Democratic Primary Push for White House

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Pure unfettered capitalism is bad. That is fairly obvious because the wealth collection leads to inherent inequalities like BaltimoreSkins said.

BUT even unfettered capitalism is far superior to any form of economic structure predicated on socialism first. And there is a simple reason. Socialism, and Marxism by extension, take away the natural incentive that human beings need to excel. In socialism, one gains no advantage to being better than others, in fact quite often the reverse is true - if you are more motivated to earn a higher wage, the benefits of your effort is taken from you and passed on to those who were less motivated. And that kills human spirit and drive quicker than unfettered capitalism's poverty.

Unfettered capitalism's poverty puts human beings in terrible places, and in a Darwinian way sifts the wheat from the chaff. Some people who don't know where their next meal will come from, but have hope of escape will use that hope and grow. Most will not.

So the real question is not whether socialism or capitalism is bad or good, but how do you balance the value of human life (which pure socialism values with equality) with the mechanism of hope and incentive that pure capitalism creates through wealth diversity and distribution.

Personally, and I know it is an unattainable goal because government bureaucracy will never give up it's power, but I think all specific aid programs should be converted to one bureau, and that every person over 18 should be given up to 22K a year. If you earn 22001 you get 0 from aid. if you earn 18000 you get 4K. I realize that this creates a disincentive but 22k is purely sustaining a life. No frills. So the incentive to work and earn more exists without having anyone suffer pure abject capitalistism's poverty. Along with that would I would support a cataclysmic insurance system with strong checks.

The 22K is a relatively arbitrary number that is more for example. I would think that the actual number should be a calculated number based on the cost of 1 person living in an average cost of living, with an actuarial table of insurance and rent and food expenses.

The key point is that government bureacracy is reduced to near zero. IRS collects, one agency calculates the yearly number, and IRS disburses monthly checks based on the previous year's tax returns. From there individuals rise and fall on their ability. If someone takes that monthly check and spends it poorly then they face the consequences of their choices. If someone manages to spend less than the monthly check and saves, then they reap the benefits of their choices.

anyway. that's my thought for the day

I have always thought that unemployment, welfare, what have you could be far better managed. Able bodied people should be able to work I think.