Atheists becoming less unpopular?

[Jehanne]

The problem with capitalism is that it drives individuals, communities, companies and societies to the lowest common denominator.  For instance, Obama's climate-change policies and/or directives were a tiny step in the direction needed to save the Planet which The Donald has now completely undone.  When you have a Society whereby people put their short-term economic gain over their children or grandchildren ceasing to exist, then you have a Society that is built upon irrational premises, because death is rarely a rational choice for any human being who is at least in decent health.  Therefore, capitalism is irrational because it is destructive.

I think you have a one sided and not entirely accurate view of capitalism.  Capitalism gone wrong, essentially.  Well sure, if people align their interests (or have their interests aligned) with shitty things shitty things happen..but if we were chasing the dollar on a bunch of awesome things...wouldn't awesome things happen?  

Socialism, on the other hand, will guarantee every human being, without exception (at least in those countries that have it), a minimal standard of living, hence, life, which will insure that no human being (children, especially) will have to endure any condition of abject poverty.  Socialism will allow real climate change practices to be implemented while guaranteeing, without exception, that every human being has a good home with food, water, heat, clothing, and a minimal standard of living beyond that, which I would include of having Internet and cell phone access for all.

How, how will it do that?  We know how capitalism can be employed to provide some of those things to some people...it's effectiveness is variable from place to place, time to time, and even within those places and times who has what is not uniform...but we can see that it does provide, and how.

How does socialism, in your view, provide those goods and services?  I -also- think that all of those things should be available to all people, I think that capitalism is a good way to acquire the resources required to make it happen.  People want more than they need.  So long as what people want is monetized the proceeds can go, in whatever portion we accept, to what we need.  So long as it's privately monetized, the state doesn't have to micromanage each process, it can focus on the shit they don't feel should be privately monetized.

Capitalism is short-term gain at the expense of long-term loss.  But, yes, you are absolutely right (and, absolutely wrong at the same time!)  Capitalism is better than socialism, in the short-term.  As such, capitalism is, inevitably, destined to fall into the Tragedy of the Commons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

In capitalism, people have every incentive to cheat, to exploit their neighbors, close and far, to bend and break every rule, so long as they can get away with doing so!  Socialism, at least, says that everyone is going to have a minimum and maximum (to insure the minimum) standard of living; as such, the temptation to cheat long-term or short-term is much less than it is with the "free markets".

---

Can you insert a tiny bit of pragmatism in this?

Someone had to make the computer you typed the words "Capitalism is destroying the word". If someone didn't think the idea of a PC up, say IBM or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, you would not have the ability to make such an absurd argument and post it. Are you willing to give the title of your home to the government? Your private ownership of the house you live in is the RESULT of western government saying "You can own things and have your own private bank account".

Capitalism isn't destroying anything, GREED IS. The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies. Gadaffi owned stock in GE, and even in America, assholes like Trump and the GOP think our pay gap is not hurting us and if all we do is simply bow to one class, everything will be fine. 

But no, I don't want to give up my privately owned house. I don't want to give up my computer made by a private company. I do want the ability to eat a burger one day, go to a Chinese food joint the next, and hang out at a privately owned sports bar and watch my Redskins SUCK. The only thing I am against is ABUSE and the pay gap, not private ownership of anything.

I think you're thinking of communism, not socialism... but hey, I get it... the cold war era propaganda in the US worked really well!

Not quite -- in communism, there is little private property, but that is not what I am advocating here.  I think that good socialism will retain private poverty with some private corporations.  Still, the government would be the dominant factor in the economy, with private industry in service to the country as opposed to being in competition within and between sectors.