hahaha...moron from Caracas :)

[X5rolls]

I don't want to get involved in a long debate here, just want to throw in my 2 cents.

In my opinion, Socialism will never work because a centralized government is an incredibly bad way to run a business. The organizational approach does not reward performance which means it's very inefficient.

Capitalism is oriented for efficiencies and therefore can execute and get things done, can not only create new inventions but as importantly, commercialize them and bring them to market where they can actually help people.

I'm also not saying capitalism is perfect, or that there aren't plenty of crooks in it. Lots of problems.

But, in the end I believe socialism is an supreme failure. No rewards for risks or success - socialism promotes mediocrity and laziness.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Why should oil companies share their profits? Do you write them a check every year to help R&D? Don't think so. You pay for what you use.

There shouldn't be oil companies anymore than there are police companies who police the streets for profit. The oil found in the United States should be the property of the American people and the only cost we should pay is the cost of getting that oil to the pump, not an inflated cost so someone can make a profit on it. And if there is to be a profit on it, then that money should be refunded to the people as is the case in Alaska. All people in Alaska receive an oil dividend check each year for any profits from the publicly owned Alaskan oil wells. The oil in the entire country should be this way.


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...a-Dividend.php
Alaska residents will get annual oil royalty dividend of $1,654 each
September 19, 2007
The Associated Press


Nearly every Alaskan will soon receive a check for $1,654 (€1,183), their share of the state's oil riches, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin announced.

The dividend checks are derived from the state's oil royalty investment program and distributed each year to eligible residents — just for living here for a full calendar year.

Slightly more than 600,000 men, women and children in 248 communities will receive the dividend this year, according to the Revenue Department. The state's estimated population is just over 670,000 people.

It is a perk that separates Alaska from the rest of the U.S. and was recently parodied in "The Simpsons Movie," which prominently features the television cartoon family's journey to Alaska.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by X5rolls

But, in the end I believe socialism is an supreme failure. No rewards for risks or success - socialism promotes mediocrity and laziness.

So would you support privatizing of your local fire and police departments? Just think....you would eliminate all the "mediocrity and laziness" that exists at these institutions since the employees would be motivated by profit.

[Wagner]

That is all well and good, go petition that Ask Russia how socialized fuel works out

PS: way to back off post #15/16

[X5rolls]

I should clarify. I don't consider fire and police to be socialistic although I can see why one can make that argument. Moreover, I don't know if police and fire departments are more or less lazy than the rest of the population in America.

Saying they are lazy is something you are suggesting by inferring that's what I'm saying. A misunderstanding on your part.

My view is at the bigger level - not considering some (limited) forms of centralized government services and state/local fire safety which could be run via capitalism but aren't. A country that is based on capitalism with some form of government provided services is not bad or a form of socialism because it's very limited by comparison. There is also a major factor in humans that motivate them to help others and they find their careers through fire, police etc.

Capitalism with punishment for those that abuse and harm is a far superior form of government - If I didn't think so I'd move to a socialist country. It must be difficult to not get all the benefits of socialism and still live here if I read your perspective. It's such a dichotomy of philosophical and practical experiences.

What country in your opinion represents the best of socialism, I'm not kidding, just want to try to better consider your point of view.

Originally Posted by Eric5273

So would you support privatizing of your local fire and police departments? Just think....you would eliminate all the "mediocrity and laziness" that exists at these institutions since the employees would be motivated by profit.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Ask Russia how socialized fuel works out

I would, except 3 of Russia's 4 largest oil/gas companies are private. The only major nationalized Russian oil/gas company is Transneft. And last I checked, they were doing quite well....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28444991
Transneft Q3 profit rises 67 pct

http://bnott.com/3698.html
Net profit of Transneft for 9 months increased by 33%

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-29364646_ITM
Up and away: Transneft sees profits soar 24%

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by X5rolls

What country in your opinion represents the best of socialism, I'm not kidding, just want to try to better consider your point of view.

Just so you realize, I'm not in favor of 100% socialism. But I think capitalism encourages corruption. I'll give you an example.

If you were to privatize the fire department, then the new private fire department would make money when they put out fires. More fires = more money. Do you think they would send inspectors around making sure every building was safe from fires and promoting fire safety? Of course not. That would be against their better interest.

