The problem with America is that everybody thinks they are entitled to more than 3 dollars an hour.

Though our socioeconomic system has more capitalist elements than socialist, it has always been a mixed economy, that includes elements of both. Some economic decisions must be made from a central source, such as deciding whether or not to impose tariffs and other taxes to counteract product "dumping" on us. Likewise, decisions about infrastructure cannot be left to a "pure" free market. I'd hate to have to pay a toll every mile or so, or to look up at the plethora of telephone poles & wires of thirty five competing companies.

I believe that a little proper socialism helps to protect our economy and our national interests, but enough is enough. Let's concentrate on cutting out socialist programs that waste money and improve the ones that are necessary. (I like what Capitalist Pig said

I can't abide the thought of a single American citizen starving to death or going without basic education and health care (especially prenatal). The preference, of course, is for private organizations to seek and succor those who need it, but the gov't should either underwrite their activities or help fund them through competitive grants.

***
While it is the nature of capitalism to concentrate capital, there is nothing inherent in the system that causes this concentration to be held by only a few. If more workers demanded ESOPs and similar profit-sharing programs or formed corporations to market and represent them (instead of "unions" as we know them), the capital could stay concentrated and the profits would be spread around. The truth is, most workers do not want to be entrepreneurs and fill out a schedule-c. They just want to clock in and out and collect their paycheck.

The "revolution" will be fought in the polling places and it will not be violent. Nothing good could possibly come from a radical, violent revolution at this point.

***
(referring to Pravda's post...
(referring to SomeGOPGuy's post...
I respect this attitude. I am a capitalist and an entrepreneur and I take careful pains to avoid measuring myself by money. I refuse to be less of a person whenever I lose a client or my margins get thinner (like they did when gas prices rose over $3/gal.).


Actually, Ben & Jerry did pretty well for themselves by following the "hippie lifestyle." So have many others who now make various eco-friendly and hippie-fashion products instead of simply protesting "The Man."

This may be true in some ways, but unlike gdfather02, I wouldn't advise you to move out of the country just yet. There are a growing number of "egalitarian communities" developing around the country where you could live with a group of people who think just like you and everyone works together to make products that don't harm the environment or export jobs. If more communities like that were to succeed, you could change America by example and not by compulsion.

***

BoDs can't foresee the future either, so their plans are equally vulnerable. Your next point is more to the heart of socialism's problem:

And it also prevents many industries from being efficient. As Gorbachev described in one of his books (either Glasnost or Perstroika), the socialist state tends to measure a company's success by inputs and not outputs.

***

This is why we must educate every child in this country not only in the basics of reading, math & science, but also in our traditions of capitalism & democracy (required civics courses---not just a day's lesson). Too many children grow up ignorant of what is expected of them and what they are capable of, and by the time they discover it, they cannot recover without a helping hand.

It's a bitch, but it's true. It also, unfortunately, makes workers lazy in a capitalist system. Too many times I had experienced pressure from co workers to stop working so hard because it made everyone look bad or would make the boss expect more. When I was a cabbie, I was told (in no uncertain terms) that I had to steal money ("clips") because all the other drivers did it, and if I turned in sheets that were twice the $ of all of them, the boss would know they were all stealing.
I also found bosses who would reward me for completing my tasks in half the time by giving me someone else's work (but not their pay). I found it too difficult or tiresome to fight these trends most times (co-workers will actually conspire against you if you keep pushing the envelope), so I started my own business.

__________________
Hehetchetu. Wa uyun tinkte!

ok....lets see.....restocker positions at raleys do not move over seas. the jobs i am speaking of are, or were i should say, considered middle income positions.auto manufacturing,electronics,steel,glass,to name a very few.hell many of the parts that keep an f-16 flying come from third world nations.so dont wory your burger job is safe from from those globalists and you will always be on the low end of the scale not matter what that scale is.

our competitivness is undermined by more than medical benifits or guys striking thru thier unions. simple things like child labor laws and 40 hour work weeks makes us uncompetitive with much of the third world.so go ahead go to school, get a trade and watch someone in india do faster and cheaper. they go to school as well. education isnt just found here. freetrade started with blue colar jobs and we will finish this monster off with a suit and tie.

which do you purpose we do away with? child labor laws, saftey standards, overtime, workmans comp.,vacation time. remember now, iam not speaking details of any of these.the very fact that we have them at all once again undermines our competitivness with communist china or the like.so go ahead and figure out how to make us into mexico. maybe you can jump the rio grande....become the first reverse wet back and find a job in a border city, since clearly you find being an american unfair to these globlaists. good luck.

