@wildgrass saidWildgrass, I would drape this element over your comments, the crux of which would thus be negated. An economic concept where people work free and other people leave them the hell alone. After work, they take the money they made, give an agreed upon portion to the government. Then, while protected by the Constitution in the sky, he walks home to raise his family.
Nope. You've rejected common definitions of capitalism in order to make your point here. You instead use imprecise / deliberately narrow definitions. The obvious is right in front of you.
You and shav are talking about the same thing. Most if not all capitalist systems are you what you describe as mixed economy. Mixed economy is capitalism.
@averagejoe1 saidSocialism.
Wildgrass, I would drape this element over your comments, the crux of which would thus be negated. An economic concept where people work free and other people leave them the hell alone. After work, they take the money they made, give an agreed upon portion to the government. Then, while protected by the Constitution in the sky, he walks home to raise his family.
@wajoma saidThe problem you have is your arguments lead to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a capitalist economy / state and that capitalism is simply something that occurs separate from the state / economy in which it operates.
There is no 'common definition' that says if you mix capitalism with socialism you get capitalism. There is no 'common definition' that asserts you can't have capitalism without mixing in some socialism, if you can find a reputable source that says so let's see it. After being asked repeatedly Pseud boy finally posted some definitions, (you can look back yourself) I agree wit ...[text shortened]... ing categorically 'all'. That's how unsure of yourself you are. You're unsure of yourself, I'm not.
It might be that pure unadulterated capitalism like pure unadulterated socialism has never and could never exist, perhaps both concepts can only exist in the real world as a chimera made up of each other to differing degrees.
@wajoma saidI'm not unsure of myself, I was only trying to get clarification on your strangely, perhaps deliberately obtuse explanation of nonexistent capitalist systems. I see now. You're saying capitalism cannot hand out unemployment benefits because "hand out unemployment benefits" can't be found in its definition. A definition originalist.
There is no 'common definition' that says if you mix capitalism with socialism you get capitalism. There is no 'common definition' that asserts you can't have capitalism without mixing in some socialism, if you can find a reputable source that says so let's see it. After being asked repeatedly Pseud boy finally posted some definitions, (you can look back yourself) I agree wit ...[text shortened]... ing categorically 'all'. That's how unsure of yourself you are. You're unsure of yourself, I'm not.
Providing unemployment benefits are not inconsistent with the definitions of capitalism. So shav's point from a few pages ago is correct: capitalism hands out free money. All you're adding to the discussion is an exemption for free handouts that does not exist.
1 edit
@shavixmir saidNot socialism, assuming you reference the taxes. The taxes are for roads, schools hospitals.
Socialism.
HOWEVER, if the capitalistic government has a meeting and invents something that they call welfare, giving money out of the taxes to qualifying citizens, that 'free money' falls under tenets of socialism.
Makes one wonder, though..... Since the recipients of the money are not socialists, who are the socialists?
@averagejoe1 saidAnd around, around we go.
Not socialism, assuming you reference the taxes. The taxes are for roads, schools hospitals.
HOWEVER, if the capitalistic government has a meeting and invents something that they call welfare, giving money out of the taxes to qualifying citizens, that 'free money' falls under tenets of socialism.
Makes one wonder, though..... Since the recipients of the money are not socialists, who are the socialists?
Look, darling, because you don’t understand dialectic materialism, you don’t comprehend why capitalism needs unemployment benefit and why socialism does not have unemployment benefit.
@shavixmir saidActually I understand perfectly. As a matter of fact, I am a champion of the 40 million destitute in this country who need to be paid for by our government. I have said that 50 times, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
And around, around we go.
Look, darling, because you don’t understand dialectic materialism, you don’t comprehend why capitalism needs unemployment benefit and why socialism does not have unemployment benefit.
As to dialectic materialism, which rolls off the tongue of a communist, I have no intention of reading something founded in Marx. When the stuff gets here, I will be long gone, and unless your party raids people like me and get my money, my children are going to be well fixed for several generations. I don’t worry about Marx. You poster carriers are all about his philosophy, which reduces incentive and prosperity, as we know it, to something somewhat like a zombie. I will go with self-reliance and ignore your foolish representations. But don’t get me wrong, I do have fun, reading the words of someone who wants other people’s stuff. I find it very entertaining. Parasites, what have you.
I’m curious, just for the sake of forum discussion, what would you call yourself on the lines of parasite or dependent?
You will not honestly answer this question.
