Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic - Communism or Capitalism?

But we're not voting on what should be, we're voting on what is.

Therefore, capitalism.

JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote:

But we're not voting on what should be, we're voting on what is.

Therefore, capitalism.

Actually, it's asking what are you? Are you a communist, or a capitalist?

There's a style that's a mix between capitalism and communism. It's basically capitalism, but it costs nothing to go to the hospital. I first was kinda mad when our school hosted a fundraiser to pay for a students operation, and it cost like, 1,100 bucks! (Or more. It was a few years ago)

And what do you mean, "at times" just plain dumb?

I think what you meant to say was, "always the least intelligent person in the world from Minute One of her life."

Socialist. Maybe when I'm not poor anymore I'll change my mind, but probably not. My formative teen years were spent hating The Man, and it'll probably stay that way.

I still say, even with the Paris Hiltons of the world, capitalism works for me! (I do envy that socialized healthcare, though.)

I won't go and live in Canada 3 simple reasons:

1: Canada is cold

Pure Communism: The equal distrubution of wealth. Well I can say it wouldn't be bad to have just as much money as Paris Hilton but I belive that if being a mustardhead is what she does best and she works hard at it then she deserves the money she makes at it! Abd if you made a million buxx working hard would you want it taken away!?! Until you only had 2,000 left?
No you wouldn't. At least I wouldn't.

Wesstarrunner wrote:

So what you're saying is, she deserves the money she gets from sitting around and acting like an idiot? That's not really working hard. Also, citing that as an example of why capitalism works is kinda ironic...

Oh, and I would not object to much higher taxes to help pay for things like universal health care as Canada does (and before you ask, yes I HAVE seriously considered moving there, and have still not ruled it out).

SocioCapitalism almost could do the same thing in a different light. Giving people stuff would make them LAZY and then would make them more lazy for they would want more things supplied to them.

Wesstarrunner wrote:

SocioCapitalism almost could do the same thing in a different light. Giving people stuff would make them LAZY and then would make them more lazy for they would want more things supplied to them.

SocioCapitalism would only provide for the very basic essentials--no frills. Like WIC-approved foods and stuff. If they wanted more, if they wanted something better (and trust me, most people WOULD, because I've known quite a few), then they'd have to work to get something of better quality. The government wouldn't just let them get lazy to the point of giving them nice-quality things for free, as you're suggesting. It wouldn't snowball, because limitations as to what would be free and what wouldn't be free would be in place.

People make poor choices, it's their problem. Not mine. The government has NO say on how i spend my money. They shouldn't take my money so that I have the EXACT amount as the next hobo on that boxcar. Just not right. I can see giving money on your own free will. But being forced into having your money taken away until your just as poor as every other lowballer.I don't think thats right. Yes I gave to the hurricane last year. Yes let Santa have my last 50 cents last Christmas. I don't get why you would want to force people into stuff like that. You would never have incentive to generate more input into the economy if you worked under Communism. SocioCapitalism almost could do the same thing in a different light. Giving people stuff would make them LAZY and then would make them more lazy for they would want more things supplied to them. I suggest leaving things the way they are maybe a few minor changes toward your way for the handicaped. Other then that we are fine. Peace. Capitalism all da way dawg!

:kot:

Hey thats perscription! :kot:

But if u worked enoughto make 10,000 then u wouldn't get what you deserved.

Author:	ramrod [ Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:26 am ]
Post subject:
JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote: But we're not voting on what should be, we're voting on what is. Therefore, capitalism. Actually, it's asking what are you? Are you a communist, or a capitalist?

Author:	Wesstarrunner [ Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:43 pm ]
Post subject:
Capitalist, I'ma Capitalist. You make the money it's yours only a small amount should be taken away. TAXES! Communism is the equal distribution of wealth. Not good. If you earn the money the hard way you should be able to do what you want with it. Or even your DAD earns the money the hard way HE has the right to give it to his son. No pure capitalism isn't perfect BUT pure communism (in MY eyes) is less perfect.

Author:	ramrod [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:43 am ]
Post subject:
So West your saying that it's perfectly fine for Paris Hilton to have all that money and not do a day of work while I work 30+ hours a week, plus school to afford the essentails. I work 12 hour days, and all she has to do is carry around that dog and act like an idiot (which isn't hard for her).

Author:	Wesstarrunner [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:
yes to put it bluntly yes. Life Rule Number One: I don't watch celeb news so I have barely a clue who she is. And 2: If that's how she gets her money and she's darned good at it I won't complain! 3: You aren't taking me seriously are you? 4: Bubs runs off Free Enterprise!

