• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialism vs Capitalism

Which economic system do you prefer and why?

  • Total voters
    75
Cephus said:
In fact, I did, I provided a link that you refused to look at. So if you want to sit there and wait, feel free.
Click to expand...

Did it
JANFU said:
OK- So living in poverty contributes to high school drop out rates at high levels. I did not open the link, but wold make an informed guess that males dominate the rates.
Address the poverty levels now, save money in the long term. And prevent a host of other issues from arising.
Many developed countries have already done so.
Click to expand...
But you are locked into they made their own bed syndrome. All people, poor people have no one to blame but themselves. Rather limited in your insight into peoples lives.
And if I showed a program that works, why bother, to you it is all dollars, present costs, compared to long term positive returns on lowering poverty rates. The developed world is full of examples that work, check the OECD.
You have no concern about addressing the issues.
Rather complain about taxes. And then complain about the problems are never solved.
 
JANFU said:
Did it
Click to expand...

Good for you.

But you are locked into they made their own bed syndrome. All people, poor people have no one to blame but themselves. Rather limited in your insight into peoples lives.
And if I showed a program that works, why bother, to you it is all dollars, present costs, compared to long term positive returns on lowering poverty rates. The developed world is full of examples that work, check the OECD.
You have no concern about addressing the issues.
Rather complain about taxes. And then complain about the problems are never solved.
Click to expand...

So now you're just making excuses for why you can't actually prove anything? Oh no, you wouldn't pay any attention anyhow, why should I bother?

Seriously, is your position that utterly pathetic?
 
A mix of the two. Neither 'pure' system by itself would have a good outcome.
 
Fenton said:
So you fight Redlining by forcing banks to abandon their lending standards ? That makes zero sense.

Lending standards have nothing to do with a Banks refusal to lend based on the location of the property that's on the loan or their refusal to lend base on skin color

No Banks were forced to abandon their standards because the Federal Govt declared those standards to be inherently racist.

The Banks had to offer up " Fair credit ", it's in Janet Reno's speech and everything. Did you not read it ?

The Govt decided what was " fair " and unfair ( big mistake ) and then forced private institutions to comply via threat of Federal prosecution.

Kind of where the whole " Subprime " thing came from, do try to keep up.
Click to expand...
I have seen you make really stupid argument before, but has to be one of the worst. Are you seriously arguing that if the federal govt had allowed banks to continue the racially discriminatory policy....er...."standard".....of redlining, that we would not have had a housing crisis?

Wow!

I suppose that this REALLY stupid "argument" is just a means to avoid showing that you have actually faced up to the default levels of CRA/F/F lending compared to the non-conforming lending of private banks.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I have seen you make really stupid argument before, but has to be one of the worst. Are you seriously arguing that if the federal govt had allowed banks to continue the racially discriminatory policy....er...."standard".....of redlining, that we would not have had a housing crisis?

Wow!

I suppose that this REALLY stupid "argument" is just a means to avoid showing that you have actually faced up to the default levels of CRA/F/F lending compared to the non-conforming lending of private banks.
Click to expand...


Let's try to make this a little easier for you to comprehend.

Discriminatory lending based on skin color means the lender is making a decision not based on credit score, income or the amount of the downpaynent but on the color of the borrowers skin

So if we have two different people shopping for the same mortgage at the same Bank, one white, one black, who have identical credit scores, incomes and downpayments, the bank would be discriminating based on skin Color if it only approved the White borrower.

The Government wouldn't have to tell the Bank to abandon their lending standards to fix that scenario or to make it " fair "

Because both lenders were in every other way other than race identical.

Do you FINNALY understand ?

All the Govt would have had to do was to tell the lender to offer the exact same loan to the Black borrower or else.

Clinton didnt direct 10 differnet Federal Agencies ( Fair Lending Task Force ) to go out and force Banks to make prime loans to minorities. Nope.

He forced them to lower their standards and to create a loan based on skin color.

I hope this helps you grasp the obvious.
 
Fenton said:
Let's try to make this a little easier for you to comprehend.

Discriminatory lending based on skin color means the lender is making a decision not based on credit score, income or the amount of the downpaynent but on the color of the borrowers skin

So if we have two different people shopping for the same mortgage at the same Bank, one white, one black, who have identical credit scores, incomes and downpayments, the bank would be discriminating based on skin Color if it only approved the White borrower.

The Government wouldn't have to tell the Bank to abandon their lending standards to fix that scenario or to make it " fair "

Because both lenders were in every other way other than race identical.

Do you FINNALY understand ?

All the Govt would have had to do was to tell the lender to offer the exact same loan to the Black borrower or else.

Clinton didnt direct 10 differnet Federal Agencies ( Fair Lending Task Force ) to go out and force Banks to make prime loans to minorities. Nope.

He forced them to lower their standards and to create a loan based on skin color.

