Capitalism versus Socialism

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: chicah

And why do people keep dragging the US into this, I'm not from the US and I never said I thought socialism was the solution for America.quote>

Well, the common perception here is that we're the last country in the developed world that hasn't already completely embraced socialism, making it a largely American debate... and most people don't make the mental connection that arguing in favor of it for one place is not necessarily the same as arguing in favor of it for everywhere. If you tell someone that you think Socialism is good for Europe but bad for America... you kinda might as well be telling them that you expect the laws of phyisics to be different here than they are in Europe.

This idea that "this system works best for us, but this other completely opposite system works best for you guys over there" basically does not compute in most people's minds. The inherent tendency is to treat one's worldview as absolutely right and all others as absolutely wrong. This is why political oppositions always make fun of or hurl insults at each other... It can all basically be summed up as "you disagree with me, therefore you are stupid/crazy/{insert put-down here}", which of course is in direct contradiction to the idea of "you disagree with me, fine... you do it your way, I'll do it my way, no problem, everyone's happy".

This is what happens when a forum brings together people from all over the world. Fun how things one person considers commonplace can seem completely foreign to most other people in the discussion, isn't it? I love the internet.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As usual the "common perception" is a matter of viewpoint. While we have some socialistic programmes in Canada, we are also capitalist.

This morning, early, the Minister of Finance announced some new regulations to slow down the housing market by restricting the free-wheeling mortgage market. Starting today, you have to pass a means test to get a mortgage for a new home. You must qualify for a mortgage at the five year fixed rate even if you are taking a different scheme, and the down-payment rules are stiffer.

"Your home may not be used as an ATM" meaning you can't use your equity for quick cash. The limit on mortgage amounts is now 90% of value rather than 95%, and if you want to buy a secondary property your down payment must be at least 20% to qualify for a CMHC insured mortgage.

I gather that CMHC was getting antsy about a U.S.-like housing bubble. We may be more regulated, but we also had a less bumpy ride though the current recession. Thank God for the foresight of the people who created the Bank of Canada in 1936. It was designed to prevent bank crashes, and it works, even now in its diluted state.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

It used to be that you needed 20% down to buy a house, that fell away as Congress pressured banks to ease up on home lending. There were no money down and no income-check loans written all over the place.

But I do agree also that what works 'there' doesn't work here, I'm ok with that. I also remember it when we are criticized by those in other countries for our system. But the good changes come with bad, and the basic culture is very different.

I mean,I wish our schoolkids ate as well as French schoolkids, that's for sure... but by the time all the hands got their payout accomplishing it within our system, the kids would still end up drinking Malk (now with vitamin R!).

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Our socialists had a forum this morning. The leader of the NDP talked his usual nonsense, splitting infinitives and splatting absurdities in both official languages. I do, however, agree that the Conservative tax-cutting incentives for the Oil and Banking fraternities should be cancelled as they don't seem to be working. While whatever government is sitting tries to keep a tight rein on these things, an NDP government would wind up nationalizing Oil and Banks with the effect that, in five years, we would soon have a shortage of both.

[Danlikebooks 6]

I believe that neither system is perfect, and that they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I personally believe in the free market but we should have plans and competition. If there is no competition between corporations, I feel that it is completely fine for the government to enter the market to compete as long as it is indeed competitive (the post office has been used extensively as an example of how the private sector can be superior in quality but at the same time as being more expensive thus being completely competitive).

I think that the most important part is to have plans. Many government programs fail because of lack of planning and most companies with good plans succeed. The government has to make thorough and overall excellent plans then apply that to the free market.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Agreed. The two principal capitalist system in North America are works in progress. In Canada we tend to be a little more socialist, and America tends to be more laissez faire.

I personally believe that America needs to put the brakes on some of the bigger corporations such as banks. Ours have been trying to merge for years, but we won't let them because we think they have reached their Peter Principle level. The executive level in the American outfits have clearly reached the level of hierarchical exfoliation.

[tankmank 853]

I think that a balance of both Socialism and Capitalism is good.