Author:	ramrod [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:14 pm ]
Post subject:
Ok, first, Paris Hilton is a celebrity whos famous for being in the Hilton family, that owns all those hotels. She's very airheaded and at times just plain dumb. Sorry, it's just that I get very peeved at people that seem to have all the luck and all the money, while there are hard working people that get nothing. But you know what? We're getting off topic here. If you would like to continue this conversation West, feel free to PM me.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Communism or Capitalism? http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8438	Page 2 of 2

Author:	Jitka [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:
ramrod wrote: JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote: But we're not voting on what should be, we're voting on what is. Therefore, capitalism. Actually, it's asking what are you? Are you a communist, or a capitalist? Capitalist, ramrod. I voted capitalist. And what do you mean, "at times" just plain dumb? I think what you meant to say was, "always the least intelligent person in the world from Minute One of her life."

Author:	Cleverdan [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:18 am ]
Post subject:
There's a style that's a mix between capitalism and communism. It's basically capitalism, but it costs nothing to go to the hospital. I first was kinda mad when our school hosted a fundraiser to pay for a students operation, and it cost like, 1,100 bucks! (Or more. It was a few years ago)

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:36 am ]
Post subject:
Cleverdan wrote: There's a style that's a mix between capitalism and communism. It's basically capitalism, but it costs nothing to go to the hospital. I first was kinda mad when our school hosted a fundraiser to pay for a students operation, and it cost like, 1,100 bucks! (Or more. It was a few years ago) That's what I was essentially talking about earlier--a form of SocioCapitalism. Canada seems to be on their way to that point.

Author:	ramrod [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:29 am ]
Post subject:
JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote: And what do you mean, "at times" just plain dumb? I think what you meant to say was, "always the least intelligent person in the world from Minute One of her life." I was just tying to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Author:	ModestlyHotGirl [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:40 am ]
Post subject:
Socialist. Maybe when I'm not poor anymore I'll change my mind, but probably not. My formative teen years were spent hating The Man, and it'll probably stay that way.

Author:	StrongRad [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:59 am ]
Post subject:
ModestlyHotGirl wrote: Socialist. Maybe when I'm not poor anymore I'll change my mind, but probably not. My formative teen years were spent hating The Man, and it'll probably stay that way. Well, I'm in the middle class. If we choose capitalism, the people above me get rich from my work. If we pick socialism, the people below me get rich from my work. It really sucks being in the middle!!! I still say, even with the Paris Hiltons of the world, capitalism works for me! (I do envy that socialized healthcare, though.)

Author:	ramrod [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:
StrongRad wrote: I still say, even with the Paris Hiltons of the world, capitalism works for me! (I do envy that socialized healthcare, though.) Then why not go to Canada? You get a little of both there.

Author:	Wesstarrunner [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:
I won't go and live in Canada 3 simple reasons: 1: Canada is cold 2: Canada is liberal and I'm not. 3: I like the land of the free and the home of the brave. Aint changing for George Washington's sake. Pure Communism: The equal distrubution of wealth. Well I can say it wouldn't be bad to have just as much money as Paris Hilton but I belive that if being a mustardhead is what she does best and she works hard at it then she deserves the money she makes at it! Abd if you made a million buxx working hard would you want it taken away!?! Until you only had 2,000 left? No you wouldn't. At least I wouldn't.

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:
While Paris Hilton looks like a good example of flaws with Capitalism, I think it's more an example of the flaws with our priorities in our society. Consider that Pulitzer Prize winners receive $3,000 and recognition among only a select group of individuals, while Playboy Bunny of the Year gets $100,000, a new sports car, and a whole bunch more publicity. I admit that I used to be very cynical of Capitalism because I've had to see good friends of mine struggle financially, even when they play by all the rules and are victims of circumstances outside their control...but then I realized that Communism/Socialism also has its flaws, and I came to understand that these different types of economy aren't necessarily good or bad--they're just tools. And like any tool, they can be used for good or for bad. What's important is to try to weigh out the potential for good with the potential for bad to find a good solution...which is why I like the blend of SocioCapitalism, where people's basic needs will always be provided for but where they still have to contribute to get ahead, and can't just get ahead through means that do not contribute (such as gambling). And Weststarrunner--if I had more money than I needed and so much of it was taken away to support someone else who couldn't fend for themselves due to circumstances they couldn't control, then yes, I would be okay with my money being taken away. I thought as a Christian you were supposed to understand that lesson of greed versus need.

Page 2 of 2	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	ramrod [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:
Wesstarrunner wrote: I won't go and live in Canada 3 simple reasons: 1: Canada is cold Tell me, have you evet been there? I was there last month, and I can tell you it wasn't cold. They have their hot days too. And I have been there in the winter as well. It's not all frozen tundra like most people think.