@AverageJoe1
AverageJoe certainly knows that there have got to be some socialistic programs within a capitalistic society to cover a lot of loose ends, which, of course includes losers. But you cannot thresh them all out exactly perfectly.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidUsing the definitions posted by Pseud Boy I explicitly explained why handouts are incompatible with capitalism, it wasn't a case of something missing, or something vague, it was "hand out unemployment benefits" is countered in the very definition Pseud Boy posted. Not my definition, the definition posted by Pseud Boy, which he claims to be from an encyclopedia.
I'm not unsure of myself, I was only trying to get clarification on your strangely, perhaps deliberately obtuse explanation of nonexistent capitalist systems. I see now. You're saying capitalism cannot hand out unemployment benefits because "hand out unemployment benefits" can't be found in its definition. A definition originalist.
Providing unemployment benefits are not ...[text shortened]... ee money. All you're adding to the discussion is an exemption for free handouts that does not exist.
As has been pointed out before shag doody quietly and without explanation abandoned "capitalism hands out free money" and redefined his terms, you're on your own with that BS.
@wajoma saidWild or Wajoma, please clarify to my unknowing brain....Capitalism can be capitalism, while within its economic structure, set aside money to dole out to the needy, and also to the losers. Free money, yes. An agency inside the capitalistic govt taking money from producers and giving it out. Free money.
Using the definitions posted by Pseud Boy I explicitly explained why handouts are incompatible with capitalism, it wasn't a case of something missing, it, or something vague, it was "hand out unemployment benefits" is countered in the very definition Pseud Boy posted. Not my definition, the definition posted by Pseud Boy, which he claims to be from an encyclopedia.
As has b ...[text shortened]... bandoned "capitalism hands out free money" and redefined his terms, you're on your own with that BS.
Secondly, we can stipulate that there is no perfectly capitalistic country, nor perfect socialist country .
So, having said that, what is the issue. Is WGrass saying a capitalist society should not have provisions for the needy? Welfare?
@wajoma saidNo it wasn’t. You’re babbling again.
Using the definitions posted by Pseud Boy I explicitly explained why handouts are incompatible with capitalism, it wasn't a case of something missing, or something vague, it was "hand out unemployment benefits" is countered in the very definition Pseud Boy posted. Not my definition, the definition posted by Pseud Boy, which he claims to be from an encyclopedia.
As has been ...[text shortened]... bandoned "capitalism hands out free money" and redefined his terms, you're on your own with that BS.
Everyone in the world comprehends the definitions I pasted of capitalism being capitalism.
Because you don’t like them, you suggest, it’s something else.
What? No one bloody knows.
And anyway, any definition you give of capitalism, whether subject to your fantasies or not, is going to lead to friction, which will accumulate to the end of capitalism or measures such as unemployment benefit, to appease the situation.
Ergo. Unemployement benefit is an integral part of a capitalist society.
@shavixmir saidHas everyone here not stipulated, capitalism makes room for socialistic (support needy, welfare) programs? It is actually in the budget, with agencies.
No it wasn’t. You’re babbling again.
Everyone in the world comprehends the definitions I pasted of capitalism being capitalism.
Because you don’t like them, you suggest, it’s something else.
What? No one bloody knows.
And anyway, any definition you give of capitalism, whether subject to your fantasies or not, is going to lead to friction, which will accumulate to ...[text shortened]... o appease the situation.
Ergo. Unemployement benefit is an integral part of a capitalist society.
So what again is this issue?
@averagejoe1 saidUnemployment benefit stems from capitalism and is not socialistic.
Has everyone here not stipulated, capitalism makes room for socialistic (support needy, welfare) programs? It is actually in the budget, with agencies.
So what again is this issue?
@shavixmir saidI don’t know squat about unemployment benefits. I do know that it is not welfare, which is what this issue is about. Socialism is giving money to someone which was produced by another person. Unemployment benefits we pay for every time we get a paycheck, they take money out for unemployment insurance. You fellers have been all over the page today.
Unemployment benefit stems from capitalism and is not socialistic.
Again, this is about socialism, welfare, free money. Unemployment is not the same thing.
@averagejoe1 saidAs I said: unemployement benefits are a form of welfare. Is giving money to people who do nothing. And is capitalism.
I don’t know squat about unemployment benefits. I do know that it is not welfare, which is what this issue is about. Socialism is giving money to someone which was produced by another person. Unemployment benefits we pay for every time we get a paycheck, they take money out for unemployment insurance. You fellers have been all over the page today.
Again, this is about socialism, welfare, free money. Unemployment is not the same thing.
I also gave many other examples: share holders, bank managers, arms dealers, chief justices… capitalism hands out a great deal of money to unproductive people.