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body
I gather that CMHC was getting antsy about a U.S.-like housing bubble.quote>

Considering that housing, or real-estate is classified in the asset class, automaticaly makes it a bubble, whether it is inflating or deflating, or popping. If the CPI is the cost of living, and they say, the cost of living went up by .9% recently, mainly from gas prices, isn';t housing a cost of living... if it was added to the CPI, the gains would be much higher than it is now at a mere .9%. If wages only go up by less than that of the CPI, which is already manipulated though various tweeks, and housing increases 10% or more, especially the GTA where between 2005 and 2008 property values... err, prices, increased by 40-45%. That is a bubble! The economy will come to a scretching halt as more and more wages are transferred to greater debts payments plus the interest.

If you want to remove speculation, than a land value tax, as proposed by such classical economists, like Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Henry George. Georgism, or can be called geolibertarianism, or some other environmentally labelled name is called the single tax, as tax on land rent, or any kind of economic rent (like interest) does not take away from the real economy, unlike sales taxes or income taxes.

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle
I personally believe in the free market but we should have plans and competition. If there is no competition between corporations, I feel that it is completely fine for the government to enter the market to compete as long as it is indeed competitive.quote>

If there is no compitition, then it is not a free market. Monopolies are created through government protection of property, especially intellectutal property. Because of this, the only thing the government can do, without removing it's mandate on protecting property (monopoly previledge), is by subsidizing these monopolies/oligopolies/cartels giving them even more profits.

[RV1428 0]

I choose socialism, because i think capitalism alone over a long term would result in a society with very rich and very poor people, socialism can help people with financial troubles. Of course state control should not grow too big and a free market must be maintained. The state should only intervene when acts of companies, organisations put people in vulnerable/dangerous positions.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Motina: Your definition of a bubble is interesting but I don't buy it.  A bubble is something that can collapse almost instantaneously.  You need to read The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck.  In a bubble, the residue is usually without value.  In land, there is always something left, and land always has value, even if it is contaminated.

RV1428:  Canada has a mixed capitalist/socialist system and freewheelers are quite often called to task where the interest of the public is in danger.  A pure socialism leads to common ownership (nationalization) of so many vital businesses that it would soon be indistinguishable from communism (the trappist monastery type, not the Soviet type).  You would be drying yourself after showering in our water with our towel and putting on our clothing.  A mixed system allows taking the advantages of both systems, but must be carefully managed.

[chicah 20]

N_O_Body: Keep in mind that we were the first country to truly nationalize the oil and put it in a fund. And if we hadn't, we would NOT have been in the position we are today, as one of the richest and best countries to live in. In fact, most countries who find oil spend all the money instantly or the money ends up in some rich sheik's pocket; we nationalized it and that was a truly great thing. I don't see why you have a problem with that, it is illogical if you look at the facts.

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, there's nothing illogical in having qualms about nationalizing anything. Government control isn't something to be taken lightly. That said, I don't doubt that the Norwegian government does a decent job managing the oil... but not every country is Norway. The American government, for one, doesn't have such capability - it's a demon of pestilence that makes everything it touches whither and die, despite spending ridiculous amounts of money trying to cure the disease.

As for the middle east, that's different situation as well. Saudi Arabia is ridiculously in Big Brother mode. Half the population works for the government. You have stuff like the guy mopping the floor in the office being on the payroll, with his job simply being to report any dissent or misconduct he may witness or overhear discussion of. And in the UAE, smart business people never discuss anything important over the phone because they always just assume the lines are tapped (and they probably are).

...point being, these governments aren't helping their people because they're too busy spying on them and trying to keep them in line. At the same time, the continuous influx of oil wealth and everyone being on the dole means people are happy and no one complains. But in the coming years as the world starts moving off of oil, the feeding tubes are going to start running dry, and there will be political upheaval. Just you watch.

One more matter with regards to nationalizing oil: Venezuela and Citgo. I, for one, do not buy gas at Citgo. Hugo Chavez is a lunatic dictator who rants and raves about how America is evil, and I refuse to put money in the pockets of the regime of someone like that.

