Is Capitalism the Best Economic System?

Timothy Schoonover · Sophomore Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 269 Gender:

The fact that there has never been an effective Socialist nation or a socialistic economic model is hardly evidence of the inferiority of the concept. Aside from the excellent arguments DH put forth, I would add that socialist economies are undermined when subjected to a global market. They require self-sufficiency, or isolation from market exposure to thrive and the present state of global trade is simply not conducive to that requirement. Those nations which are able to beneficially enter into market relationships with other countries will always have an advantage over nations which can't, all else being equal. Wherever there is a market, profit trumps equality.

You must realize that wherever capitalism exists so does class warfare. The have's profit at the expense of the have-not's. If this exploitation does not occur, the have's fail to remain competitive and fall to the ranks of the have-not's and the belt tightens increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. The market ensures that everyone is always one step away from destitution, and the only way to prevent going under is to prop yourself up on the failure of others. Those that fail to compete are left to the mercy of those social institutions which decent human charity cannot abide to be without. We as Americans are largely ignorant of these conditions because we live fat and happy on the the excess profits that our huge corporations generate internationally. We are allowed to live relatively decent if only shallow lives by piggybacking the institutions which trample upon the rest of the world.

Certainly there are very real difficulties with socialism and other alternatives to capitalism, but we ought to view it as a goal to strive for rather than a competing ideology (i.e. belief system).

sandor at the zoo · Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:06 am Post subject: Re: The recipe...

Briefly, I feel the need to address some posts in this thread:

Tim says:

Quote:
Edited to remove stupid comments after thinking better of it. My apologies, your spirited participation and disagreement are most welcome Sander.

Kostya says:

Quote:
Add 2 buckets of insults and personal remarks. Turn the heat on High and stir quickly until the explosion…

There is always some useful information to be found everywhere…

I sincerely hope that people around here a capable of distinguishing between the attacker and the attacked, between disagreeing with someone’s opinions (perhaps vehemently) and insulting them with reckless ad hominems. I know people have said they’re not interested in “who started it”, but the reality of the situation is that all of the personal attacks are coming from one person. The disagreement has been heated on all sides, but if you look back over the thread it's obvious that only one poster has descended to the level of mere insult.

Furthermore, I have gone out of my way in almost every post to state plainly that I know there are flaws and drawbacks to the systems and institutions I support. Only one side of this debate - and only one poster on that side - has become polarized. Everyone else has maintained some degree of objectivity.

When posting to forums like this I offer two guarantees to those I enter debate with:

1) I will not knowingly engage in falsehood or fallacy. If I mistakenly do so, I will apologize for it immediately upon realizing it.

2) I will be civil. I attack positions, not people. I will very, very rarely throw an insult and I never engage in “flame wars”. If attacked personally I will respond with the maximum amount of civility that the attack allows.

Honesty and civility are the guideposts that I follow. But if people want nice they probably shouldn’t be involved in a forum where 90% of the debate is about religion and politics. Some people – like Tim – can get annoyed, perhaps even angry, when their position is under assault but still remain generally civil. Others have their identity so deeply wrapped up in their beliefs that, from their point of view, any disagreement amounts to censorship, villainy, or delusion. I am not at fault for their outbursts when I challenge their dogma and it is found wanting; people like Dissident are free adults and their behavior is their own responsibility.

That said, I’m ready to drop the entire matter and return to the discussion at hand.

S

sandor at the zoo

Tim says:

Quote:
The fact that there has never been an effective Socialist nation or a socialistic economic model is hardly evidence of the inferiority of the concept. Aside from the excellent arguments DH put forth, I would add that socialist economies are undermined when subjected to a global market. They require self-sufficiency, or isolation from market exposure to thrive and the present state of global trade is simply not conducive to that requirement. Those nations which are able to beneficially enter into market relationships with other countries will always have an advantage over nations which can't, all else being equal. Wherever there is a market, profit trumps equality.

