BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion Capitalism vs Socialism

View Poll Results: Vote if you support Capitalism vs. Socialism
Capitalism 70 93.33%
Socialism 5 6.67%
Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      03-11-2019, 11:34 AM   #45
BimmerBoomer
demoted
BimmerBoomer's Avatar
Canada
343
Rep
1,088
Posts

Drives: 2018 Audi S5 Sportback
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grimsby, Ontario

iTrader: (0)

one thing about Warren's plan...

Quote:
Originally Posted by .2pdk View Post
I believe her plan calls for 2% wealth tax annually above $50 million.

I agree, there will be a bracket that leaves but those in the stratosphere will most likely pay up I suspect.
Depending on returns on capital it could be confiscatory - taking the whole income on the assets - or a slap on the wrist. I used to be a fan, but I think she has grown careless in her thinking.
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2019, 12:05 PM   #46
XutvJet
Brigadier General
2824
Rep
3,608
Posts

Drives: 2016 M235 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Kansas City

iTrader: (-1)

100% capitalism or 100% socialism are not sustainable.

I'm all for working hard and earning it yourself, but I'm also in favor of social programs to help people and push them along. I'm a social capitalist, which in simple terms is a blend of the positives of both capitalism and socialism. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than 100% of one or the other.

I do think there needs to be better systems in place to help redistribute wealth in this country. I'm not talking about simply taxing that crap out the ultra wealthy and handing the money to the poor, but it's huge issue when the upper 1% of this country own 90% of the wealth. Some of that money needs to get funneled back into the system and redistributed. I'm not in favor of Warren's 2% tax plan, but something loosely like it needs to be implemented. I don't know that would look like, but it needs to be done. There needs to be a limit to how much wealth you can have before getting dinged heavily for not putting some of it back into society. The problem is the wealthy have lobbyists in DC and many fund campaigns. That's such a huge conflict of interest.

Yes, there are some in this country that take advantage of social programs, but as a hole, a huge majority do not. Most do not understand how hard it is to get out of a poverty situation. Extreme differences in wealth creates huge divides in this country and it is becoming worse as the wealthy continue to get richer all the while the middle class shrinks and the lower income class becomes larger. The wealthy should be careful because they outnumbered 99 to 1. You can only keep people pushed down for so long before something breaks.
__________________
The forest was shrinking, but the Trees kept voting for the Axe, for the Axe was clever and convinced the Trees that because his handle was made of wood, he was one of them.
Appreciate 3
      03-11-2019, 01:04 PM   #47
Poiseuille
Brigadier General
Poiseuille's Avatar
United_States
4393
Rep
3,347
Posts

Drives: 2016 M4 DCT Tanzanite/Amaro
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Princeton

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haywood View Post
But, but, Bernie and AOC said it would be different in the US...
for the first time ever, Bernie and Often-Confused are right, it will be different here: we're armed and those poor bastards aren't
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2019, 01:31 PM   #48
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
22906
Rep
9,597
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASAP View Post
u dont save companies in capitlist environment it failed... and govt came and saved it... i am a repub but this is the sad truth
Seen from that standpoint, you are 100% correct. I was completely against all of the rescues. Let the fail, new money comes in a buys them at pennies on the dollar, kill the old legacies that are inappropriate in a modern world, begin anew.

Of all the failing that were most galling, the banks had to be the worst. They triggered the entire card of houses with their greed yet came out smelling like roses. So many should have been jailed but they were protected by the President (bailout) and propped up by the rest of the CEO mafia.
__________________
Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...

Lewi6, First of His Name, Destroyer of Careers, Master of Pole Positions, 6X WDC, Master of All Tracks, Scorer of Maximum Points, Whisperer of Tires, Minimizer of Fuel Utilization, Maximizer of Consistency in Finishing. Look Upon Him With DRED.
Appreciate 2
      03-11-2019, 02:01 PM   #49
.2pdk
Banned
4065
Rep
1,970
Posts

Drives: M2 LCI
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: .