[saltandsauce 0]

the state having fingers in lots of pies means it can build infrastructure and hold employment much easier because it can co-ordinate business and it has an advantage: it doesn't pay taxes all it's profits ARE taxes paid by the company

for example, in Britain before 1979 (thatcher) Britain owned it's railway network (and operated) about 1/3 of housing (middle class people could live in social housing) every coal mine, every steelworks, every bus company and every oil refinery.

coal mines also produce bricks as a by-product of mining coal which mean that social housing was cheaper to construct due to large amounts of bricks in the state's ownership, ergo they don't have to pay for them. the railways could transport the coal to the cities(to be burnt in people fireplaces) or to steelworks and then to British Leyland (to sit around until the strikes were over and could be made into cars) then filled with oil from the refineries. the oil refineries also made money for the state from selling oil (duh) and plastics. unfortunately the state's unions were not very productive and caused lots of strikes because they could (because they're greedy/lazy/both). because these companies were so badly managed they were then victim to privatization in part (British rail) or fully (British Leyland) this resulted in HUGE unemployment which lingers to this day. and many mining towns, steel towns are now destitute but nobody cares because they are miles away from London.

since the closure of the coal industry in britain, bricks have become more expensive and have allowed speculators to add on an extra £20,000 to every house in the country. draining investment from the actual economy and forcing a stupid culture of "we must own our house"

the state will not step in to fix the housing problem because of this stupid culture. the actual price floor for a 3 bedroom semi should be around £25,000 where the cheapest 3 bed semis are actually more like £120,000. people refuse to sell their house for the true value because of "negative equity" and see no reason why you should make money on your house appreciating in value also works in reverse.

proper rented accomodation is annoyingly under-represented again because of the flaws of the market system (proper rented accomodation is where somebody builds several apartments and rents them out not a person buying a flat and renting it out and the rent is paying off someone elses mortgage these are called leeches) the reason none of these are being built is because you can't make money very quickly out of them (usually about 20 years until you make money but after that it's pretty much plain sailing)

also when the state owns the means of production it means it actually has the power to do this (British government is at the mercy of corporations so some things it ought to do it can't because it's not the most powerful thing in the country)

so 1 point for socialism

-1 point for state interference

0 points for capitalism

btw i know how expensive and rotten British softcore communism was, i'm not defending it, i'm merely pointing out the consequences of monetarism

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: chicah

N_O_Body: Keep in mind that we were the first country to truly nationalize the oil and put it in a fund. And if we hadn't, we would NOT have been in the position we are today, as one of the richest and best countries to live in. In fact, most countries who find oil spend all the money instantly or the money ends up in some rich sheik's pocket; we nationalized it and that was a truly great thing. I don't see why you have a problem with that, it is illogical if you look at the facts.quote>

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

the state having fingers in lots of pies means it can build infrastructure and hold employment much easier because it can co-ordinate business and it has an advantage: it doesn't pay taxes all it's profits ARE taxes paid by the company

quote>

We ventured in that direction a few years ago and it was nothing but a mess of bureaucrabs and snivel serpents who couldn't run a business to save their pensions.  Wound up selling it back to the private sector.  Right after the war, the Brits made the mistake of electing a Labour governnment because they were tired of Winston, rationing and the war.  They were sucked in by Bevan and Co. and after everything wound up owned by the state, they decided to slowly unwind the mess with much pain and angst.  The U.K. was beginning to look a little on the Soviet side, but lacked a megalomaniac to run it as a dictatorship.

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Motina: Your definition of a bubble is interesting but I don't buy it.  A bubble is something that can collapse almost instantaneously.  You need to read The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck.  In a bubble, the residue is usually without value.  In land, there is always something left, and land always has value, even if it is contaminated.quote>

There have been real-estate bubbles throughout the past 300 years... I don't know why I even need to bring this up, and I am not going to read fiction.

Yes, all unimproved land has value, because there is always demand for it, and the value would be equally distributed throughout a soverign region. The land value tax that Henry George proposed is based on this, so if it were to be implemented, you would not see open space parking lots that are merely paved over and charged a fee (economic rent).

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

RV1428:  Canada has a mixed capitalist/socialist system and freewheelers are quite often called to task where the interest of the public is in danger.  A pure socialism leads to common ownership (nationalization) of so many vital businesses that it would soon be indistinguishable from communism (the trappist monastery type, not the Soviet type).  You would be drying yourself after showering in our water with our towel and putting on our clothing.  A mixed system allows taking the advantages of both systems, but must be carefully managed.quote>

Strawman. Never in socialism would a towel or clothing be "ours". The water yes, the land yes. The land, because YOU didn't create it. You can occupy it, and own the house, but not the land. Water... cannot be privatized, because again, it is not created by you, or possessed by you for long. The moment it hits your head, it evaporates though various means, or runs down the drain. unless you are completely off the grid, it gets to you collectively, so any payments you make on water is for the infrastructure, not in owning the water.