I don't know, Tim. In any scientific experiment the repeated failure of the model to produce the expected result is, in fact, evidence of the model's inferiority. Not proof, no, but evidence.

You speak of socialism's inability to compete with capitalist economies and their requirement of isolation from free markets as if these things are not flaws. They very much are flaws, because you're never going to have a world free of market structure (at least not for the foreseeable future). Unless some authoritarian regime enforces socialism on the entire world, all at once, there will be outside free market economies mucking things up for the socialist states. Not intentionally, not spitefully, but just by their mere existence. If one has a truly superior socioeconomic model, shouldn't it be expected to at least coexist and compete with pre-existing systems? If not to actually be stronger and supplant them? How can a model so non-competitive that it actually requires complete isolation from the world market be seen as anything but flawed?

Quote:
You must realize that wherever capitalism exists so does class warfare. The have's profit at the expense of the have-not's. If this exploitation does not occur, the have's fail to remain competitive and fall to the ranks of the have-not's and the belt tightens increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. The market ensures that everyone is always one step away from destitution, and the only way to prevent going under is to prop yourself up on the failure of others. Those that fail to compete are left to the mercy of those social institutions which decent human charity cannot abide to be without. We as Americans are largely ignorant of these conditions because we live fat and happy on the the excess profits that our huge corporations generate internationally. We are allowed to live relatively decent if only shallow lives by piggybacking the institutions which trample upon the rest of the world.

This is where the debate becomes, at least in my opinion, a matter of experience and perspective. Terms like "class warfare", "exploitation", and "prop yourself up on the failure of others" are loaded. I know people from all walks of life - rich, poor, black, white, Asian, gay, male, female - and I have yet to experience any serious class warfare. I've worked all my life and I've never felt exploited. And I've had some real successes but I've never gotten them by [propping myself] up on the failure of others. For all of the hooting and hollering about the inequities of the system, the vast majority of Americans are at least content with what they have. Remember that the biggest problem for America's poor is obesity; not starvation or disease or violent crime, but that they eat too much. That fact alone should speak volumes to the intellectually honest. By our own standards we have millions of poor here in America, but as Professor Thompson remarked in his article, being poor in America is different from being poor in other places.

You also allude to the newest fad in Marxist criticism, that it's not our own proletariat we're exploiting, but rather the proletariat of other nations. Marx wasn't wrong, he just misplaced the revolution - it will be external, not internal. The misery and oppression of capitalism are not enacted upon the masses at home, but rather exported to the masses abroad.

Way to move the goal posts just as the other team gets inside the 20-yard line.

For almost a century Marx's adherents predicted the eventual doom of the free market economies via internal revolution of the miserable masses. When this utterly failed to happen - when the masses, in fact, turned out to be not so miserable after all - millions of professional naysayers and doomcriers were forced to wake up and smell the $4.00 latte. Most of them, to their credit, admitted they might have been wrong, that capitalism has some real flaws but they'd be darned if it didn't seem to work okay anyway. But a few - the hardcore, leftmost quarter or fifth of them - were so deeply wrapped up in the ideology of Marxist socialism that they simply couldn't bear to let go of the theory. Doing so would mean they had wasted all of that time and effort and money. So they looked around desperately for some huddled masses, and of course they found millions upon millions of poor, starving people in Africa, East Asia, and South America. "Aha!" they cried. "There are the people you're exploiting! Not your own workers - who are annoyingly content and patriotic - but these desperate, shriveled souls across the ocean. Their shattered tribal dictatorships and flimsy fundamentalist theocracies are the foundation upon which your mighty secular democracy rests. One day they shall revolt, and then you'll pay!"

At which point the capitalists of the world began to rub their throbbing temples and look for the Extra-Strength Tylenol.

Marx was wrong. Deeply and completely wrong in his assessment of human nature and what makes a successful society. This has been proven by the failure of proletariat revolutions to materialize; the proletariat, in fact, have become some of capitalism's staunchest supporters. So now you're putting a new spin on Marxist philosophy, claiming that the revolution is still to come, just from another direction. Well, I suppose that's possible. Anything is possible - the future is large and unknowable. But you'll have to excuse me if I go with the actual evidence I see around me and maintain my banal capitalist doubts.

Quote:
Certainly there are very real difficulties with socialism and other alternatives to capitalism, but we ought to view it as a goal to strive for rather than a competing ideology (i.e. belief system).

I can agree with this in principle. Are you likewise willing to see capitalism - and perhaps an improved version of it - as "a goal to strive for rather than a competing ideology"?

S

Timothy Schoonover · Sophomore Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 269 Gender:

Quote:
Marx was wrong. Deeply and completely wrong in his assessment of human nature and what makes a successful society. This has been proven by the failure of proletariat revolutions to materialize; the proletariat, in fact, have become some of capitalism's staunchest supporters. So now you're putting a new spin on Marxist philosophy, claiming that the revolution is still to come, just from another direction. Well, I suppose that's possible. Anything is possible - the future is large and unknowable. But you'll have to excuse me if I go with the actual evidence I see around me and maintain my banal capitalist doubts.

Well, I think that's going a little too far. If Marx was deeply and completely wrong, as you put it, I doubt he would have had the impact that he did. Besides, the stauch support of the proletariat is something Marx expected. Revolution would only occur when the ideological mechanisms endearing the proletariat to their bourgeois masters fail to sufficiently decieve them about the true structure of economic relations.

Also, if you go back through my posts I think you will discover that I never claimed that there will be a revolution let alone which direction it might come from. Please don't invent goalposts in order to accuse me of moving them. And even if I did, there is nothing wrong with revising a theory where it is deficient. Would you expect any less? Your purposes and this community would be ill served if I gave up the ship at the first sign of a leak. I suppose I can't fault you for trying however.

Quote:
I can agree with this in principle. Are you likewise willing to see capitalism - and perhaps an improved version of it - as "a goal to strive for rather than a competing ideology"?

Absolutely. Progress is progress. And I would agree with you that the best system of capitalism is better than the best attempted socialism (that I know of); yet I am of the opinion that capitalism by virtue of its nature is limited in potential and will eventually need to be supplanted.

Do you have any suggestions on how to eliminate unemployment within Capitalism? What about the expropriation of the surplus value of labor? Or the tendency for business to disproportionately interfere with legislation? As I understand it, those elements (with the possible exception of the latter) are essential to the system.

T (I'm just playing)

Edited by: Timothy Schoonover at: 4/6/04 1:00 pm

Dissident Heart

Quote:
For all of the hooting and hollering about the inequities of the system, the vast majority of Americans are at least content with what they have. Remember that the biggest problem for America's poor is obesity; not starvation or disease or violent crime, but that they eat too much.

I guess this is key to the kind of utter disregard for the struggles for justice in this Nation that leads me to those unkinder elements sadly exhibited, by myself, on this board. "Hooting and Hollering" is the adjective used by those belonging to centuries old traditions of hard won battles for labor rights, chlidrens rights, woman sufferage, environmental protection, and civil rights across race and class...just a lot of howling at the moon. A lot of noise. If only they could keep quiet while the rest of America stuffs their faces into obese perversity. Any moral heart would see this as the most absurd state of affairs....surrounded by a world in starvation while stuffing ourselves into oblivion. This is a shame and scandal and part of the brilliance of a Capitalist system. Stuff a tiny few into obese servility, while the vast majority starve.

And, for your information, Hunger is alive and well in the USA. Check out the Hunger in America report, and ask yourself if 'hootin and hollerin' is the moral response.

Quote:
Unless some authoritarian regime enforces socialism on the entire world, all at once, there will be outside free market economies mucking things up for the socialist states.

