in the world.

I'm not sure how this applies to my statement. 'Nearly all' doesn't mean all.

You're right!

The United States of America ran a 10 trillion dollar debt during The War of Freedom.

America is also [still] the leading Country in military spending. It is the largest government operation, with a socialist medical system.

The US military recieves more funding than any other government program and continually generates an overall net loss.

Of course, I don't get the vibe you would reduce it, dramatically.

Further (depress) reading:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...L&type=science

Actually the largest government spending program is health services and social security and education, then military. Though in my opinion a military is a primary function of the government so I think it should be getting lots. I don't see it as a negative thing (which you seem to imply).
On top of that I actually think the government shouldn't be providing a vast number of services (which I won't go into detail at this time) so I'm against basically anything that gives the government more power or money.
Also, NASA receives a PITTANCE of money, less than $20 billion, where as the previously mentioned departments receive in the, 500-600 billions. I'm also pro-NASA just fyi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

On a side note, Obamacare is not comparable to most socialist systems (besides Sweden) as it works hand in hand with private insurers and companies.

It essentially puts a fair balance onto a corrupt (see chart) market and forces basic medical care to the poor and middle class. Whom must pay a small fee - pooled.

Most socialist (or public) systems like Canada and France, do not allow a private competitor. All money is pooled, by all citizens, to any and all occupants.

Surprisingly (or not), France is ranked #1 in all forms of healthcare.

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_ce.../en/index.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Well, like I stated earlier, I'm against basically anything that increases government power or money. The current system of healthcare clearly has room for improvement but I don't think (see, an opinion) that government involvement is the answer.

[GingeraleClock]

and as long as their is political support it will continue to be funded regardless of performance.

What are you basing this off of? The Canadian Healthcare system has seen huge revisions in the last ten years due to slow service and public complaint. It is always being revised - as all companies do.

There are multiple tiers of [private] business and government that overlook a public or socialist healthcare system.

All forms of business aim to create a stable income and create contentious customers.*

*In this case, not dead. And, statistically - socialist systems are doing better than private.

And loans are of course common, but that's a strict agreement and there are more sources of loans than the government.

And yet, we are talking about government given loans. Big ones.

There's a certain extent as to when you can consider a company "government owned". As in, the amount the company borrows or the leverage it is given to survive.

See:

Defasco v. Canada

I would argue that it is high because we spend a lot on research and marketing.

Well, taken into account that 20%(+) (last estimated by the Economist) of the population cannot afford basic healthcare in America. And yet, are some of the ones seeking it most.

This would in turn require America(ns) to pick up the bill and deal with the extra costs put on by insurance companies and Hospitals themselves.

There is also no [major] regulated assistance (or system) to keep costs down and give a basis for what can be provided based on income.

As for research,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0105140107.htm

That argument would be invalid.

Warning .pdf's:

http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/0306kirby.pdf

http://www.uulmca.org/documents/healthcare_myths.pdf

People from across the world come to America to try new surgical procedures or new technologies more than probably any other country.

And yet, Americans and South Americans are buying pharmaceuticals from Canada.

Japan has the majority of new technologies (medically related) in the world and distributes them to other Countries.

So, I don't know what you are basing this off of. Could you provide a reliable source (as I have continued to).

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to get across?

That public systems are heavily regulated by the global market and competitors.

I'm not sure how this applies to my statement. 'Nearly all' doesn't mean all.

Of course it doesn't mean all - I clearly stated that there are non-profit organizations and those which aim for a profit.

That a public run system can take ventures into open market. Just as a private company will. All companies which aim to maximize its profit, will do.

The companies I previously listed are prime examples.

Actually the largest government spending program is health services and social security and education, then military.

Assuming 10 trillion vanished because - .

Government based health care is run in the military. Education as well. The military has received more money than any other spending program.

You should also refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

Total Spending: $925-$1144 billion

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/r...nits=b&fy=fy10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...tary_Financing

Although the annual budget is negotiated at 1000+ billion -- it's quite clear that much more goes into the military budget. Whether abroad or at home.

Also, NASA receives a PITTANCE of money, less than $20 billion, where as the previously mentioned departments receive in the, 500-600 billions. I'm also pro-NASA just fyi.

That's good.

Well, like I stated earlier, I'm against basically anything that increases government power or money. The current system of healthcare clearly has room for improvement but I don't think (see, an opinion) that government involvement is the answer.

Well, America is the only 1st World nations that does not provide basic healthcare, for all.

The current system, which is based off of Swedish (which Japan loosely mimics), doesn't necessarily give government power.

It is not a grandeur step. This is not the French or Canadian system, where privatized healthcare is fighting against public healthcare. Rrather, a general rule within the private healthcare system.

[ProqagandaClock]

Hmmm to much broken texts for me to bear reading the entire topic, though bear with me because I'm not gonna deal any ultimatums here just some general thoughts I think most people miss when they discuss this topic usually.


Communism DID make capitalism scared and thankfully so. The problem today is that Capitalism, like most of the political systems on earth, serves no one but itself.
Now I don't say this is wrong, see money has one purpose and that is to become more money. If a company doesn't make profit it's not doing its job aswell as failing the investors.
Capitalism is only expanding and investing, to expand and supply the ever increasing capitalism. It'll ruin the earth to the point capitalism makes more on saving it and then capitalism will save the earth.
(Taxi cars don't wear "On biofuel!" because they have a conscience but because they get more customers and money from it.)

So even though capitalism is a working system it doesn't push us forward but rather holds us back, it feeds us shitty products and food to make a profit, it keeps poor countries poor and rich countries rich and apathetic and sadly most people wouldn't have it any other way.
I can't honestly say I'd give away 40% of my belongings and luxerius to raise the living standard in the third world by 60%.


So on the topic, communism was a stupid system but a nice thought. Capitalism is more refined but soulless. Still as they mention in the Chicagoschool of thought on economics you'd need a New World Order to push humanity through the restraints of current currency systems but aslong as people don't reach the boiling point we wont.

also pardon any spelling mistakes but i'm unsober and can't be arsed to reread and correct any mistakes.