Author:	Homerun Starrer [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Wesstarrunner wrote: Pure Communism: The equal distrubution of wealth. Well I can say it wouldn't be bad to have just as much money as Paris Hilton but I belive that if being a mustardhead is what she does best and she works hard at it then she deserves the money she makes at it! Abd if you made a million buxx working hard would you want it taken away!?! Until you only had 2,000 left? No you wouldn't. At least I wouldn't. So what you're saying is, she deserves the money she gets from sitting around and acting like an idiot? That's not really working hard. Also, citing that as an example of why capitalism works is kinda ironic...

Author:	Wesstarrunner [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:
But take France 4 instance. Their government is on the verge of bankruptcy because of SocioCapitalism getting out of hand. The government supplies all of this and well not good I belive we need something like what you say. Where we pay part and the government pays the other. Oh wait! That's right we have Medicare! Say it: Med-i-care w00t! Anyhow what if that guy who you gave the money to didn't work hard. He was a bum/ hobo kinda lazy mustardhead? Would you give it to him if you knew he didn't have the money cause he was lazy? Heck no, I wouldn't that's my hard earned cash for peat's sake!Anyhow you have no excuse not to work for money unless you are an invalid, elderly, or have a very horrible mental problem. You must pull your own weight. And people who go into the hole because of credit cards and others of the kind have no one to blame but themselves for being mustardheaded enough to do that. As for people scammed, well that's best left to the authorites. There is no reason why Capitalism can't work under these conditions. Homerun Starrer wrote: Wesstarrunner wrote: Pure Communism: The equal distrubution of wealth. Well I can say it wouldn't be bad to have just as much money as Paris Hilton but I belive that if being a mustardhead is what she does best and she works hard at it then she deserves the money she makes at it! Abd if you made a million buxx working hard would you want it taken away!?! Until you only had 2,000 left? No you wouldn't. At least I wouldn't. So what you're saying is, she deserves the money she gets from sitting around and acting like an idiot? That's not really working hard. Also, citing that as an example of why capitalism works is kinda ironic... Whoever owns the buisness has the right do do what they want to with the money they make. If her daddy wants to spoil his kid dead thats his choice. And if she's a mustardhead that means she's dumb. Nothing wrong with being dumb. Homestar's dumb and lookie at him! He has is own Wiki!

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:
The world isn't as black and white as all that, Weststarrunner. My best friend has had to file for bankruptcy and has many times faced the serious prospect of being jobless and homeless, but it is NOT because he's any sort of lazy bum--he works his butt off more than most people. But so many employers are picky about who they hire on grounds that ought not to matter, such as age or certain minor personality traits. Not everyone who is poor is poor because they're lazy bums, and as for getting into debt, let me ask you this: Does your school or any school you know of offer any sort of class on managing personal finances? And don't say "Economics" class, because that is a very cursory overview class of how money works in general in our society--not how to plan your own finances. Poor people usually end up poor because they were raised by poor parents, and since the schools don't offer good education on finances, they learn almost all their spending habits from their parents, who of course make poor choices themselves (hence why they are poor). And government programs for assistance are usually 1) not very well advertised and known about and 2) generally require a whole bunch of red tape and beauracratic paperwork, meaning people needing something urgently would have to wait until past the point of necessity just to receive anything. So you can't just blame individuals all the time for being as poor as they are. They have just as much right to live and breathe as everyone else, and deserve just as much respect. Unfortunately, not everyone sees that. Oh, and I would not object to much higher taxes to help pay for things like universal health care as Canada does (and before you ask, yes I HAVE seriously considered moving there, and have still not ruled it out).

Author:	StrongRad [ Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:15 am ]
Post subject:
PianoManGidley wrote: Oh, and I would not object to much higher taxes to help pay for things like universal health care as Canada does (and before you ask, yes I HAVE seriously considered moving there, and have still not ruled it out). I would probably object to higher taxes for universal healthcare, but mainly on the grounds that there's probably already enough money in the "social help" system to cover it. Most of that money is being wasted on people who sit around, collecting welfare checks, and are just generally too lazy to get off their sorry butts (There ARE some people on welfare, a majority of welfare people that I've encountered, that abuse the program). I'm not saying "everyone on welfare is a bum" because that's simply not true. My biggest problem with socialized healthcare is that a lot of money would be wasted on caring for people who are to blame for their conditions (smokers, druggies, alcoholics). I also think that the opportunity should exist for people with means to pay for better healthcare than the baseline should be allowed to do so. (sort of a "sociocapitalist" scheme) Of course, this really is turning into an R&P thread... Maybe the "polls" mod should move it over there.