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
Of all the failing that were most galling, the banks had to be the worst. They triggered the entire card of houses with their greed yet came out smelling like roses. So many should have been jailed but they were protected by the President (bailout) and propped up by the rest of the CEO mafia.
Which is a shining example of why Wall Street will simply not allow itself to be destroyed by anyone, let alone the radical left...

God Bless America.
Appreciate 2
MKSixer22905.50

      03-11-2019, 02:09 PM   #50
TheWatchGuy
Lieutenant Colonel
TheWatchGuy's Avatar
2463
Rep
1,876
Posts

Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CO

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by XutvJet View Post
100% capitalism or 100% socialism are not sustainable.

I'm all for working hard and earning it yourself, but I'm also in favor of social programs to help people and push them along. I'm a social capitalist, which in simple terms is a blend of the positives of both capitalism and socialism. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than 100% of one or the other.

I do think there needs to be better systems in place to help redistribute wealth in this country. I'm not talking about simply taxing that crap out the ultra wealthy and handing the money to the poor, but it's huge issue when the upper 1% of this country own 90% of the wealth. Some of that money needs to get funneled back into the system and redistributed. I'm not in favor of Warren's 2% tax plan, but something loosely like it needs to be implemented. I don't know that would look like, but it needs to be done. There needs to be a limit to how much wealth you can have before getting dinged heavily for not putting some of it back into society. The problem is the wealthy have lobbyists in DC and many fund campaigns. That's such a huge conflict of interest.

Yes, there are some in this country that take advantage of social programs, but as a hole, a huge majority do not. Most do not understand how hard it is to get out of a poverty situation. Extreme differences in wealth creates huge divides in this country and it is becoming worse as the wealthy continue to get richer all the while the middle class shrinks and the lower income class becomes larger. The wealthy should be careful because they outnumbered 99 to 1. You can only keep people pushed down for so long before something breaks.
lol wut....

this post is basically, "they have what i dont, so they should give some back or face my wrath"

and this is what is wrong with society. too much salt.
__________________
@drunkcowatches on ig

Am I a watch guy, or do i watch guys?
Appreciate 3
Run Silent13725.00
MKSixer22905.50

      03-11-2019, 02:53 PM   #51
XutvJet
Brigadier General
2824
Rep
3,608
Posts

Drives: 2016 M235 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Kansas City

iTrader: (-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy View Post
lol wut....

this post is basically, "they have what i dont, so they should give some back or face my wrath"

and this is what is wrong with society. too much salt.
Do you not realize that the rich cannot continue to richer and richer without something giving? It's not sustainable. The ultra weathly continue to grow their wealth whereas most in this country have had stagnant or declining wealth over the past 3 decades and things are getting worse for the majority in this country.

A majority of the ultra wealthy in this country were born into it and there's no denying that when you're born into money, it is far easier to take financial investment risks and still makes mountains of money.
__________________
The forest was shrinking, but the Trees kept voting for the Axe, for the Axe was clever and convinced the Trees that because his handle was made of wood, he was one of them.
Appreciate 1
      03-11-2019, 03:12 PM   #52
.2pdk
Banned
4065
Rep
1,970
Posts

Drives: M2 LCI
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: .

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by XutvJet View Post
Do you not realize that the rich cannot continue to richer and richer without something giving? It's not sustainable. The ultra weathly continue to grow their wealth whereas most in this country have had stagnant or declining wealth over the past 3 decades and things are getting worse for the majority in this country.

A majority of the ultra wealthy in this country were born into it and there's no denying that when you're born into money, it is far easier to take financial investment risks and still makes mountains of money.
100% correct.