I hope this helps you grasp the obvious.
Click to expand...
Again for the hard of comprehending, redlining, a race based business practice was used for decades by lenders. The CRA was not a lowering of standards, they were CONFORMING loans, were a small part of total lending and had lower levels of defaults. You just still to this day, after making the same puny, misinformed arguments, cannot admit to the size or default rates of CRA lending. You still rely on Pinto stats, you still make teabag/bankster excuses....and you probably always will.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again for the hard of comprehending, redlining, a race based business practice was used for decades by lenders. The CRA was not a lowering of standards, they were CONFORMING loans, were a small part of total lending and had lower levels of defaults. You just still to this day, after making the same puny, misinformed arguments, cannot admit to the size or default rates of CRA lending. You still rely on Pinto stats, you still make teabag/bankster excuses....and you probably always will.
Click to expand...

According to Clintons Fed Chairman, over a Trillion dollars in CRA commitments were made under Clinton's Presidency.

Small number ? Ok
 
Bucky said:
Which system do you prefer and why?
Click to expand...

Are we talking actual socialism, or the type of Democratic "socialism" Sanders endorses?

Are we talking Free Market Capitalism or the Corporate Capitalist system we run now?
 
Socialism. I prefer to have the means of production owned by the people, and not by wealthy corporations or the government.
 
Fenton said:
According to Clintons Fed Chairman, over a Trillion dollars in CRA commitments were made under Clinton's Presidency.

Small number ? Ok
Click to expand...
A commitment is not the actual investment level, which was not totally for residential investment, and you still won't tell what the level of defaults of the actual amount invested was. In short, you don't have any idea of what you are speculating about.
 
IMO, the only thing that can keep government in check are private actors on the free market. And the only thing that can keep private actors in check is government.

It's all about the right balance.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
A commitment is not the actual investment level, which was not totally for residential investment, and you still won't tell what the level of defaults of the actual amount invested was. In short, you don't have any idea of what you are speculating about.
Click to expand...

Oh they were more than just commitments.

Homeownership rates under Clinton rose a unprecedented 5%, from 63% in 1993 to 68% in 2000.

Also HUD's data showed that the GSE's were not only meeting their 1995-2001 " affordable lending " goals for the purchase of CRA loans but far exceeding them.

Franklin Raines also commented in a 1999 New York Times Article that lowered lending standards had helped " Millions " of low to moderate income borrowers get home loans.
 
Socialism, or social democracy. Not central planning from Government, but direct democracy.
 
Nordic Democrat said:
Socialism, or social democracy. Not central planning from Government, but direct democracy.
Click to expand...

Huh ? No Central planning ? If we in America adopted Single Payer who would run it ? Who would enforce the new regulations and laws ?

How would prices for services and medication be calculated, dictated and enforced ??

I get why proponents of Socialism are trying to water it down by adding qualifiers like " Democratic " or " Scandinavian " to it. They know that's their only hope of selling it to the masses, but that doesn't change how it's implemented.

It's not implemented by " the People ", by free citizens with a vote, it's implemented by large bloated and usually corrupt bureaucracy who purposefully avoids the free market concepts that lead to efficient and effective distribution of goods and services.

For example, Hugo Chavez was elected by claiming he would return the riches of Venezuela back to its people. He then set out Nationalizing Venezuela's key industries including their Oil industry.

Central planners under Chavez's Democratic Socialist Govt then mismanaged those industries while simultaneously creating a economy that was largely dependent on one commodity.

Now, Venezuela's economy is a disaster and the Venezuelan people are struggling with the highest inflation rates in the world.
 
Which system do you mean with "other system"?
 
Fenton said:
Huh ? No Central planning ? If we in America adopted Single Payer who would run it ? Who would enforce the new regulations and laws ?

How would prices for services and medication be calculated, dictated and enforced ??

I get why proponents of Socialism are trying to water it down by adding qualifiers like " Democratic " or " Scandinavian " to it. They know that's their only hope of selling it to the masses, but that doesn't change how it's implemented.

It's not implemented by " the People ", by free citizens with a vote, it's implemented by large bloated and usually corrupt bureaucracy who purposefully avoids the free market concepts that lead to efficient and effective distribution of goods and services.

For example, Hugo Chavez was elected by claiming he would return the riches of Venezuela back to its people. He then set out Nationalizing Venezuela's key industries including their Oil industry.

Central planners under Chavez's Democratic Socialist Govt then mismanaged those industries while simultaneously creating a economy that was largely dependent on one commodity.

Now, Venezuela's economy is a disaster and the Venezuelan people are struggling with the highest inflation rates in the world.
Click to expand...

Again, talks up the impossibility of social democracy, deflects to the minority case like Venezuela, ignoring extenuating circumstances like A: it being far more extreme in its nationalization than the majority of social democracies, B: corruption (that is not the norm among social democracies), and C: it being subject to US sanction/interference while utterly and deliberately failing to mention all of the majority case success stories of the model with countries that are more solvent and have on average happier, healthier and better educated citizenry with less corrupt and more representative governance than the United States.

Just give it up man, such glaring disingenuity fools only yourself, and those desperate to cling to the same world view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom