Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

"A helping hand from your fellow citizens" - That's what happens in free markets, the real social-ism.
In your socialism, state-socialism, people become selfish and don't help each others. US citizens do more charity than citizens of every country in Europe, even those who are richer than the US.
If you want people to lend each other a helping hand, quit forcing them to be charitable.

Get your facts right and then return in the mean time don't start repeating old claims that you could not defend before, on numerous occasions.

Facts? Here you go:

Private philanthropy as a percentage of GDP (2006)

* 1. United States - 1.67%
* 2. United Kingdom - .73%
* 3. Canada - .72%
* 4. Australia - .69%
* 5. South Africa - .64%
* 6. Ireland - .47%
* 7. Netherlands - .45%
* 8. Singapore - .29%
* 9. New Zealand - .29%
* 10. Turkey - .23%
* 11. Germany - .22%
* 12. France - .14%

Link

BUT if you read the organisation for economic cooperation figures they put America well down the list. The most important fact you miss is that the vast amount of Americas charity goes to the church.

Charity does not indicate the moral responsibility a country shows to its impoverished.

The development assistance figures are what governments spend, not people.
And thereby you confirm my assertion, that the more some bureaucrat steals from us the more selfish we become as people, and the less we help each others.

And keep in mind that much of development assistance goes to third world dictators, and doesn't necessarily do any good.



What? Some politician stealing my money by force says more about my "moral responsibility" to the poor than how much I chose to give to the poor myself?

And keep in mind that people are poor because we give them other peoples money. There wouldn't be no poor without your friggin "moral responsibility".

In my society no one should be dependant on fag ends from the rich. Victorian better off had this self satisfying nature, to throw crumbs to the poor, to make their conscious a little clearer. Stick your charity where the sun don't shine and give me justice and freedom from exploitation.

Funny how the country that gives more in tax relief for charitable donations than any other, is the one that refuses to accept the notion of social health care. When you give to charity, your saving yourself tax charges , so dont give me this "I give money to the poor" balls.

Bread crumbs from the rich? Now who is referring back to the old days of early capitalism? Socialist views of free markets are 150 years outdated. The tide is rising for everyone. Nearly three-quarters of American "poor" households own a car, 30% own two or more cars. 76% of "the poor" have air conditioning. 97% of "the poor" have at least one color television.

Along with rising standards of living, developed financial markets offer anyone with valuable skills the necessary capital to produce. Poor people don't need the government to redistribute their own future income to them, financial markets can do it for a fraction of the cost. Everybody would be better of, and it would be voluntary.

If socialists could just understand that things change, free markets raised standards of living beyond where Bismarkian socialism is needed. This is the 21st century, growing abundance and developed financial markets make government solutions redundant. We could end state-socialism today, nobody would starve, because everybody has some skill that can at least provide their subsistence.


Yes, Americans mostly donate to their church for tax breaks. Yet the fact that you so desperately try to evade is that the more state-socialism you create, the less social people become. Socialism makes people selfish and envious and feel entitled, instead of looking out for each others. If you want to create a compassionate world where we lend each others a hand, then why do you work counter to your goal?

Why bring up the fact that American donate more, when you know its for tax breaks and the vast majority of it goes to build stupidly giant churches in shopping centres. That ain't charity, that's club subscriptions.

When your health figures show you in a league more suited to a third world country dont tell me the poor are well cared for...Its one thing having a crap telly worth a few hundred bucks and paying out thousands of dollars for simple hernia operation. Get real please..

Because it shows that socialism makes people envious and selfish, and not charitable and compassionate. You always defend state-socialism as the manifestation of compassion and charity, yet the numbers show it has the opposite effect.

(Don't paint this picture that US donations merely go to building lavish churches. Not all donations go to churches, and he vast majority of church charity goes to running homeless shelters and helping Africans and stuff like that. And there is also more active charity in the US, as opposed to merely idly giving up money. Forced government charity goes to paying people to be lazy and dependent and keeping third world dictators in power.)

But the point is not whether private or government charity does more good. But that citizens of nations that are allowed to keep their income think about their fellow citizens, and get involved if they are in need. Citizens of socialist nations think that that's the governments job, and therefore they move apart as people.



The fact is that the more state-socialism you create, the less social people become. If government steals from people, it spreads the morality of stealing from each others, not the morality of compassion. And everybody just goes around trying to get little more money out of everyones else. Socialism makes people selfish and envious of each others. That's what socialism creates, not compassion and helpfulness.

Absolute nonsense , the UK citizens contribute millions every year and we are a socialist country. The government does not steal money this emotional crap defines your attitude not a sensible argument.

