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: hmaly who wrote (138382)	7/30/2001 6:19:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583688

There are many instances in life when working together, all for one, one for all, accomplishes more than solitary units. Socialism is often not about everyone working together but rather everything being owned by the government and thus controled by those who have power in the government. Also there is nothing about capitalism that prevents people from working together. In capitalism you have freedom and property rights, what you do with that property and freedom is up to you, and can include working together to benefit people, or just outright charity. The army is one. An army is very different then an economic system. An army has (or should have) a specific goal when it goes in to combat and it unites everyone behind that goal. An economy has a billion goals, many of which are not clear enough to effitively plan in advance or unite everyone behind. A government burocrat can not know in advance if I want to spend money on a big screen TV or a new car, or a vacation, or laser eye surgury next year. The producers of those things can not have a real good idea in advance either but they are closer to the market in each of those things, so they can guess better, and react faster. They can react to supply and demand at a certain price better and faster then a burocrat could respond to production reports. Even the partially socialist systems depend on the part that is capitalist for the generation of most of their wealth. You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it (and if you redistribute too much you lessen the incentives to create it in the first place. Also my point was not about the practical effects of capitalism and socialism but rather the more principle of capitalism. I hold freedom to be a higher moral principle then equality of wealth. I hold equal oportunity to be more important then equal outcomes. Tim