The more accurate statement is, "There is an authoritarian regime that enforces Global Capitalism on the entire world...." and it is led by the World Trade Organizations, the International Monetary Funds, and the World Bank....all immensely secretive, non-democratic, authoritarian structures of immense power and influence- largely guided by American interests and supported with an American military larger than all the other militaries on the Planet combined. For an excellent outline of the machinery, tools, and process which such a Global apparatus enforces its vision of the "good life" on the rest of the Planet, try A Q&A on the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and Activism

Quote:
So they looked around desperately for some huddled masses, and of course they found millions upon millions of poor, starving people in Africa, East Asia, and South America. "Aha!" they cried. "There are the people you're exploiting! Not your own workers - who are annoyingly content and patriotic - but these desperate, shriveled souls across the ocean. Their shattered tribal dictatorships and flimsy fundamentalist theocracies are the foundation upon which your mighty secular democracy rests. One day they shall revolt, and then you'll pay!"

Again, beyond ignoring the blatantly unjust, immoral and criminal exploitations facing far too many American workers, your complete misunderstanding of an International approach to criticising Capitalism, as well as the International Solidarity espoused by those making the critique...makes it even clearer how deeply indoctrinated you are. "The poor in America are happy, now you bad Marxists have to find other unhappy poor across the Planet to make your revolution possible." All the while, taking absolutely no responsibility for the abuses and crimes waged overseas for American profit.

Please read some voices from India, Vandana Shiva; or Arundhati Roy...and get a look at the "hootin and hollerin" done by those on the receiving end of the your 'truly superior economic model'- perhaps some of the catastrophes unleashed by its principles, values and practices will become clearer when committed not so close to home.

Quote:
Marx was wrong. Deeply and completely wrong in his assessment of human nature and what makes a successful society. This has been proven by the failure of proletariat revolutions to materialize; the proletariat, in fact, have become some of capitalism's staunchest supporters.

Marx was wrong about many things, including his attachment to fantasies about historical inevitabilities, as well as his belief that an elite class of leaders will be required to lift the masses out of its addictions and alientation caused by wage slavery and factory abuses.

What he wasnt wrong about, was his faith in the human heart to desire freedom above all else; and that to chain it to any work or drudgery not of its own desire, will stifle, alienate and eventually kill the spirit of the one fated to such miserable conditions. He was also right that solidarity is far more virtuous than competition, and that capital could not capture the true worth of human imagination or ingenuity.

I am not a Marxist, but there is more than a lot that you could learn from good old Karl.

Timothy Schoonover · Sophomore Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 269 Gender:

Quote:
I am not a Marxist, but there is more than a lot that you could learn from good old Karl.

I whole-heartedly concur. If there is one thing that anyone walks away with from this discussion, I would not be altogether disappointed if this were it.

sandor at the zoo

Tim says:

Quote:
Well, I think that's going a little too far. If Marx was deeply and completely wrong, as you put it, I doubt he would have had the impact that he did. Besides, the staunch support of the proletariat is something Marx expected. Revolution would only occur when the ideological mechanisms endearing the proletariat to their bourgeois masters fail to sufficiently decieve them about the true structure of economic relations.

Nazism had a huge impact too, almost as large as Marxism. Roman Catholicism (by this I mean pre-Vatican II) was far more influential and of greater impact than either of them. Yet I'd call both Nazism and Roman Catholicism deeply and completely wrong. The number of adherents an idea has is not indicative of validity; people can be stupid.

But perhaps you're right that the time hasn't come to make that statement about Marx quite yet. The very last of the ballot boxes have yet to be counted.

Quote:
Also, if you go back through my posts I think you will discover that I never claimed that there will be a revolution let alone which direction it might come from. Please don't invent goalposts in order to accuse me of moving them. And even if I did, there is nothing wrong with revising a theory where it is deficient. Would you expect any less? Your purposes and this community would be ill served if I gave up the ship at the first sign of a leak. I suppose I can't fault you for trying however.

Well, I thought this statement:

"We as Americans are largely ignorant of these conditions because we live fat and happy on the the excess profits that our huge corporations generate internationally. We are allowed to live relatively decent if only shallow lives by piggybacking the institutions which trample upon the rest of the world."

was a fairly clear allusion to the external revolution theory so popular among today's Marxists. I certainly didn't mean to put words in your mouth, and I sincerely apologize for misreading you. Statement withdrawn.