The facts are your health service is more akin to third world service for a great many of its citizens..thats the facts, the fact you cant ignore or refuse to accept. Those who contribute, know they are getting it back in tax benefits , so where is your social attitude there. If your so called charitable attitude expressed itself in the poor not requiring medical assistance , I would say well done but it does not does it?

I didn't expect you to admit it. But you can't get around these simple facts.

what like these..Ten Reasons Why American Health Care Is so Bad | The American Prospect

I can only tell you again that US health care is 50% government-provided, and one of the most heavily regulated industries of all. I am not sure what it's alleged failure is supposed to prove about socialism. If anything, it does prove that the once best health care system in the world is no longer the best as it has becoming more socialist.

It's not about deserving the government handout because you are a hard working carpenter. You are telling me that practically everybody is so poor that they need a government handout to afford health care.

I have not contributed to this thread before but have scanned quite a few of the pages.

My thesis is that the banking system of the world came within days of collapsing in September 2008. This was referred to at the time as 'financial apocalypse' but because it didn't happen, it doesn't get much attention. What it would have meant would be that one day we would get up, ready to go to work, and the banks would all be closed. And there would be no money.

Think about that for a moment.

Now we are hitting phase II. The European nations all owe each other billions - trillions - of Euros. The European banks are deeply involved in all of this. GB is not part of the Eurozone but is also heavily indebted. The worry is that if the weaker economies (Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy) default on their loans, some of the big European banks will get into trouble. Again, the financial system is threatening to freeze up over this.

As I write this, the G20 are meeting to come up with a plan. But bailing out national economies is a far bigger issue than bailing out Citi and AIG. There ain't enough money to do it.

Now I don't think it is a question of capitalism vs communism vs socialism any more. The capitalist model is the current model. It has been around roughly since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the end of the Napoleonic wars and imperialism. There are no real alternative models around. And we still don't know if this model is going to keep working.

Personally, I am very pessimistic. I think we are heading for a perfect storm of financial collapse, food and energy constraints, overpopulation (which is the main culprit) and climate change. Nothing like what we are seeing now has ever happened before, and I don't know if we're up for it. And I don't think capitalist systems have the remotest idea of how to respond.

We shall see. I don't think we will have to wait that long to find out.

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 08:12 PM ----------

sorry if I am being glum....

I did not say hand outs did I? Yes there is a growing majority that cant afford full health care in your bankrupt system.

In the end, as a layman you do not have the experience to figure out what's happening in the worlds financial markets. I bet the experts don't even know. You can believe in this or that simplified internet theory, and certainly it will sound plausible and you can find data that confirms it. But ultimately you do not know. All our guesswork is of little value.

When you as a person or businessman borrow money, then you expect to do something with it. For example start a business or invest it in a way that you expect will give you a higher return than the interest plus inflation. Even if you borrow for consumption, like a new car, you usually borrow in step with what your future production will allow you to pay back, you just push your future consumption to now.
However western governments simply spend, the voters don't understand the economic consequences and the politicians won't be in power when the consequences arrive. They are a family with a modest income that borrowed money to buy three cars, a boat and expensive vacations. And then they borrowed more to pay the old loans and keep squandering, and now they borrow more just to pay the interest.
Any private family who would do that would start running out of people willing to borrow them money, and eventually they would default. But governments can bail each others out.
In the end it's a bailout for the debtors. The Greeks are stuck with their debt and have to suffer through painful taxation to pay off foreign debtors. Most of those who have to pay it didn't receive any of the benefits, but thanks to socialism we all sit in one boat and the productive citizens of Greece have to suffer for the bad decisions of others.
I thought like you that we are heading for a great depression times ten financial collapse, but now I think the debtors are going to want every last cent back. Defaulting is the easy way out. But to default you have to run out of money, and they won't let us. Governments can create as much money as they want to bail out nations that default. They are going to want every cent back. It's going to be 90% taxes and very limited social services for decades to come.

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 01:36 PM ----------



Actually 80% are happy with their insurance.

But you admitted that the system is broken, and not just "capitalist". Why should the solution be socialism, why not make it free market to fix it? You jump to the conclusion that only socialism can save us.
The problem is that you believe government intervention can magically create a free lunch.

Exactly what part of the banking industry is socialist inspired?

When you consider 35% of Americans have no insurance..at all.How do you manage to get the figure of 80 % . ..:perplexed:

Its not free, if you reduce the costs of administration and the cost of drugs. Its not free if everyone contributes and its socially administered....