We're seeing the results of this in the current political environment.
Appreciate 2
      03-11-2019, 03:48 PM   #53
TheWatchGuy
Lieutenant Colonel
TheWatchGuy's Avatar
2463
Rep
1,876
Posts

Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CO

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by XutvJet View Post
Do you not realize that the rich cannot continue to richer and richer without something giving? It's not sustainable. The ultra weathly continue to grow their wealth whereas most in this country have had stagnant or declining wealth over the past 3 decades and things are getting worse for the majority in this country.

A majority of the ultra wealthy in this country were born into it and there's no denying that when you're born into money, it is far easier to take financial investment risks and still makes mountains of money.
That isnt the wealthy's fault though.

over the last decade myself and my wife, as well as my parents and sisters, have each taken our family from middle class to upper middle and upper class through hard work, good decisions and a good work ethic. If you want to look back over my 30+ yr life, my mom has taken herself and her kids from poor and bankrupt from massive medical bills from my father passing to owning her own business and now retiring and buying a house on the beach in her early 60s through the same work ethic that she passed on to us.

It starts at parenting and what you are born into, but ends at the individual. Sure some have it easier than others, but that is life. Not everyone is equal, not everyone deserves everything, and not everyone will have everything. Once you accept that and start focusing on yourself and how to improve what you can directly control, youd be amazed at what you can accomplish.
__________________
@drunkcowatches on ig

Am I a watch guy, or do i watch guys?
Appreciate 2
2000cs1398.50
cmyx6go4262.50

      03-11-2019, 03:54 PM   #54
infinitekidM2C
Major General
infinitekidM2C's Avatar
United_States
1858
Rep
5,089
Posts

Drives: 2019 M2 Competition
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (4)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by XutvJet View Post
100% capitalism or 100% socialism are not sustainable.

I'm all for working hard and earning it yourself, but I'm also in favor of social programs to help people and push them along. I'm a social capitalist, which in simple terms is a blend of the positives of both capitalism and socialism. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than 100% of one or the other.

I do think there needs to be better systems in place to help redistribute wealth in this country. I'm not talking about simply taxing that crap out the ultra wealthy and handing the money to the poor, but it's huge issue when the upper 1% of this country own 90% of the wealth. Some of that money needs to get funneled back into the system and redistributed. I'm not in favor of Warren's 2% tax plan, but something loosely like it needs to be implemented. I don't know that would look like, but it needs to be done. There needs to be a limit to how much wealth you can have before getting dinged heavily for not putting some of it back into society. The problem is the wealthy have lobbyists in DC and many fund campaigns. That's such a huge conflict of interest.

Yes, there are some in this country that take advantage of social programs, but as a hole, a huge majority do not. Most do not understand how hard it is to get out of a poverty situation. Extreme differences in wealth creates huge divides in this country and it is becoming worse as the wealthy continue to get richer all the while the middle class shrinks and the lower income class becomes larger. The wealthy should be careful because they outnumbered 99 to 1. You can only keep people pushed down for so long before something breaks.
Well said. Interestingly both extremes eventually end up with the vast majority of the wealth in the hands of the few, they just use different routes to get there.
Appreciate 1
      03-11-2019, 03:55 PM   #55
ojpcali87
Registered
0
Rep
1
Posts

Drives: 08 535xi
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Boston, MA

iTrader: (0)

nice
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2019, 04:14 PM   #56
.2pdk
Banned
4065
Rep
1,970
Posts

Drives: M2 LCI
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: .

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitekidM2C View Post
Well said. Interestingly both extremes eventually end up with the vast majority of the wealth in the hands of the few, they just use different routes to get there.
Human nature knows no bounds.
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2019, 05:33 PM   #57
Dogeeseegod
Private First Class
Dogeeseegod's Avatar
187
Rep
187
Posts

Drives: 2009 Blue Water 128i-6
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: North Idaho

iTrader: (0)

I honestly think that since our food, fuel and housing are subsidized we are already more socialist then capitalist. WW2 made us realize we have to use Socialism or we'll flop. We've successfully mixed the 2 styles ever since.
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2019, 06:09 PM   #58
schoy
Captain
850
Rep
910
Posts

