Capitalism vs. Socialism

Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Capitalism Definition | Definition of Capitalism at Dictionary.com

Click to expand...

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Socialism Definition | Definition of Socialism at Dictionary.com

Click to expand...

All the recent talks and arguments regarding health care and government control has prompted me to start this thread. Here in the United States, we have become spoiled to the point that many of us act like selfish brats who think only of ourselves. We've been so accustomed to our freedoms that we think that anything that might be even remotely perceived as a loss gets us up in arms.

Capitalism is a flawed system by itself. It fosters selfishness and greed. It inspires a "me first" mentality that doesn't care for those who are less fortunate.

Socialism, likewise, is a flawed system. Full government control can quickly fall into communism and "Big Brother" style government. Instead of helping the less fortunate, when taken to the extreme, it makes everyone "less fortunate."

Personally, I believe that there needs to be a balance of the two systems. There needs to be room for free trade and free commerce, but at the same time, there needs to be some government control. Pure capitalism led to the stock market crash of the 1930's, forcing the government to step in an put some controls on the banking industry to protect the people. Pure capitalism led to the bursting of the economic bubble a couple years ago, forcing the government to stop in and take control to keep our economy from completely crashing. If proper government control was in there from the start, perhaps the crash we experienced would not have been quite as severe as it was.

What would a combined banking system look like? Yes, there would be banks that are state controlled, with tight regulations. At the same time, private banks would exist, and in essence, be in competition with the government controlled back. They would be able to offer services that the government bank could not. Also, they would probably cater to businesses, where government banks would only handle individuals.

What about a combined commerce sector? How about leveling the playing field a little bit? I understand the concept of supply and demand, but sometimes there is such a vast difference in the cost of the basic necessities that it is unreasonable. I'm not talking about the luxury items here, I'm talking about the necessities. Things like food, basic clothing, sundry items, basic utilities, gas, etc. Regulations should be in place so that everyone can afford to buy the basic necessities to live.

Housing is another area that can benefit. The cost of living expenses vary so widely from place to place it is unreasonable. The housing boom we experienced caused prices to skyrocket until it exploded, taking the rest of the economy with it. While prices have fallen since then, they are still high in a number of places. Why? Because the people selling the houses can get away with it. People should be able to afford a place to live, even if it is a small apartment.

Health care. This is a hot topic right now thanks to Obama's bill. This particular topic, of course, is not about that bill. This is about health care in general. Medications in general are expensive. Routine doctor visits or even hospital stays can cost a small fortune. Many people file bankruptcy as a result of medical expenses. Millions of people can't afford basic medical services, nor can they afford the insurance. A government run health care system, along with private insurance, would go a long way to help. Drive down the costs of medications and medical equipment. Let the doctors determine appropriate medical treatments and do not deny the requests. If you keep the medications and costs for medical procedures down, one of the problems gets removed from the equation.

Granted, this isn't even a fully ideal solution, but it does show that limited government control can have an impact for the better. I'm sure that someone who is better with economics and politics than I am could determine a better way. I also know that a lot of people, mainly many of us spoiled rotten Americans, will have a problem with this, and would raise the trumpets against any sign of government control. The doomsayers who will decry that it will be the end of the world as a result. While I would agree a fully socialistic form would be detrimental, I say that a fully capitalistic form is equally detrimental.

I suppose I should clarify something. I'm not denying that there are very generous people here in this country. For that, I am thankful. The point is, when it comes to the business model of capitalism, all it fosters is the "me-first" greed attitude that generates spoiled people. Nor am I advocating a socialized nation. I am advocating limited government, not no government, or complete government.

Also, if you feel capitalism has worked for you, then you obviously haven't experienced the bad that accompanies it, for which I am thankful. Unfortunately, there are millions of hard-working Americans that are experiencing it first hand.

How could capitalism be selfless when the main focus behind it is the lust of money? Granted, not everyone falls into this pattern, but look at the big corporations today. Are they in it to benefit others, or are they in it to make money? The bottom line is that corporations, in general, only care about how much they can make, not by how much they can help people.

And I agree about the thought that people are entitled to things they haven't earned. That isn't what I'm referring to. I'm referring to a more equal treatment. Should a hard-working mother of three, only able to find part-time work, not be able to get the medical attention she or her children need? Should that woman and her children not have a place to live? Should she and her children not have enough food to eat? And before you judge the poor mother of three, realize that you don't know her personal situation, and you cannot know what brought her to that point.

Should a man who has been out of work for months, but goes out every day trying to find any job he can find, be denied medical, food, or housing? He spends every day looking, yet there is nothing to be found. He's either not qualified enough, or too qualified.

Should a husband be forced to choose between buying food for his family or for buying medicine and paying for medical care for his sick wife? Should that husband be forced to only see his wife on weekends while she is in the hospital because the costs of living are so high that it prevents money from being spent to commute? Should he be forced to file bankruptcy to escape the rising debt from medical expenses?

All three situations are known personally to me. The first is a woman who I have known since I met my wife. Her husband left her when her youngest was an infant. She is a Christian and the Lord has provided her needs, and she always had a place to stay and food on the table. But she has always had trouble finding a job, no matter how hard she tried, and never had the money for medical insurance. Fortunately, her husband took care of the children's medical expenses, but how many deadbeat dads are out there that don't take that responsibility? Also, it doesn't help her own medical situation, for which she has been unable to get to the doctor, even when she has been sick enough to warrant it.

The man is a good Christian brother of mine. He is a construction painter who has been out of work since the housing market collapsed. He spends every day looking for a job, but hasn't been able to find one. Fortunately, his wife is a nurse at a local hospital, so income is still coming in. It is expensive where we live, so the lack of his income is making things difficult, but the Lord continues to provide for his needs.

Finally, the last one is just a small portion of what I've experienced. I make enough money to be considered "middle-class" yet there are times I can't afford certain things. There has literally been times that I've skipped eating just to save some money for Michelle. I filed bankruptcy due to medical expenses, and I have insurance. More medical bills are piling up, and I am simply not paying them, because the money isn't there for it. I have to commute 70 miles to work, and my wife is in a hospital 3 hours from where I live. I can only afford to see her once a week. I cannot move, because housing gets more expensive closer to my office, and the bankruptcy and lack of medical bill payments is still on my record.

Yes, in all three cases, the Lord does provide. Despite that, though, it clearly shows the flaws in the current system. There are millions of people in similar situations. Many have lost their homes, been unable to support their families, or been unable to get the medical care they need. Why? Because of someone else's greed. I don't blame the people for it, but the system itself. That is why I say there needs to be limited government control to make things a little more equal for all tax-paying citizens.

Tamara224 said:

People would be selfish and greedy no matter what economic system they lived under.

Economic systems are worldly systems that really don't have any use in curbing sin.

I think you'd do a lot better to leave morality out of it when discussing this issue. Unless, of course, you can provide some Scripture which would support the idea that one economic system is morally superior to another.

Click to expand...

One is not morally superior to another. As I said, both have their flaws, and either one in its pure state is a problem. Also, I do not deny that people would be selfish and greedy in either system. I am simply saying that the underlying drive of capitalism, which is based on the love of money, is a problem (The love of money is the root of all evil. - There's your verse ).

He put me back together said:

It isn't.

Click to expand...

Evidence points to the contrary. As I said, it may not apply to everyone and every business, but it is certainly a large driving factor for most of the larger corporations out there.

Like I said in my OP, the solution isn't perfect. Both systems have problems. That is why I speak of a combination of the two, weighing more on the private sector than on the government. Hence why I say "limited government." Not one over the other, but using both to greater effect.

Also, not everything I said was about government control, either, but government regulation. Government control means that the government owns the project. Welfare is an example of government control. There is a place for that. Government regulation, on the other hand, are rules to be followed by businesses. The Federal Minimum Wage law is an example of that.

I think if we keep our private sector intact, but allow government controlled businesses as well as adding regulations to even the playing field, we will be going a long way to fix what is wrong. How much is too much, though? The only answer I can give is "limited control." Free enterprise should continue, but when it comes to the basic necessities of life, I see no problems with limited government assistance and control.

I think one of the problems with understanding my position is realizing that I'm not talking about replacing capitalism with socialism. I'm not advocating changing that at all. That is probably why you perceive a contradiction in my posts. I'm simply adding to by allowing the government to have programs that will benefit as well as adding regulations that will keep things like medical care, food, housing, etc more affordable to everyone.