In the supposed mixed systems like Canada that have Crown corporations and private corporations, it 100% capitalist. Now if those corporation were run without the heirarchy or priviledges, sure. But this can be done privately. Nationalization has nothing to do with a company organized in an anarcho-syndicalist manner. I don't even consider nationalization socialism. The UAE give there citizens free post secondary education, healthcare, and I think even free houses to newlyweds. Nothing is socialist about the UAE.

PURE socialism is the removal of priviledge.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Well, there's nothing illogical in having qualms about nationalizing anything. Government control isn't something to be taken lightly. That said, I don't doubt that the Norwegian government does a decent job managing the oil... but not every country is Norway. quote>

That might be because the system itself is not designed by Norwegian politicians, but rather bureaucrats from the Department of Industry and an Iraqi health care refugee looking for treatment for his son's cerebral palsy—and a job. The oil administration today is mostly dominated by realities, not politics.

And though politicians create the guidelines for the management of all the money the state earn on oil, they're all managed by some guys in London.

[saltandsauce 0]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

We ventured in that direction a few years ago and it was nothing but a mess of bureaucrabs and snivel serpents who couldn't run a business to save their pensions.  Wound up selling it back to the private sector.  Right after the war, the Brits made the mistake of electing a Labour governnment because they were tired of Winston, rationing and the war.  They were sucked in by Bevan and Co. and after everything wound up owned by the state, they decided to slowly unwind the mess with much pain and angst.  The U.K. was beginning to look a little on the Soviet side, but lacked a megalomaniac to run it as a dictatorship.

quote>

even a Conservative government would have nationalised those industries because during the war the economy was a command economy (move 25,000 tons of coal from Yorkshire to Manchester privatley owned and run railway and oh - we won't pay you for it) as a result, already under invested clapped out industry (even before the war) was exhausted from the war effort (railways being bombed, steam engines from 1910s, outdated steel rolling, coal mines without enough drainage, safety and air circulation) and these private companies would have collapsed just as the banks would have only the government at the time could NEVER justify giving billions of pounds (in 1946 money) to private industry so it bought it outright and fixed up the worst problems under the guise of nationalism.

the railways played a MUCH bigger role than they do now since there were no motorways in any way, shape or form and to get from city to city you has to go along a named road and most of those routes are the same today (London road went to London- duh and at the other end Oxford Road) so if those companies went bust the country would be paralysed literally rather than in monetary terms. Freight would collapse the mining industry would collapse and the steel industry would collapse and most of the textile, manufaturing and even agricultural industries would have collapsed too because of lack of transport.

the crisis of post second world war forced the British government to build the National Health Service to avoid revolution since it was the first war that we came out of poorer. Most people held onto their guns and the NHS was a "war reparation" if you will. (don't know why i brought that up)

[7891122562059523 70]

Socialism helps the population. Capitalism doesn't

[Gridlock 9]

For more than a generation we have been living a US style of capitalism ,living in a financial fantasy world,gorging ourselves on debt inside a credit fueled bubble , a system created by a small group of white men ,that forces much of the world to worship before the three gods of modern capitalism ,"Privatization " "Deregulation" & "Global economic liberalization " .

Banks and financial companies went bigger and global ,year after year ,lobbying government to relax even more regulations,so they could sell new complicated derivatives and credit default swaps , a worldwide "bubble" of financial products, without anything tangible to support it .

Less than 2 years after the bubbles burst ,those who bought the products and many others are now living its nightmare ,while the "system"that brought it about ,appears to be "back to business as usual".

Goldman Sash , a financial bookmaker ? Has capitalism now turned to gambling ? Some may call Goldman an "investment bank " but at the end of the day ,its the "bookies shop" .

Also social bailouts to save the capitalists?? a social fund bailing a capitalist system , sorry that goes over my head, so without socialism ,capitalism ,at least in the west ,would be on its knee s right now .

Socialism or Capitalism? That would depend on the style ,imho.

What does the future hold for US style crony capitalism? And what are the alternatives to neo-liberal globalization?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Just a thought that occured to me.  What happens to capitalism when the corporate motto becomes "Doing well while doing good."?

