• 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!

Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?

Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?


  • Total voters
    56
Singapore showing steady economic growth, low income inequality, and high employment seriously shows deregulation works.

Singapore has 5.5 million people, and if that's your only example, then that's embarrassing, considering all of the capitalist countries without regulations that **** everyone.
 
Why would I produce more than I need when I get nothing more from it? To There is literally no reason to create any sort of surplus when there is nothing to gain from it. The quality of what is produced would decline for the very same reason that neglect is a hallmark of collectively owned property. No one cares enough to bother to make good quality products.

You keep assuming to know about these societies where workers actually collectively owned, not the state. I need to see one.
 
when it comes right down to it.. .all Commies end up supporting the same thing in terms of enacting their system.... the purging of non-believers from society.

to do so is very much a practical necessity..... the system cannot work without 100% compliance, backed by the fear of being "purged".
of course, enforcement has to be rigorous and sustained, which necessitates an well armed authority and the complete and utter absence of justice.

The system can work without 100% compliance, you're referring to stalin's method.
 
If people were having an actual violent revolution against the state, I wouldn't try to stop them.

i though you said....."THAT THERE WAS NO STATE"


You've never heard of capitalist dictators? Not a surprise. Also, do you want to abolish the state aswell? Wait, communism has no state, what government?
 
Take note that before this country had a minimum wage and higher taxes unemployment was regularly around those levels.

Singapore's government owns controlling shares in many government-linked companies and directs investment through sovereign wealth funds.[61] Singapore has attracted some of the world's most powerful corporations through business friendly legislation and through the encouragement of western style corporatism, with close cooperation between the state and corporations.

Singapore’s large holdings of government-linked companies and the state’s close cooperation with business are defining aspects of Singapore’s version of state capitalism.
Henrin, I thought you'd be against that? State capitalism? Hm, doesn't sound like what you talk about.
 
I did, re-read about regulations I.b aid and trade with developing nations and how lack of manufacturing diversity creates gridlock and the inability to transfer job markets. Also what I was speaking about literary explains everything in your al jazeer article.

Ford defines the pRoDucers position in a market society

Bull**** on the producers position, you know that. Evidence?
 
I hardly see how restricting the example to only the means of production changes my argument in the slightest. The very fact that you eliminated the profit motive would in fact lead to people caring for the property in question less and thus upkeep would suffer. Aristotle argued against collectively owned property on this basis centuries ago and I fail to see how he was wrong.

Why would they care less? You're making assumptions, oh yes, I also know a philosopher.
Karl Marx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
oh please!, you know very well you were talking about communism.

Really now? Talking about, in reference to the current states, a group of people rising up, and saying I wouldn't stop them, what the **** does that have to do with communism, a stateless society?
 
Really now? Talking about, in reference to the current states, a group of people rising up, and saying I wouldn't stop them, what the **** does that have to do with communism, a stateless society?

guy you know we were talking about the power of force by the type of system you are proposing....which is all we have talked about..... i have never talked about a system other then what you are proposing.

this shows either two things, you don't know what you are even discussing, or you screwed up and are trying to cover your mistake.
 
guy you know we were talking about the power of force by the type of system you are proposing....which is all we have talked about..... i have never talked about a system other then what you are proposing.

this shows either two things, you don't know what you are even discussing, or you screwed up and are trying to cover your mistake.

You're talking about something that has never existed, or you're talking about something like the USSR, I truly fail to follow you.
 
Why would they care less? You're making assumptions, oh yes, I also know a philosopher.
Karl Marx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the difference is that what Aristotle said was based on evidence that individually owned property was better maintained and more productive than collectively owned property that is largely unproductive, unmaintained, and generally short lived. All you have to do is look at the disasters such as the dust bowl and deforestation to prove the point.
 