Drives: Melbourne Red E90 M3
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

You need both. While the woes of a 100% socialist system is quite obvious, a 100% capitalistic system would likewise be disastrous. There are anti-trust and anti-competition laws for a reason.
Appreciate 2
Jockey2175.00

      03-11-2019, 06:34 PM   #59
schoy
Captain
850
Rep
910
Posts

Drives: Melbourne Red E90 M3
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy View Post
That isnt the wealthy's fault though.

over the last decade myself and my wife, as well as my parents and sisters, have each taken our family from middle class to upper middle and upper class through hard work, good decisions and a good work ethic. If you want to look back over my 30+ yr life, my mom has taken herself and her kids from poor and bankrupt from massive medical bills from my father passing to owning her own business and now retiring and buying a house on the beach in her early 60s through the same work ethic that she passed on to us.

It starts at parenting and what you are born into, but ends at the individual. Sure some have it easier than others, but that is life. Not everyone is equal, not everyone deserves everything, and not everyone will have everything. Once you accept that and start focusing on yourself and how to improve what you can directly control, youd be amazed at what you can accomplish.
The problem in a nutshell: An economy requires economic transactions to be well-functioning. For lower-class/middle-class individuals, they are forced to contribute a larger % of their wealth to economic transactions driven by necessities: food, water, housing, gas, utilities. For the upper-class (and way, way upper-class), only a very small % of their wealth is spent on necessities, and they can choose to hoard the rest of their wealth, which isn't healthy for a well-functioning economy.

So on the one-hand the super-rich should have the right to do whatever they want with their money (they earned it after all), but on the other hand, it isn't helpful for the rest of society if they don't spend it. It's the same issue that's plagued civilization since Day 1: At what point do the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few? Think of factories polluting rivers before there was environmental regulations: Factories were providing jobs and money into local people, and it was cheaper to just dump waste into rivers; on the other hand, they were poisoning many communities downstream and causing environmental wreckage. Sure those downstream could just move to a different area, but eventually, left unchecked, every river will become polluted as more and more factories were built. The burden these factories were placing on society were outweighing the benefits had on the few, and so regulations were passed.

So there are some who believe the same urgency exists regarding the distribution of wealth. It's the same reason that anti-trust and anti-competition laws were created: we didn't want companies to become TOO big that it stifled competition. So it is in the minds of some that we don't want individuals to be TOO wealthy that it stifles a well-functioning society. Personally, I don't think we're at that point yet (and probably not for a long time), but that's the argument as I understand it.
Appreciate 2
Jockey2175.00

      03-11-2019, 06:43 PM   #60
Mingwan
Major
1258
Rep
1,088
Posts

Drives: X1 Individual custom paint
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Kansas

iTrader: (0)

Basically, pure socialism you get nerfed, pure capitalism someone might get too OP and curb stomp everyone.
Appreciate 2
      03-11-2019, 06:53 PM   #61
WestRace
Major
594
Rep
1,081
Posts

Drives: E46 M3, E90 M3
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angels, Ca.

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
So there are some who believe the same urgency exists regarding the distribution of wealth. It's the same reason that anti-trust and anti-competition laws were created: we didn't want companies to become TOO big that it stifled competition. So it is in the minds of some that we don't want individuals to be TOO wealthy that it stifles a well-functioning society. Personally, I don't think we're at that point yet (and probably not for a long time), but that's the argument as I understand it.
One more variable in that equation is national security. Antitrust laws were passed at a time when each country was more or less isolated from each other. Corporations now are a lot more multinational and have to compete with each other cross borders. In some way, we want big FaceBook, Google, Apple ... so they have the capitals to compete with the likes from China and so on.

