http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk69e1Vcmvg 

I call trolling! Off topic (not capitalism, but Socialism) and not contributing

Just kidding of course...

Can you tell I got my computer on a LAN line for a temp moment?

Trying to fix my wifi now

Obama has done 3 of 4 things Pelosi says is on his first term agenda. How did he not have time?

Answer that, and you self refute your whole post.

once again my post is ignored by mister Einstein....
did you just overlook it?

As I stated in my thread, capitalism has the same goal as socialism, the perfect society, one where there is no poverty and people have what they need and give what they can. Capitalism uses a free market to try and achieve this, whilst socialism uses a community orintated aspect, where the community looks after it self. Both these paths to perfection are as valid as each other, and both are immpossible to achieve because of flaws in human society and our very nature. The question isn't which theory is best, because neither works, it is how do we blend the two paths together to ensure we reach our destination, or as close to as we can...

Also I think you mistake capatilism with innovation. Innovation get us efficincies and new inventions to move us forward. Capatilism is merely a pathway/process to make use of such innovative ideas and to provide an environment to motivate such innovation, however socialism will also provide such motivation, one merely need look at universities to understand this. Whilst there is some competition, it is normally more of an air of co-operation and striving as a community to reach an end goal. In fact the realtionship between industry and university is a good example of how the two paths can work together to achieve more than either could by itself.

hmm alright, thanks for the response .

1) How is a hospital like a monopoly, when there are several hospitals you can choose from? Or are you assigned to one hospital without the option of going to another?

2) When you're a doctor, you're normally specialized in one area, whether it is neurology, oncology or whatever. All these specializations require a lot of education and training. If one doctor were to specialize in all areas, that'd take him his entire life (well almost). Well suppose they could choose for an all-around-but-all-not-good approach (some kind of rainbow-specialization). This would probably lower the quality by a lot. So specialization is not always something bad, as long as it has a purpose.

3) I'll give you this one. Becoming an optician requires studies, but if making lenses is so mechanical, then we could probably save a lot on those jobs by just making some factories which can be operated by relatively few, right?

But, in most cases, capitalism leads to fewer options to chose from, as the competiveness normally kills off the smaller companies who can't keep their prices low enough (like has happened to supermarkets here in the Netherlands).

EDIT: Spelling

Capitalism has the "goal" of producing a perfect society, You_Fool? I thought it had a purpose: To keep crazy people like you, who think capitalism and socialism have the same goal, who think that we need some blended socialist society to be successful, from interfering with my not-crazy life.

You can claim that socialism provides as much motivation and thus produces as much innovation as capitalism. Just like you can say that man can fly like a bird. (He can't.)

Irresponsible and unrestrained government has been increasing the cost of living ridiculously (lowering the standard of living) for generations in America, making us look [relative to what we could look] bad, making capitalism look bad. Regulatory agencies have been strangling competition, further increasing costs and stifling innovation.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Capitalism has the "goal" of producing a perfect society, You_Fool? I thought it had a purpose: To keep crazy people like you, who think capitalism and socialism have the same goal, who think that we need some blended socialist society to be successful, from interfering with my not-crazy life.

So there's no ideological justification for capitalism beyond "keep you out of my pocket?"  Sounds kind of small-minded...

first person to get the reference without googling gets a free social security disability income case

If that's the case, then you still need to address You_Fool.

Huh?

First to adress hospital sizes and doctor specialties.

Then to address European stores.

Yes there are specialties. I will not let a car mechanic tear into my semi truck because it will take him longer, chances are he will make a mistake, even though hre is a mechanic and in theory his skills can carry over.

A good example yes?

But if it is a simple tire change and he has the required tools... sure thing, anyone can change them if they at least have done so proffessionally regardless of vehicle.

Same with oil changes, headlights, and maybe even replacing my filters (I think I have 4, tired right now so I plead fatigue)

I won't trust him to fix a valve, or even take the valve cover off however.

But this is not about the skills of the doctors, it's about everyone else in that hospital.

Right now the Government pays >50% of the bill, and instead of on a case by case if your a doctor at all, they pay big hospitals based upon total cases. This stifles new hospitals, and grows old ones who then do not need to innovate, reduce wasteful spending, or improve services in the face of bigger competition.

Now about Stores/Supermarkets.

They say walmart has a hard time plascing stores in some communities. Yet it is one of the largest, if not the largest chain store in the world despite this.

Low wages is commonly quoted, but they pay better than most equivalent stores.

The true secret of their success is they own their own middle man level. They have giant warehouses which service dozens of stores each (I deliver to them a lot). They get their product from shippers direct and can plan for oversupply on durable goods.

A small chain cannot do that alone, and their costs are higher.

But smaller stores usually have better locations, better service, and the likes.

This is a trade off of course.

Now it is possible to compete vs Walmart, but you have to have size or a good plan.

However tax payer subsidized costs will only benefit the big guys. Like healthcare. Walmart stands to profit heavily because they never had it, but had pressure to have it, growing pressure. Now they can laugh to the bank, while smaller companies slow their growth due to hogher taxes.

Walmarts already large you see. If they close 3 stores a year they won't dispear in our life times. If a small chain closes 1 store a decade we may lose lots.

Walmart, and other big stores, can accept less profit but often smaller companies cannot.

If margins per store is 2%, and you need 20 stores to pay for administration costs, reducing margins to 1.5% hurts, maybe even fataly so, while walmart shrugs.

Reducing taxes hurts big companies the most, since more people can try to compete then. Walmart in socialism lasts forevere, walmart in capitalism can die in 5 years with no one upset (except their owners)