[Duke of York 23]

Originally posted by: Gridlock

For more than a generation we have been living a US style of capitalism ,living in a financial fantasy world,gorging ourselves on debt inside a credit fueled bubble , a system created by a small group of white men ,that forces much of the world to worship before the three gods of modern capitalism ,"Privatization " "Deregulation" & "Global economic liberalization " .

Banks and financial companies went bigger and global ,year after year ,lobbying government to relax even more regulations,so they could sell new complicated derivatives and credit default swaps , a worldwide "bubble" of financial products, without anything tangible to support it .

Less than 2 years after the bubbles burst ,those who bought the products and many others are now living its nightmare ,while the "system"that brought it about ,appears to be "back to business as usual".

Goldman Sash , a financial bookmaker ? Has capitalism now turned to gambling ? Some may call Goldman an "investment bank " but at the end of the day ,its the "bookies shop" .

Also social bailouts to save the capitalists?? a social fund bailing a capitalist system , sorry that goes over my head, so without socialism ,capitalism ,at least in the west ,would be on its knee s right now .

Socialism or Capitalism? That would depend on the style ,imho.

What does the future hold for US style crony capitalism? And what are the alternatives to neo-liberal globalization?

quote>

 I agree with you on some of what you said...Not all of it.However I could care less wether the Government is Socialist or

Capatilist.As long as you have filthy rich politicians running on campaign promises and that endless pathetic speech of " Hope " I would call any system failed.I mean theres people out there right now sitting on a stoop in a American city almost to the point of severe depression because there problems are to the point of madness and in this land of so called opportunity all they have is there " Box " by box I mean life , the street they live on and the place they work and that vehicle they will need to be replaced soon and possible a stoop there sitting on that might not even be theres in a few weeks...Oh but theres " Hope " and as they come to reality and depression sits in sitting there they also know that come that next morning they will wake up out of bed place there feet on the ground and there will be enough distractions to fuel on there life until another crash...We all need to be so thankful to have a president and a government that loves fueling on pathetic hope speeches and endless promises ..Oh and lest we forget endless bailouts for the rich while the poor suffer.And I'm not just talking about the Democrats or Republicans...I mean both of them.Wether Socialism or Capitalism doesn't matter as much as a Labor Movement and a Common Order to fix years of capitalistic Unrealistic gain and poor leadership.

-Duke of York-

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The basic problem with laissez faire capitalism in the American scene is that it produces positive feedback loops which will, eventually, break the machine.  No system can stand ever increasing anything, including growth.  Sooner or later, adjustments will kick in, especially if the loops are driven by unbridled greed as we now see in Wall Street.  When the machine finally breaks, it will make 1929's black Friday seem like a church picnic.

Unless the American markets are more strongly regulated, and the banks reigned in, I expect a full scale smash in this decade.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

The basic problem with laissez faire capitalism in the American scene is that it produces positive feedback loops which will, eventually, break the machine.  No system can stand ever increasing anything, including growth.  Sooner or later, adjustments will kick in, especially if the loops are driven by unbridled greed as we now see in Wall Street.  When the machine finally breaks, it will make 1929's black Friday seem like a church picnic.quote>

Well, obviously nothing can continue to grow forever. So far as capitalsm goes, crashes and recessions are the system's pheonix mechanism - contraction so as to allow future expansion to occur.

The real problem of sustainability is one not inherent to any political or economic system, but rather one of human psychology. Namely, people don't want to stick with something in both good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, etc., even when, if we did, things would work out. People tend not to really think about things long term. Instead, when things start going south, they throw their hands in the air and go "Aaaah! This isn't working! We need to try something else!", and something else which is better at the moment but may or may not be actually better in the long run or overall is instated. Barring outside forces of invasion and conquest, a system ultimately fails when people lose faith in it.

Capitalism in America at the moment is not unlike a troubled marriage.... if we can manage work things out, we'll be fine. If we can't, we're getting divorced and running off with our adulterous mistress, socialism.

The analogy, of course, could be reversed in other circumstances. The failure of communism in Eastern Europe can be described the same way: it wasn't working, so people got sick of it and ditched it.

In this way, the concept of sustainability in economic or political systems is, perhaps, laughable. Faith of the people aside, all power structures have this uncanny tendency of becoming overgrown and bloated as time drags on to the point where they die of their own excess. Just as it is natural for old overgrown forests to burn and have new trees rise from the ashes, so is it natural for old overgrown governments to burn and have new nations rise from the ashes. Except we don't call it a forest fire, we call it a revolution.