Yes, the difference is that what Aristotle said was based on evidence that individually owned property was better maintained and more productive than collectively owned property that is largely unproductive, unmaintained, and generally short lived. All you have to do is look at the disasters such as the dust bowl and deforestation to prove the point.
Deforestation? The dust bowl? Explain how these were caused by workers owning the means of production, and I urge you to name me a socialist state where the workers actually own the production. What are you getting your evidence off of? Forced collectivization under Mao/stalin, which involves a state? Marx has no evidence for anything he says? 10/10 :applaud
 
The system can work without 100% compliance, you're referring to stalin's method.

no, it can't.... the system falls immediately apart without total compliance.

I have no doubt that this stateless, classless ,moneyless society evolves into unregulated capitalism in very short order...

Stalins method, or one similar in authoritativeness, is how Communism, on a wide scale, comes into being in the real world... it can't happen otherwise.

that's another great thing about capitalism.... communists are free to operate in a capitalist system... the inverse is not true.
 
Deforestation? The dust bowl? Explain how these were caused by workers owning the means of production, and I urge you to name me a socialist state where the workers actually own the production. What are you getting your evidence off of? Forced collectivization under Mao/stalin, which involves a state?

What I'm getting is that there is no evidence that collectively owned property is superior than individually owned property. If you want productive well maintained property the one thing you don't want to do is to allow the collective to own it. The fact of the matter is that societies built on collective ownership will never be as prosperous as societies built on individual ownership.
 
communism is built on force, not liberty
It hasn't been built yet, and if needs to be done by force, I can understand why.
thanks for confirming that, and i am sure your force also means killing people it need be...
I suppose, although I highly doubt it will come to that, in regards to using armed force.
oh, do you think that if anyone got in the way of you idea, you are not going to be for killing them?
i suppose?......NO you would, which is why you type of world will always fail, because worlds built of force do not last, they can created, but they always destroy themselves in the end.
Sounds like what capitalists have done before, pointing out state socialism doesn't help you.
what governments have done before......governments are the biggest violators of rights and killers of the people.
you advocate for a government which has total control of the people.......to violate and kill more.
You've never heard of capitalist dictators? Not a surprise. Also, do you want to abolish the state aswell? Wait, communism has no state, what government?
if communism has no state, then how are the people secure?
how does communism "enforce itself" if it has no state.
There is nothing to enforce, it is a stateless society with collective ownership of production, things like farms, factories, lakes.. You seem to like guns alot, as do I, have quite a few myself, people would be able to "enforce" the idea of not killing others, stealing other's PROPERTY, apart from the means of production.. Again, communism is when the workers, the people, live in a society without any state leadership.

.......
 
no, it can't.... the system falls immediately apart without total compliance.

I have no doubt that this stateless, classless ,moneyless society evolves into unregulated capitalism in very short order...

Stalins method, or one similar in authoritativeness, is how Communism, on a wide scale, comes into being in the real world... it can't happen otherwise.

that's another great thing about capitalism.... communists are free to operate in a capitalist system... the inverse is not true.
You keep making assumptions, much like Henrin, despite the fact that he follows anarcho capitalism, which has never existed. Really now? More baseless bull****? Stalins method isn't the way to do it, you make more assumptions.
 
Bull**** on the producers position, you know that. Evidence?

It's simple supply and demand theory. If the producers charge too high people won't buy, if their price of input is too low the domestic population will not expand profit for the company. The only way a firm can actually pay less on Input of production is either by new technology which is a good thing for the global economy, or create trade protectionist policy through government to expand export sectors. This is what is happening in china right now, the domestic population can not afford most of the products because china has huge export subsidies and the central gov. Devalues the yuan to such levels most of the Chinese population live in tremendous real world poverty. This is a direct cause of the central planning of the economy, not free marketism.

However, fords quote is a direct relation to any healthy sustainable free market society. Any economist would agree the idea that paying domestic and focusing a majority of production on domestic stability is a much more stable long term growth, however in infant stages of a nation you can argue for trade policy to in a sense shock the economy to a massive growth, after that you need to stabilize that growth by advancing your domestic infrastructure and the most efficient and stable way to do so is through the free market
 
Back
Top Bottom