Author:	Wesstarrunner [ Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:53 pm ]
Post subject:
People make poor choices, it's their problem. Not mine. The government has NO say on how i spend my money. They shouldn't take my money so that I have the EXACT amount as the next hobo on that boxcar. Just not right. I can see giving money on your own free will. But being forced into having your money taken away until your just as poor as every other lowballer.I don't think thats right. Yes I gave to the hurricane last year. Yes let Santa have my last 50 cents last Christmas. I don't get why you would want to force people into stuff like that. You would never have incentive to generate more input into the economy if you worked under Communism. SocioCapitalism almost could do the same thing in a different light. Giving people stuff would make them LAZY and then would make them more lazy for they would want more things supplied to them. I suggest leaving things the way they are maybe a few minor changes toward your way for the handicaped. Other then that we are fine. Peace. Capitalism all da way dawg! Hey thats perscription!

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:36 pm ]
Post subject:
Wesstarrunner wrote: SocioCapitalism almost could do the same thing in a different light. Giving people stuff would make them LAZY and then would make them more lazy for they would want more things supplied to them. SocioCapitalism would only provide for the very basic essentials--no frills. Like WIC-approved foods and stuff. If they wanted more, if they wanted something better (and trust me, most people WOULD, because I've known quite a few), then they'd have to work to get something of better quality. The government wouldn't just let them get lazy to the point of giving them nice-quality things for free, as you're suggesting. It wouldn't snowball, because limitations as to what would be free and what wouldn't be free would be in place.

Author:	ModestlyHotGirl [ Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Wesstarrunner wrote: 1: Canada is cold For the past week, the temperature here in Sudbury (375km north of Toronto) has not been lower than 86F. And it's broken 104F on a few days. This is not unusual. Just sayin'.

Author:	Wesstarrunner [ Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:50 pm ]
Post subject:
PianoManGidley wrote: Wesstarrunner wrote: SocioCapitalism almost could do the same thing in a different light. Giving people stuff would make them LAZY and then would make them more lazy for they would want more things supplied to them. SocioCapitalism would only provide for the very basic essentials--no frills. Like WIC-approved foods and stuff. If they wanted more, if they wanted something better (and trust me, most people WOULD, because I've known quite a few), then they'd have to work to get something of better quality. The government wouldn't just let them get lazy to the point of giving them nice-quality things for free, as you're suggesting. It wouldn't snowball, because limitations as to what would be free and what wouldn't be free would be in place. Someone going for office would apeal to the voters that he would get them better quality things. Then a whole party might spring up around it, next thing you know bankrupt America.

Author:	No Toppings [ Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:17 pm ]
Post subject:
Wesstarrunner wrote: People make poor choices, it's their problem. Not mine. The government has NO say on how i spend my money. They shouldn't take my money so that I have the EXACT amount as the next hobo on that boxcar. Just not right. I can see giving money on your own free will. But being forced into having your money taken away until your just as poor as every other lowballer.I don't think thats right. Yes I gave to the hurricane last year. Yes let Santa have my last 50 cents last Christmas. I don't get why you would want to force people into stuff like that. You would never have incentive to generate more input into the economy if you worked under Communism. SocioCapitalism almost could do the same thing in a different light. Giving people stuff would make them LAZY and then would make them more lazy for they would want more things supplied to them. I suggest leaving things the way they are maybe a few minor changes toward your way for the handicaped. Other then that we are fine. Peace. Capitalism all da way dawg! Hey thats perscription! In Communism, thoug, it's not that your money is being taken away, but that you don't make the money in the first place. Instead of making that "million buxx" that you would need to have removed from your posession, you only make the $2000, and if that's all everyone has, the market has to adjust itself to those needs, because there is NOBODY there to pay any more.

Author:	Wesstarrunner [ Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:11 pm ]
Post subject:
But if u worked enoughto make 10,000 then u wouldn't get what you deserved.

Author:	No Toppings [ Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:31 pm ]
Post subject:
Wesstarrunner wrote: But if u worked enoughto make 10,000 then u wouldn't get what you deserved. That's completley dependant on the economy you're dealing with. What if, in this communistic society, what was enough work to make you $10,000 in the US is only enough to make you $2,000, and everyone is doing about the same amount of labor?

Author:	Ju Ju Master [ Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Wesstarrunner wrote: Pure Communism: The equal distrubution of wealth. Well I can say it wouldn't be bad to have just as much money as Paris Hilton but I belive that if being a mustardhead is what she does best and she works hard at it then she deserves the money she makes at it! Abd if you made a million buxx working hard would you want it taken away!?! Until you only had 2,000 left? No you wouldn't. At least I wouldn't. Wait - Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't pure communism when everyone tries to work as hard as possible and the wealth is distrubtued equally? If not, then of course pure communism is reachable. It's just not pure.