Yeah plus the socialism/capitalism mixture...

Plus the Pirate party, you can't beat that!

that can be a good mixture. its starting to work in china.

Dear Nick they haven't got that.

They have a dictatorial semi capitalism.They a far away from the healty mixture of socialism/capitalism.

Hahaha I hope it wasnt going to be in Crystals thread

 

 

Er... Of course not... :rolleyes:

 

Just aswell I didn't post it.

that can be a good mixture. its starting to work in china.

Hmm your view of socialism is... distorted...

if you are a communist now it's OK, no, i'd say it's good.

 

but if you'll still be a communist in 10 years then you are a fool

reilly castro ? :uhoh:

Dear Nick they haven't got that.

They have a dictatorial semi capitalism.They a far away from the healty mixture of socialism/capitalism.

 

I know this. but they are starting to see the more you mix the better things will be for the country. its not their yet but i see china in the coming years becoming more relaxed and becoming more free while they mix in capitolism into their system.

Hmm your view of socialism is... distorted...

 

No. socialism/communism are bad things, just like capitolism. but when you get the right mixture of the 2 it works out. pure socialism does NOT work and is evil just like pure capitolism.

Well that's suprising to hear from a republican.:lol:

Anyway, I'd choose capitalism over socialism any day.Socialism is too restrictive, belive me, I live in a post communistic country, some consequences are still felt today.Because socialism isn't just about guaranteed job.Not to say capitalism is without flaws, but it's been longer with us than socialism.And people too often ignore that there is a capitalistic side to Sweden as well.

Just my 0.2$ worth.

Socialism isn't communism don't mix those 2 things up, and also the model of socialism that Sweden has is that in many companies workers are the major shareholders, that's how our socialism should've been but failed cause of corrupted politics...

I think workers owning the company is the best way since companies contend just like in capitalism but profit goes to everyone not just the big man...

Are you replying to my post.

I know it's not the same, communism is a final stage, while socialism is just a phase until communism is reached.

But if I invest my capital into a company, don't you think it's fair that i have an ownership over it?

Workers are free to purchase shares anyway.

Well that's suprising to hear from a republican.:lol:

Anyway, I'd choose capitalism over socialism any day.Socialism is too restrictive, belive me, I live in a post communistic country, some consequences are still felt today.Because socialism isn't just about guaranteed job.Not to say capitalism is without flaws, but it's been longer with us than socialism.And people too often ignore that there is a capitalistic side to Sweden as well.

Just my 0.2$ worth.

 

I'd chose capitolism over socialism as well. but one type of goverment is evil on its own and does not work and only causes problems. in america's early days it was too capitolistic and the average american suffered from that. you missed what im saying, im not pro socialism in any way just a little bit mixed with capitolism.

Pure capitalism or pure communism cant exist individually and thats one of their disadvantages about them. China's a perfect example. Its gonna slowly start adopting capialist policies.

 

The only system thats 100% successful is totalitarianism(hope i spelt it right):censored:. The trouble is implementing it but once its up and running you're in for good times(if you're at the top:devil:).Zimbabwe is a perfect example of a successful totalitarian state.

No money in the bank? Jus print more:laugh3:

But if I invest my capital into a company, don't you think it's fair that i have an ownership over it?

Workers are free to purchase shares anyway.

Well you would be allowed to invest only in one company, and that would be the company you would work for. Social indifferences would be much lowere then, and everybody would have to work meaning that the resources would be used to their fullest, but only the amounts that are needed, and wealth would be distributed much more fairly (you would either spent your profit on luxury or reinvest it, there would be

no conglomerization)...

Unofrtunately that's just an utopia...

Pure capitalism or pure communism cant exist individually and thats one of their disadvantages about them. China's a perfect example. Its gonna slowly start adopting capialist policies.

 

The only system thats 100% successful is totalitarianism(hope i spelt it right):censored:. The trouble is implementing it but once its up and running you're in for good times(if you're at the top:devil:).Zimbabwe is a perfect example of a successful totalitarian state.

No money in the bank? Jus print more:laugh3:

 

 

you're so right

Well you would be allowed to invest only in one company, and that would be the company you would work for. Social indifferences would be much lowere then, and everybody would have to work meaning that the resources would be used to their fullest, but only the amounts that are needed, and wealth would be distributed much more fairly (you would either spent your profit on luxury or reinvest it, there would be

no conglomerization)...

Unofrtunately that's just an utopia...

So I would have to work to get the right to buy shares of only a company I work for?So no stock trading then,eh?!

And what about managers, would they get shares, after all, you don't think that ordinary workers could be able to run companies successfully.

And what about thoose more ambitious, let's say I've got 10000 share of a stock of "xy" company, and I get 100$ dividend.

Now what if I want to invest that money into another prosperous company, I wouldn't be able, just because I don't work there.Sounds too red.

Anyway son, today is a Fx money collecting for me.See you in Spain with my creative zen.:smug:

And what about managers, would they get shares, after all, you don't think that ordinary workers could be able to run companies successfully.

 

Managers are also workers aren't they? Of course they would also own a part of the company, but the things is that workers would just management so anyone who would try misuse the workers (which is extremely popular in capitalism), and molest them, they would get sacked, come to think of it this would be a democrativ way of running the company. just that companies are smaller than governments so there is much less place for corruption...

As I said you could spend your dividend onto luxuries, or invest it into your company, no one would be greedy so no one would want billions, but only what they truly need for a good living...

There would be no more situation that 99% of the wealth is controled by 1% of the people...

But anyone can pack things up in boxes, don't you think that managers should be stimulated a bit more than assembly workers?

You still didn't answer about stock trading, and investing in other companies other than the one you work in.

Oh btw, workers would never allow the managment do things like firing workers, but this is often necessary due to technological advancement.

Remember when english workers went on to destroy machines because they belived machines would take away their jobs.