In this example, maybe the government would be the one to send fire inspectors around even if the fire departments themselves were private. So here is where you end up with corruption. Maybe the company that owns 75% of the fire departments in your city gives a big campaign contribution to the mayor, and the members of the city council. As a perk, they cut the fire inspection budget, and thus fewer buildings get inspected. Or maybe they decide to cut the entire department. No more inspections at all. There is a budget defecit, so something has to be cut...

My little example can be applied to almost every industry, from military hardware contractors, who profit from war and contribute to pro-war candidates, to drug companies that contribute to candidates who support fewer FDA regulations. A recent example would be the large banks getting a free handout, or "bailout", by the politicians that they help to put in office.

My opinion is that capitalism is a great thing on a small level. But when you start getting to the level of large corporations, it has outlived its usefulness, and then just serves to corrupt government and cause harm to society.

I think all major industry should be nationalized, but small business should of course be allowed and even encouraged. We actually have anti-trust laws on the books in this country, but it's been many decades since they have been enforced. 80 years ago, companies like Exxon-Mobil, or Citicorp would not have been allowed to grow to nearly their current size. And we would be better off.

Capitalism thrives when there is competition. Once you reach a point where there are just a few large companies in each industry, competition goes bye-bye, and so does any benefits of capitalism.

I also find it ironic that the same person (not you) who regularly posts about how the big oil companies are artificially inflating the oil price is the same one who opposes the nationalization of the oil industry. What then is your solution?

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I would, except 3 of Russia's 4 largest oil/gas companies are private. The only major nationalized Russian oil/gas company is Transneft. And last I checked, they were doing quite well....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28444991
Transneft Q3 profit rises 67 pct

http://bnott.com/3698.html
Net profit of Transneft for 9 months increased by 33%

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-29364646_ITM
Up and away: Transneft sees profits soar 24%

Way to conveniently leave out the fact that since they "ARE" government driven they leave out those nations opposed to the government, go TEAM!

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Just so you realize, I'm not in favor of 100% socialism. But I think capitalism encourages corruption. I'll give you an example.

If you were to privatize the fire department, then the new private fire department would make money when they put out fires. More fires = more money. Do you think they would send inspectors around making sure every building was safe from fires and promoting fire safety? Of course not. That would be against their better interest.

In this example, maybe the government would be the one to send fire inspectors around even if the fire departments themselves were private. So here is where you end up with corruption. Maybe the company that owns 75% of the fire departments in your city gives a big campaign contribution to the mayor, and the members of the city council. As a perk, they cut the fire inspection budget, and thus fewer buildings get inspected. Or maybe they decide to cut the entire department. No more inspections at all. There is a budget defecit, so something has to be cut...

My little example can be applied to almost every industry, from military hardware contractors, who profit from war and contribute to pro-war candidates, to drug companies that contribute to candidates who support fewer FDA regulations. A recent example would be the large banks getting a free handout, or "bailout", by the politicians that they help to put in office.

My opinion is that capitalism is a great thing on a small level. But when you start getting to the level of large corporations, it has outlived its usefulness, and then just serves to corrupt government and cause harm to society.

I think all major industry should be nationalized, but small business should of course be allowed and even encouraged. We actually have anti-trust laws on the books in this country, but it's been many decades since they have been enforced. 80 years ago, companies like Exxon-Mobil, or Citicorp would not have been allowed to grow to nearly their current size. And we would be better off.

Capitalism thrives when there is competition. Once you reach a point where there are just a few large companies in each industry, competition goes bye-bye, and so does any benefits of capitalism.

I also find it ironic that the same person (not you) who regularly posts about how the big oil companies are artificially inflating the oil price is the same one who opposes the nationalization of the oil industry. What then is your solution?

Who wants to build as small business to stay small?? Seems pretty dumb. And "once your reach a point", ahhhh Microsoft needs Apple, Nike needs Reebok, Exxon needs Shell. You never reach that point Can't think of a person who said oil companies artificially drove prices..they can't. If you're willing to pay it, it isn't artificial. Do they like to give BS excuses as to why they have to be high, yes. Same way Nike tries to tell the consumer "Air Jordans are worth 223 dollars" That said, I can think of investors who have and a couple of petroleum exporting countries who most definitely manipulate the market

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Who wants to build as small business to stay small?? Seems pretty dumb.

Lots of people. "Joe the Plumber" for one. Or did you think Joe has visions of his plumbing company becoming a large publicly traded corporation which services the entire world with plumbing services?

There is plenty of money to be made with a small business. You don't need to have the posiblity of becoming the next Bill Gates in order to be motivated.