Quote:
Absolutely. Progress is progress. And I would agree with you that the best system of capitalism is better than the best attempted socialism (that I know of); yet I am of the opinion that capitalism by virtue of its nature is limited in potential and will eventually need to be supplanted.

Some common ground; I'll be careful not to plant a flag in it just yet.

Quote:
Do you have any suggestions on how to eliminate unemployment within Capitalism? What about the expropriation of the surplus value of labor? Or the tendency for business to disproportionately interfere with legislation? As I understand it, those elements (with the possible exception of the latter) are essential to the system.

This is by far the most interesting series of statements in this thread so far. Not because of the questions posed, but because the answers so deeply depend on one's viewpoint.

A Collectivist wants a solution for everybody. The system isn't any good unless it's equally good for every last member of the society it serves. Forget that the society is going to have it's 10% (or so) of goldbrickers, layabouts, and never-do-wells who will always be unemployed and will never generate any labor value at all. The system must work as well for them as it does for the hard-working majority.

An Individualist doesn't believe there can be a solution at the community level. But there is one for the individual. Out of work? Take a menial job sweeping floors or flipping burgers while you go to school and learn the skills to get better employment. Don't like having that labor value stolen from you by the corporate machine? Go get a small business loan and take the very significant risk of becoming the corporate machine (and create a business that doesn't swipe labor value if you're so idealistic).

It totally depends on where you stand. The collectivist says that capitalism is a failure because it can't solve those problems for everyone, all the time. An individualist says that capitalism itself shouldn't be concerned with solving such problems at all, but only with providing the opportunity for people to solve those problems for themselves.

As for "the tendency for business to disproportionately interfere with legislation", we are in agreement. Campaign finance reform is an attempt to address the issue and I support it. I'm willing to tolerate a certain amount of political favoritism because I realize that everyone wants to reward their allies, but I like my candidates as clean as possible. What can I say? We're working on it.

S

Chris OConnor

Tim

Quote:
Do you have any suggestions on how to eliminate unemployment within Capitalism?

Unemployment will never be eliminated, whether in capitalism or socialism. Some people are simply never going to work, or are going to struggle to find employment periodically. All we can do is strive to keep the normal rate of unemployment as low as possible.

Unemployment comes in many different flavors, so we need to be sure which one you are referring to...

Frictional Workers temporarily between jobs

Structural Workers have the wrong skills in the wrong place

Cyclical All firms need fewer workers

Technological Firms replace workers with machines

International Overseas firms replace domestic producers

Regional High unemployment in one area

Seasonal Unemployment for part of the year

Voluntary Workers choose to remain unemployed

After looking this list over carefully do you think we can ever do away with unemployment? Of course not.

The beauty of capitalism is that the market adjusts to correct unemployment problems. Yes, we can go through recessions and tough times causing cyclical unemployment to skyrocket, but there is indeed a normal level of unemployment that no economist pretends we'll ever dip below.

You'll always have a group of people that would rather sit back and slam 40's on their front porch all day and night, collect welfare checks, and never seek employment. They know there are safety nets in our mixed system in which they have learned to lie comfortably. Working people support these voluntarily unemployed parasites. Dissident will probably come back with a speach about how these people can't find work and are oppressed in such ways that becoming lazy drunks is their only real option. Obviously, this isn't true. Jobs are available...or we wouldn't see such a tremendous rate of immigration in this nation.

Those people that are seasonaly unemployed need to use their heads and find work in the off season. Under socialism the system would subsidize their inefficiency. Under capitalism a form of natural selection is at work. When the winter months come and your lawn mowing business slows down...find a winter job. Perhaps drive a snow plow. Those people that cannot adjust cannot pay their bills. Pretty simple stuff. Socialists might call this immoral or cold or lacking compassion. Utter nonsense. Why should working people support non-workers? And if you're in a seasonal job and you don't like the nature of the seasonal unemployment...get a completely different job. If enough people in the seasonal job leave the industry, the supply of labor will decrease, causing the pay for those remaining to increase. Employers will have to offer more of a wage to attract the fewer employees. Capitalism adjusts. Capitalism works.