It's simple, really. Whatever system you use isn't going to live forever any more than you are.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Yes, socialism, the Soviet variant especially, is sustainable, but it is not sustained growth. It is sustained economic depression and malaise with no growth at any point. Capitalism, in contrast, can produce economic malaise and depression, but it always bounces back into a growth mode which erases the depression, and then some.

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

The basic problem with laissez faire capitalism in the American scene is that it produces positive feedback loops which will, eventually, break the machine.  No system can stand ever increasing anything, including growth.  Sooner or later, adjustments will kick in, especially if the loops are driven by unbridled greed as we now see in Wall Street.  When the machine finally breaks, it will make 1929's black Friday seem like a church picnic.

Unless the American markets are more strongly regulated, and the banks reigned in, I expect a full scale smash in this decade.

quote>

What Americans have right now is far from laissez-faire capitalism. It is/was a regulated market undergoing a rapid transition to fascism, in which corporations are forced by the government to serve the national collective (as determined by the government) usually to the detriment of the people and to the benefit of increased government power in conjunction with increased corporate profits.

The government supports the corporations with the oppression of the people for profit, and the corporations support the government with their acceptance to regulation and control. The interest of the government in power is exchanged for the interest of the corporations in guaranteed profits.

This is evident in the current health care bill, which is in reality an enslavement to health insurers in conjunction with government dictation and control (sound familiar?).

There is also the matter of the Federal Reserve pumping up inflation and credit, which will, when the economy inevitably recovers, trigger a hyperinflationary collapse, which will exacerbate any correction which may take place concurrently.

The economic crash will not be caused by Wall Street, it will be caused by the government, and in my assessment it will occur by 2015.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There are several cracks in the dam that have become visible.  The last Forbes billionaire's list is showing a major shift in economy away from the consumerism of the west to the productivity of the east.  With the Euro in a dither over whether to rescue the Greeks from their own folly, and the stupidity of the bailouts in the U.S. weakening the U.S. dollar, I'd suggest everyone fasten their seatbelts.  It is now evident that a major adjustment is coming, and I expect this soon.  By 2015, things will be much clearer, and the smash up will probably be completed.  Wall street buildings should be raining brokers any time now.

If you are in the markets, commodities are probably the place to go.  Stick to natural resources, especially metals and minerals.  Smart money will be looking to invest in Asian properties and corporations.  Go where the productivity is, because this is what creates capital.  The current consumerism in North America is non-productive.  The shift to off-shore services and production we have been experiencing is finally going to catch up.  North American labor has already priced itself out of the market, and further featherbedding will only exacerbate the problems we are facing.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Capitalism in America at the moment is not unlike a troubled marriage.... if we can manage work things out, we'll be fine. If we can't, we're getting divorced and running off with our adulterous mistress, socialism.

quote>

Adulterous mistress? Isn't it Uncle Sam that's cheating on Mrs. Capitalism America here?

[dafiden 11]

Socialism has become a bad word like liberal to the "Beast" (right Barbarossa?). And, by Beast, I mean Chomsky's Beast, or the masses. In order to promote growth and prosperity via competition, a degree of capitalism is probably required. And, unless you are completely selfish, Socialism is probably required in order to keep those suffering losses from dying off. Some sort of balance between the two is ideal, in my opinion. What balance? Who knows? And, if I knew I sure as heck wouldn't be playing games and writing on game forums! What most people don't realize is that insurance is socialism. In fact, before private (or mutual) companies took over operations, insurance was pure socialism in that it was a tight organization of people sharing the risk that one of them might "fall." So, before one says that socialism is bad, please consider my insurance example. I'm sure there are others.

P.S. And I wish the moron that hung the Obama Socialism Joker banner outside his strip club would realize that if his club burns down, he'll have socialism (insurance) to thank that he won't be flat broke with no compensation.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Property insurance is a means of spreading out the risk of physical destruction, and I agree that is a good thing, and yes, it is a form of socialism in that it protects the interests of the many to the benefit of the individual.

Life insurance, on the other hand, is pure emotional blackmail and life insurance companies are part of what's wrong with out system.  When you take out life insurance on yourself, you are betting against yourself.  You can only collect if you die, and no one has ever found a way to take it with you.  As for protecting any legacy, why should you care?  You are dead, and above all that worldly stuff.