Trump's win tonight and Bernie's defeat is a testament to The People's Faith in Capitalism

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Hieveryone, Feb 20, 2016.

  1. Hieveryone macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #1
    Tonight was a huge win for America. Tonight the American people made it clear. We will NOT accept socialism in any way, shape, or form - "democratic" or not.

    Trump is an icon of American success and a product of the Power of Capitalism.

    All I can say, is that I Love America and the People for making the right decision tonight!
     
  2. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #2
    I have to agree, but I want Bernie to run. Bernie was running Hillary out of money :D
     
  3. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #3
    The season continues. It's just begun!
     
  4. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #4
    I wish that were the case, but from the looks of it Bernie has to do something great soon if he's to have a chance. I'm no fan of socialism, but Bernie does point out a huge economic problem that will only get worse if something isn't done.
    The longer Bernie runs, the more attention he'll bring to his cause. I'm not a fan of his solutions, but many of us are a fan of his cause.

    If I had to choose between Hillary and Bernie, I'd take Bernie.
     
  5. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #5
    So what is Hillary? And why do you want her to be the next president?
     
  6. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #6
    Yay, a Hieveryone thread. :)

    I believe in capitalism, that is something I guess we have in common. Capitalism isn't "fair" but nothing in life is.

    That said, I also believe modern society has some responsibility to care for the sick and underprivileged to some degree in order to give them the opportunity to succeed. There of course are regulations that must be instituted to prevent destruction of the economic system. Therefore, you can't rely on strictly on capitalism. Of course where to draw the line is everybody's argument.

    I also don't believe Bernie is remotely a true socialist. But I won't be voting for him regardless.
     
  7. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #7
    What part of capitalism do you think is not fair?
     
  8. Hieveryone thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #8
    I like Trump. Make America Great Again!
    --- Post Merged, Feb 20, 2016 ---
    Hillary's got the rest of the map on lock. Bernie's out. The only thing that's a shame about him losing is that he wasnt taking big donations from the The Establishment.
     
  9. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #9
    I just read about how Hillary is having money problems. She's tapped out many of her people and Bernie still has a long way he can go with his because that are all small donations. Hopefully Hillary spends HUUUUGE before the primary.

    If you want Trump to win, support Bernie. Keep him in as long as we can, he's draining Hillary's money.
     
  10. Ironduke Suspended

    Ironduke

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Location:
    England
  11. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #11
    More scarily, trump doesn't even know what the US nuclear triad is, and he's likely to be in control of it.

    He's xenophobic, anti-privacy, a war-monger. He's likely to be incredibad for world stability.
     
  12. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #12
    Capitalism is essentially the darwinism of economic systems. Turkey A was born with short legs he cannot run as fast as Turkey B and then gets eaten by the wolf. If all turkeys had the same leg length, that would be more fair?

    In capitalism, people with advantages (education, upbringing, intellect, etc) tend to do much better than those who do not. Students A and B are have the same inherent abilities, but student B cannot afford college. Statistically speaking, who will be more successful? Can a company arbitrarily raise the price of their product by 200% knowing people will still buy their product/service regardless?

    In my opinion, socialism is even more unfair than capitalism. I think we can see though for our society to prosper, we need elements of both.
     
  13. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #13
    As though the world is more stable after 2 terms of an Obama presidency, demonstrating his apparent credo of "Tread on Me."
     
  14. ScottishDuck macrumors 6502a

    ScottishDuck

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Location:
    Argyll, Scotland
    #14
    Under Trump everyone will receive a small loan of a million dollars and get immunity from bankruptcy
     
  15. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #15
    Never mentioned anthing about Obama; he has nothing to do with Trump being a bad president.

    For the record, not a fan of his either.
     
  16. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #16
    So you're under the impression that everyone must come out even?
    I noticed something missing in your post... hard work. You mentioned, education, upbringing, intellect, etc... but not hard work.

    Is the goal that every come out even? If that's the case, if we all have zero income, we'd all be perfectly even? What if the poorest person in America had a million dollars, then could the richest have a trillion? Would that be fair? No, it wouldn't be fair because someone only has a million dollars while someone else has a trillion.

    Another thing missing is the goal. People that mention fair, don't set a goal. At what point would the poor no longer be poor? If the rich provide a home would that be enough? What about A/C, what about a pool, internet, car? How new is the car required to be? Is there any point where the producers have done enough? Are the poor required to do anything? Are they required to obey the law? Are they required to work? How hard are they required to work?

    So you left out hard work and any goal that would say "ok, that enough"

    So what about the other side? Are the smart required to do more than the stupid? Are the strong required to lift more than the weak? What if the smart decide to never study, what if the strong decide to never exercise? Can they be forced to work hard so that others don't have to work hard?

    What if we force all the producers to leave the country? What if all the producers leave the country? What about a rule that anyone that makes over 100K has to leave the country. That would end the problem?

    What if someone doesn't want more? What if someone is happy in poverty? Can we force them out of poverty so that everything is even?

    What give the right of one to hold hostage the dreams of another because they don't share that dream? If someone has a dream to be the fastest runner, can we hold that dream hostage because others can't run as fast?

    BTW, is there anything other than money that should matter in life? Is the only goal that everyone dies with the same amount of money?
    If it's the job of others to take care of the poor? Is there any requirement of the poor to do anything?

    The problem is that the better we make poverty, the less reason a person has to do anything. What if 80% of the people decide that poverty is just fine because it includes food, nice house, car, internet, etc..., and they decide to no longer work. They just sit on the couch, play video games, and smoke weed.

    If slavery is the taking most of the fruit of someone else's work, isn't this a form of slavery? Is the only way for someone to get out of this obligation to give up their dreams for something better?

    If one man can hold another man's dreams hostage, they'll no longer have to work.

    Can anyone point to the part of our constitution that says the job of the government is to make sure the rich aren't too rich and the poor aren't too poor? Who gets to decide how poor is too poor?

    BTW, is there any nation that's ever created more wealth per person than the US has? Most of the world lives on < $2/day, how's the other systems doing? How much do the other nations contribute?
     
  17. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #17
    This is an illusion; there is no nation in the history of the world that has created more DEBT than the United States has.

    You've got a free ride off being the world reserve currency via OPEC.

    In terms of actual monetary balance, you guys are so far into the negatives it's a joke.

    For reference as to just how far into the red you are...

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/


    ... about 64 trillion dollars...
     
  18. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #18
    Some say the true total is 150 or more trillion. Much of this is because of consumption and waste.

    If what you said were true, how would you explain the US before 2000? Since about 2000 our debt is up some 500%. Much of that 100+ trillion debt is unfunded mandates and national debt. The system wasn't always like this. We also spend a huge amount on our 'defense' (although some might say it's more offense than defense). We've spent many trillions on wars that gained nothing and some are worse than nothing.

    Many trillions have been taken in the form of taxes and wasted on a government that produces nothing and has no motivation to cut spending, do a good job and they are unaccountable.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 21, 2016 ---
    About the only thing that went wrong was Hillary is still running.
     
  19. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #19
    Yes, the actual figure is difficult to calculate due to various factors, that 64 trillion is what can be directly accounted for.

    The US has been a debtor nation since at least WW2.

    The first sign of real problems was when Nixon got rid of the gold standard because your federal reserve was issuing more money than you had assets to back it with.

    You get away with it purely because other nations are willing to accept US dollars for payment because it is required to purchase oil from OPEC nations.

    THIS is why countries like Iraq and Iran announcing that they want/wanted to sell oil in non-US currency is such a bad thing for the US, and is a major reason why Iraq was invaded in 2003 (they announced their intent to sell oil in Euros) and why Iran has been portrayed as such a bad country (despite Saudi Arabia, with their human rights record being an ally, lol) in recent history - Iran want to sell oil in Euros.

    Selling oil in Euros erodes the value of the US dollar, and your government will spend vast amounts of money and initiate wars to protect that.

    If oil could be universally traded in any currency, the value of the US dollar, and the ability of the USA to issue credit would collapse overnight.

    if the recent US wars were about terrorism and protecting human rights, Saudi Arabia would be subjugated immediately.
     
  20. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #20
    Tell me this, would you prefer living in the US during the Gilded Age, circa 1870-1910, or during our economic golden age, circa 1945-1975?
     
  21. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #21
    I'd really have to know what the laws were but my guess is that it would be much better in post WWII. I think it's more about what a person makes of the time they're in.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 21, 2016 ---
    Yeah, that removal from the gold standard really made it so we could get heavy into debt and inflate our way towards failure. This puts the government at odds with its own people.

    Some say that some wars are just about economics. You sell a nation weapons that they must buy or they end up dying, easy sell :D

    We've clearly screwed things up. IMO, we had a pretty good chance before 2000, but now it's hard to imagine much past "kick the can down the road". We pretty much have only two ways out without crashing the system.
    1. return to balanced budget and get slow growth to about 4% then put the debt on ice at the lowest rate we can for the longest term we can.
    2. create a sector specific deflation event that allows the people to get back into the system. In other words, lower the cost of living to the point where a lower min wage works. This moves people from an economic loss to a gain and this would start to end welfare.
     
  22. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #22
    Then, superficially at least, you support a socio-capitalist economy.

    As you said yourself, it's more about what a person makes of the time they're in. So wouldn't it make sense for us to support an economic model that tries to maximize that opportunity, so that people can carry themselves farther by their own hard works and efforts, as we did in the 50's and 60's?
     
  23. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #23
    Just so you know that the world is less stable now, than when Obama got elected, which makes hay of your prediction about potential instability under Trump, who you characterize as a xenophone and war mongerer. America can use a president looking out for its interests and who won't let others walk all over him as has Obama.
     
  24. A.Goldberg, Feb 21, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2016

    A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #24
    Excuse me, but did you notice the part where I said I was a capitalist? Let's back up the rant a little bit. You should realize black and white in life as poltical arguments often assume.

    1. Hard work. I do believe hard work typically gets you further in life than you would have otherwise been. But I'll ask you, what constitutes hard work? If you have Student A and B, equally smart, equally as hard working, one rich, one poor, who is more likely to go to a more prestigious school? If someone works really hard at their job as a waitress supporting 2 kids with no father, does she have the ability to climb the socioeconomic ladder and accumulate wealth? Notice I also used the word "etc" in my list. Consider that the ability to "work hard" may be an advantageous inherent ability. Some people are simply more productive than others.

    2. "Evenness" is basically the goal of socialism, creating a classless society where it's a level playing field. Unfortunately, that creates little incentive to go above and beyond, as you've pointed out. That's why socialist countries often aren't very productive or innovative. If the amount of money everyone had has proportionally increased, the cost of everything would just go up and it would be a wash.

    3. As I said in my first post here, where the endpoint is is "everyone's argument" (in the context of providing social services to help the poor). Do we cover the bare minimum- food, water, and shelter or do we include things like healthcare, cell phones, etc. The current problem we have with welfare system is the cycle of poverty it creates.

    I think it's highly detrimental to society to write off the sick and poor as a burden. Then their kids are even more likely to live in poverty and you turn into a country like India that has people living in cities with modern ammentities and right next to it people living in essentially 3rd world slums with no power, fresh water, electricity, etc.

    My grandfather was a holocaust survivor. Long story short, had it not been for the American Tax payers, he would not have died a multimillionaire, employing hundreds, paying plenty of taxes, and making millions in charitable contributions.

    4. I'm not really sure where you're going with this argument but there have been communist countries that have forced people into specific jobs. As stated before Socialism "encourages" people not to work hard because there is no incentive to do better than anyone else.

