Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (138349)	7/30/2001 1:18:47 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583681

Capitalism has been shown to work. Socialism and communism, while more principled, has no incentives. I disagree with that statement. Socialism and communism are not more principled or based on higher principles then capitalism. Tim and Harry, first socialism works but not the way capitalism does...does not mean that capitalism is necessarily better. Secondly, level of socialism determines the degree of incentives. There are forms of socialism in both Norway and Sweden. In Norway, however, there seem to be more incentives to grow and prosper. As for communism, I don't know how you can make your statement since to my knowledge no country in the world has established an economy based on communism as outlined by K. Marx. So I don't think we know what the results would be under a communistic form of gov't and economy. In fact, I have found that companies which employ one aspect of communism....ownership by employees...companies like SAWS...tend to do very well economically. SAWS was doing so well, it just got bought out. ted

To: TimF who wrote (138349)	7/30/2001 6:06:52 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583681

Tim Re..I disagree with that statement. Socialism and communism are not more principled or based on higher principles then capitalism>>.<<<< Thats a hard call. There are many instances in life when working together, all for one, one for all, accomplishes more than solitary units. The army is one. The jews have done well over the centuries economically, because of their jewish preferences in dealings. The trouble is when you include in the group more participants than necessary; and don't get rid of the deadwood. And certainly, including everybody, waters down the benefits so far, the group becomes unmanageable, and there is no visible benefit for working hard and initiative. Capitalism has the benefits for hard work and initiative, but doesn't spread out the rewards enough, which is why we have liberals, who believe just breathing should entitle a person to share our rewards. I favor capitalism with some compassion for the truly needy, and tough luck for the deadwood. If you don't want to help yourself, I shouldn't have to help either.