All the talks about too big to fail banks, in the end we may need those big banks.
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2019, 07:16 PM   #62
gunsmoker
Private First Class
114
Rep
144
Posts

Drives: 2016 M3
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Mansfield, MA

iTrader: (0)

I have lived both. If I can frame it simplistically, socialism failed because of lack of business competition. It did not fail because the health care and education were free or substandard. People had no incentives to innovate and do their job. That's what the problem was. Health care was OK, education was very good. Let's just say that I started studying computer programming in high-school 30+ years ago and this just became mandatory in the high-school of my US town this school year. We didn't own much, but we were happy. It wasn't a problem for any family to go on vacation every year for a couple of weeks in a beach resort or camping. We owned a car and a house or apartment. There were no loans and mortgages.

While capitalism in the US has not "failed" yet, it would have done better with more regulation/wealth distribution and if the money was taken out of politics. There is obviously a fine line to walk, because some countries in Europe have done that and are not doing great. The moment when individuals lose incentives to work and do a good job at that is when the system fails and turns into socialism. In Greece for example, before their financial collapse, people could retire at 45 and live an OK life on their pension. That's obviously past the point of reason.

Taking the money out of politics is the #1 problem to solve in the US. We can't solve any other difficult problem unless we do that first. Unfortunately, the people in power would never vote against their own interest so there is no way this could go well.
No change will happen before things get bad. It's very unlikely to end with a revolution as per Marx/Lenin, but poor folks will get poorer, health care will become harder to afford, social security might default, the deficit will balloon and affect the US credit rating.

The only thing voters can do is vote all representatives and senators out after every term until they get the idea that until they start working for the people and not for their own reelection, they will have no future as politicians. With the far reach of the social networks, there is a chance this might work.
Appreciate 1
      03-11-2019, 08:01 PM   #63
tdott
Colonel
1227
Rep
2,378
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South FL / 6ix

iTrader: (3)

Both can be broken without proper leaders.
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2019, 08:26 PM   #64
gunsmoker
Private First Class
114
Rep
144
Posts

Drives: 2016 M3
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Mansfield, MA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Run Silent View Post
Which country did you immigrate from?
I moved from Bulgaria to the US 18 years ago. I got fed up with my Belgian employer in Bulgaria and applied for a job at a leading US company from the same industry. I started with an H1B visa, then my wife won the Green Card lottery and later on we got US citizenship. The US capitalism was quite shocking to me in the first few years, because of the dot-com crash. I still work for the same company, but in 2001/2002 there were layoffs every quarter and I could never know if I was going it make it or would have to pack up my bags and go back to Bulgaria with my wife and kid.
Appreciate 0
      03-11-2019, 08:59 PM   #65
WestRace
Major
594
Rep
1,081
Posts

Drives: E46 M3, E90 M3
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angels, Ca.

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsmoker View Post

Taking the money out of politics is the #1 problem to solve in the US. We can't solve any other difficult problem unless we do that first. Unfortunately, the people in power would never vote against their own interest so there is no way this could go well.
The problem with that is our politicians don't have a good understanding of how the economy works and ultimately they have to rely on the corporations to write laws. To be honest, I would rather trust the corporations than our politicians. I will let the corporations competing on the agendas and may the best one wins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsmoker View Post
No change will happen before things get bad. It's very unlikely to end with a revolution as per Marx/Lenin, but poor folks will get poorer, health care will become harder to afford, social security might default, the deficit will balloon and affect the US credit rating.
I don't think it has anything to do with socialism vs. capitalism. I think it has to do with the fact that a portion of the population do not have to skills to compete. The low cost products are being made overseas which put downward pressures on wages here in the US especially the non-skill labors (Detroit as an example). And with all the outsourcing, the standard of living here in the US will continually go down - not as a matter of "if", but a matter of course.
Appreciate 1
      03-12-2019, 06:32 AM   #66
Grumpy Old Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
Canada
6170
Rep
1,975
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by .2pdk View Post
100% correct.

We're seeing the results of this in the current political environment.
That sounds like you're talking about Trudeau.
Appreciate 1
MKSixer22905.50

Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01 AM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST