- Jan 26, 2007
- 14,535
- 1,054
- 51
- Faith
- Calvary Chapel
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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
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.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
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.