[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Self-regulated, right... We've just seen it self regulate itself in the US in 2008...
The whole idea behind those systems was:
1) to produce goods/services more effectively.
2) to distribute them in a fair way.
Capitalism was much better at 1) and bad to poor at 2), while "communism" was quite good at 2) but terrible at 1).
[/citation]
Reasons you are wrong:
1) The problem that happened in 2008 was not a capitalism problem, it was a socialist problem where the government determined that everyone who wanted a house should be granted credit for a house, regardless of their ability or desire to actually pay for a house. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac bought any home loan originated and did not ask pesky questions about the likelyhood of the loan being paid off. They then had to offload those loans they bought, so they turned them into some kind of financial paper that got sold around the world. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are government sponsored entities that completely distorted the market for homes at the behest of the government that kept them in business. This points to SOCIALISM as the problem, not capitalism.
2) Socialism spreads things in a fair way? What are you talking about? Socialism breeds more top feeders and more slaves than capitalism does. Someone has to run things, and there are always people that are wolves willing to take command of people's money, in socialist societies that means their entire lives, and then redistribute it to first themselves, families, friends and as payoffs to others who will help keep them in charge, and if there is any left, they will spread that small amount to everyone. So please explain to me how this is FAIR? If I learn alot in school, or am athletically talented, or musically gifted or have some other quality that makes me very valuable to others and I apply myself in that manner, I will earn what I can. If I am a lazy good for nothing drug addicted wife beating thug, I will also earn what I can. There will be people who fit in between these two extremes who may be gifted, but just do not make it, but that is because there are limited positions in every activity, and no on is entitled to anything, it has to be earned, and part of earning something is right time, right place and right actions. There will also be people who are just incapable of doing anything significantly valuable who will end up earning less. Some people have talents, others do not, you do not pull down the people with talents just to make the people with out talents feel better You also do not prop up the talentless at the expense of the talented for that same reason. Each instance causes the talented to stop producing what they would, and causes the untalented to destroy as they are incapable doing the function of the talented.
The whole idea behind those systems was:
1) to produce goods/services more effectively.
2) to distribute them in a fair way.
Capitalism was much better at 1) and bad to poor at 2), while "communism" was quite good at 2) but terrible at 1).
[/citation]
Reasons you are wrong:
1) The problem that happened in 2008 was not a capitalism problem, it was a socialist problem where the government determined that everyone who wanted a house should be granted credit for a house, regardless of their ability or desire to actually pay for a house. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac bought any home loan originated and did not ask pesky questions about the likelyhood of the loan being paid off. They then had to offload those loans they bought, so they turned them into some kind of financial paper that got sold around the world. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are government sponsored entities that completely distorted the market for homes at the behest of the government that kept them in business. This points to SOCIALISM as the problem, not capitalism.
2) Socialism spreads things in a fair way? What are you talking about? Socialism breeds more top feeders and more slaves than capitalism does. Someone has to run things, and there are always people that are wolves willing to take command of people's money, in socialist societies that means their entire lives, and then redistribute it to first themselves, families, friends and as payoffs to others who will help keep them in charge, and if there is any left, they will spread that small amount to everyone. So please explain to me how this is FAIR? If I learn alot in school, or am athletically talented, or musically gifted or have some other quality that makes me very valuable to others and I apply myself in that manner, I will earn what I can. If I am a lazy good for nothing drug addicted wife beating thug, I will also earn what I can. There will be people who fit in between these two extremes who may be gifted, but just do not make it, but that is because there are limited positions in every activity, and no on is entitled to anything, it has to be earned, and part of earning something is right time, right place and right actions. There will also be people who are just incapable of doing anything significantly valuable who will end up earning less. Some people have talents, others do not, you do not pull down the people with talents just to make the people with out talents feel better You also do not prop up the talentless at the expense of the talented for that same reason. Each instance causes the talented to stop producing what they would, and causes the untalented to destroy as they are incapable doing the function of the talented.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram