Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Socialism vs. Capitalism: Which is the Moral System

Did you check make that all up because the facts don't match your statement.

First of all Communism and Socialism are 2 distinctly different economic models and don't belong in the same argument.

Secondly the quest for the all mighty dollar doesn't motivate most to achieve, self-respect, self satisfaction and recognition play a much larger role.

The Middle class has been shrinking since Reagan declared war on them in the 80's, all research points to this reality, look it up besides the fact that the median family income has only risen by $2000 in the last 10 years, the smallest gain in a century. Again facts that are out there if you take the time to research it.

As far as your last lie about Sweden, you might want to review your research, Oh wait you don't do that, i forgot.

You can lead people to knowledge but you can't make them think

--- On Wed, 12/1/10, Susan <sailorgirl43@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Susan <sailorgirl43@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Socialism vs. Capitalism: Which is the Moral System
To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 3:10 PM

That is bull. What do you think has been going on? Capitalism, which is the system that encourages people to achieve. Communism is a dismal failure because no one has to or is rewarded for achievement. We have a huge middle class in this country and they sustain it by earning money and spending it.
Sweden is going broke and has had no GNP growth since socialism.

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:13 AM, patrick mc govern <mcgvrn_ptrck@yahoo.com> wrote:

Capitalism is not self sustaining. If there is no middle class to purchase goods and services than Capitalism will eventually fail, thus proving that no one economic model is the answer. Now where it co exists with a social safety net, its thriving. Sweden and Finland are perfect examples of this sucessful model

You can lead people to knowledge but you can't make them think

--- On Tue, 11/30/10, Dave Ketchum <davek@clarityconnect.com> wrote:

From: Dave Ketchum <davek@clarityconnect.com>
Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Socialism vs. Capitalism: Which is the Moral System
To: PEACENET@LISTSERV.BINGHAMTON.EDU, Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 9:47 PM

Reading too much about the evils of capitalism, I went looking for a defense, and found one I liked: "http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v1n3/thompson.html" - On Principle, v1n3,
October 1993, by: C. Bradley Thompson. Based on the words I like there:

"The intellectuals' mantra runs something like this: In theory socialism is the morally superior social system despite its dismal record of failure in the real world. Capitalism, by contrast, is a morally bankrupt system despite the extraordinary prosperity it has created. In other words, capitalism at best, can only be defended on pragmatic grounds. We tolerate it because it works."

"Capitalism is the only moral system because it requires human beings to deal with one another as traders--that is, as free moral agents trading and selling goods and services on the basis of mutual consent."

"Capitalism is the only just system because the sole criterion that determines the value of thing exchanged is the free, voluntary, universal judgement of the consumer. Coercion and fraud are anathema to the free-market system."

I think of restaurants as, usually, capitalistic efforts - rewarding those who produce well. On the other hand, some of what involves lots of money is not truly capitalism because of the ways decisions are made and rewarded.

Seems like we live in a mixed economy of capitalism and socialism. Makes sense, but we could sometimes do better as to how we mix them together. Part of what I read here seems biased too much against socialism.