The problem with you Mikeydude is that you refuse to see compromise. You see the situation as either the unions get everything they demand or we will become Mexico. I'm not advocating that we strike down child labor laws or safety standards etc. but at the same time, Americans have gotten used to living a life of relative luxury in comparison to people in other parts of the world for a similar amount of work. What I am saying is that unions need to sit down and be reasonable in negotiations with employers. If union workers have to take a pay cut so a factory can stay open then they need to do it. Most companies dont move their factories overseas because they want to make 10 million a year instead of 2 million a year. The company does what it must to survive. The problem isnt just unions however, corporate taxes and assenine enviromental regulations are at least as large a part of the problem. Not to mention the lopsided trade agreements that cause American products to be unable to compete in a foreign market while foreign products conquer the American retail market. Basically what it boils down to is that either America once again becomes business friendly, or you will continue to see American companies relocate in order to survive.

by 1975 unions were engaged in the same selloff as the factories they occupied. go for the most money for the short term. they killed themselves and with them many jobs and new union members. greed certainly works both ways. they were great at being the excuse. the final straw that sent multi nationalist scrambling in the market of child labor and political slaves. i think there is no reason EVER to engage in these practices. if a company cant make it in a said market and other companies do.....that company is unabel to compete and therfore should go out of buisness. the problem now for companies is that the more that move to this foul globalist position the more difficult it is for those who employee american citizens and pay decent wages to compete. uninons are not the reason nike uses 14 year old girls in malaisa to make a pair of shoes for $6 bucks and then turn around and charge you $80.the same year that chrysler moved its neon plants to mexico they raised the price of their product. i say they benifit only themselves.thats fine for business, a horror for a nation.sooner or later companies will once again have to compete with each other and not the labor market. if all companies say moved to china, they would be equal again and therfore have to make a better or cheaper product than their competition and not use labor as means of profit. if they are in business only because they move over seas.....it will only be a matter of time until thier inablility to compete will show itself again and they will surley fail.

"capitalism is like a dead herring in the moon lite,it shines,but it stinks"!

The real difference between Capitalism and Socialism is the level of risk that each system is willing to accept. Capitalism rewards risk takers very will if their risk works. If it doesn't work, then it punishes them harshly. Capitalism thrives on risk. Capitalism is a race.

Socialism is anti-risk. I looks to safety and security, even if it is the "security" of universal poverty. Nobody moves faster than the slowest ship, even if that ship is dead in the water.

Because of that, socialism is loathe to try out new inventions, loathe to explore. Capitalism jumps at the chance. Capitalism looks forward to what can be, Socialism trembles in fear of the future.

Capitalism = most people happy, a few people unhappy
Socialism = plenty of misery to go around

capitalism is a race . that is fine in and of itself. makes america a great nation. inventions and investments. the problem comes from mature capitalisms, where those at the top become so efficient at what they do that they control the market. the nation benifits from the race, not the victory. soon markets are as closed as they are in any socialism. the great circle. dont believe me? try to open a retail store next to wal-mart. they have a firm grip on that market and with it the ability to make or break other companies that they decide to stock or not stock on their shelves. if they favor widgets from company a over widgets from company b you can rest assured that company b will certainly have a rough go of it if they stay in business at all. market choices are then made by the seller not the consumer, which is not unlike the choice of grey shirts or grey shirts the soviet offerd their population.

If I happen to be a manufacturer of "widgets", than assuming that the widgets I produce are of high quality, than I imagine that I could find a distributor for them. If Wal Mart turns me down, than lucky for me Wal Mart is not the only game in town. No matter how much you want to brand Wal Mart as having a monopoly on the discount retail market, it simply isn't true. What about Sam's Club, Cosco, Target, Kmart and a score of similar companies all over the country. The problem I see is that liberals think the market isnt fair unless anybody anywhere can start any business they want and then be gauranteed success. True, you can start any business you want, but if you want to get into something competitive than you had better bring something new to the table. You cant expect to try to compete with Wal Mart at Wal Mart's game right next to a freakin Wal Mart. The idea is to examine a community, and do a little research. Find out what a community needs, and give it to them. Just because you cant open a little tiny retail store right next to Wal Mart, does not mean that capitalism is flawed. Liberals are always trying to trash Wal Mart because they are successful. And if there is one thing Liberal's hate, its Americans succeeding at the things that make America great. Because if everybody was happy and successful, nobody would vote for the party that advocates class envy.