    5. I deal with your question on letting people contently live in poverty every day. I work in impatient psychiatry in Boston. Most homeless people in the US are schizophrenic. Many of them are okay with their lifestyle. I had a homeless patient with a Ph.D., a former college professor one time, perfectly content with his lifestyle. He was forced into treatment by a court and his family. The reasoning is most sane people want their basic needs of living met (food, water, shelter). It creates an interesting ethical dilemma.
     
  25. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #25
    When you say "socio-capitalist" you mean a mix of capitalism and socialism? If so, that's what we have now. The problem is "mission creep" where one starts take over the other. On paper these two will never mix well and socialism will always win out in the long run and ruin the system while blaming capitalism. This is part of the r/K gene selection theory, where one side out breeds the other and gains power thru voting themselves more of whatever they want. Which is where we are now and why we have so much debt.

    Unchecked capitalism is not without problems, so IMO a balance needs to be in place, but I don't think this has ever been proven. I think it's just a part of human nature that we need to find a balance and that balance needs to be kept by a 3rd party thru regulation. In fact, this is the way the US government was setup, checks and balances. Small population states have 2 Senators just like large population states, one part controls law, others money, etc...

    So yes, although I don't think it's been proven, I think this balance would be best. Basically a well regulated capitalism system.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 21, 2016 ---
    There's still the issue of personal responsibility. If someone that has kids too soon does that mean that others have to pay for that choice. If someone has kids, they should understand that it's not an economic positive and that should be understood at the start.

    To use an analogy, I had a co-worker that smoked, was obese and ate some pretty poor food. He had a stroke in his early 40's.

    As far as rich goes, I started supported myself at 17 and worked my own way thru college. I noticed that many of the rich people had fancy cars from their parents and was mainly there to party.

    As far as hard work goes, I've always found that some people just don't want to work hard. Look at people that pay to go to a gym vs people that do anything to get out of hard work. The co-worker mentioned above, hated doing anything that was hard work. I've paid for a gym before and have a sizable home setup now. It's really personal choice.

    I've spent tons on book after college, others don't want to learn anything that they don't have to.

    The bottom line is that everyone has their own level of ambition and their own goals. Who's to say that a waitress with 2 kids didn't want that. Her choices made that happen. That's not to say that she didn't make a mistake or that a mistake should be that damaging, but people need to understand that not everyone is going to reach their goals.

    I just helped a person start a business, I explained what to do. He didn't listen and it failed quickly, then he argued that he needed more from me while not paying me for what was loaned already. It didn't end well, he went broke thinking it was my fault for not giving him as much as he wanted.

    When I started studying behavior economics, it was a huge eye opener. The series called "the century of self" explains a lot about humans. Understanding how Jim Jones convinced people to commit mass suicide and how some people can never control their spending is a real eye opener.

    They studied people many decades ago as children. They gave the children candy and told them if they didn't eat the candy, they'd get more candy. When then came back, some ate the candy and then felt cheated when they didn't get more. They came back decades later to the same people and found an exact tie to economic performance.

    75% of Americans are at or near paycheck to paycheck. There's people making 75K/yr, living paycheck to paycheck.

    This is a behavioral problem more than an economic problem. It's an addiction to consumption.

    One job I worked at 3 of us had an earning contest. After 6 months it was a dead heat race. However, I saved more in 1 month than both of them did in 1 year combined. This is an issue of economic behavior. Some people just can't seem to change their views or behavior. The rest of us have to pick up the tab for that?

    Just as much as some can argue about how people spend their food stamps, what about how much time a person spends on education? Education can be had for free, should people be required to learn if they are going to live on the public dollar?

    There was an argument about ACA not long ago. The issue came up about healthy people paying for sick. The issue came up about being obese and how much money that costs. Some people smoke and how much that can costs.

    Bottom line is that if we don't make some big changes soon, the whole system will crash. It'll probably crash anyway, but some of us want to at least try to save it.
     

Share This Page