What about regional unemployment? If you're in an area where you can't find a job....move. There is a reason why few people live in the mountains and deserts and far from areas of commerce. Why should the working people of this nation subsidize those that opt to live in areas with high regional unemployment? How is this fair? And if your particular region doesn't offer the type of job you desire....move. Or adjust to the current market conditions. Capitalism forces people to make smart decisions about their educations, employment, career choices, use of limited resources, use of their time, and personal savings and investments. Socialism promotes laziness. Socialism creates parasites that know that they only have to work hard enough to keep the state employed boss off their ass.

Technological unemployment is one of the funner ones to examine. Funner? Yes, funner. You see...capitalism actually makes nut cases like me smile. Capitalism maximizes human productivity. If a particular job can be done more efficiently and economically through automation, then this is a good thing. People need to make smart decisions about what types of careers they get into, and when they screw up the market will help get them in line.

The United States is the most productive nation on this planet because we don't prop up inefficient industries or businesses. Why would we want to be inefficient?

Actually, the agriculture industry would be an example of one situation where subsidization has been necessary quite often, as a result of our growers not being able to compete in a global market with the cheap labor overseas. Tariffs and other barriers to entry also serve as market adjustment tools, inhibiting fair trade and protecting domestic industries. This practice is an entire discussion all it's own.

Unemployment of one sort or another will always exist as long as there are lazy people, unskilled workers, business cycles, changes in seasons, advances in technology, and mergers and acquisitions, downsizing, and a zillion other dynamic factors effecting the job market. Instead of looking at this as a bad thing, I think we're all better off under intense competitive forces.

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them" -- Mark Twain

Dissident Heart

Rejecting Capitalist Globalization

Current international market trading benefits overwhelmingly those who enter today’s exchanges already possessing the most assets. When trade occurs between a U.S. multinational and a local entity in Mexico, Guatemala, or Thailand, the benefits do not go more to the weaker party with fewer assets, nor are they divided equally, but they go disproportionately to the stronger traders who thereby increase their relative dominance. Opportunist rhetoric aside, capitalist globalizers try to disempower the poor and already weak and to further empower the rich and already strong. The result: of the 100 largest economies in the world, 52 aren’t countries; they are corporations.

Similarly, market competition for resources, revenues, and audience is most often a zero sum game. To advance, each actor preys off the defeat of others so that capitalist globalization promotes a self-interested me-first attitude that generates hostility and destroys solidarity between individuals, industries, and states. Public and social goods are downplayed, private ones elevated. Businesses and nations augment their own profits while imposing losses on others. Human well being and development for everyone is not a guiding precept. Solidarity fights a rearguard battle against capitalist globalization.

Moreover, in current global exchange structures, whether they are McDonaldsesque or Disneyesque or instead derive from worthy indigenous roots, cultural communities and values disperse only as widely as their megaphone permits them too, and worse, are drowned out by other communities with larger megaphones who impinge on them. Capitalist globalization swamps quality with quantity and creates cultural homogenization not diversity. Not only does Starbucks proliferate, so do Hollywood images and Madison Avenue styles. What is indigenous and non-commercial struggles to even survive. Diversity declines.

In the halls of the capitalist globalizers, only political and corporate elites are welcome. The idea that the broad public of working people, consumers, farmers, the poor and the disenfranchised should have proportionate say is actively opposed. Indeed, the point of capitalist globalization is precisely to reduce the influence of whole populations and even of state leaderships save for the most powerful elements of Western corporate and political rule. Capitalist globalization imposes corporatist hierarchy not only in economics, but also in politics. Authoritarian and even fascistic state structures proliferate. The numbers of voices with even marginal say declines.

As the financiers in corporate headquarters extend stockholders’ influence, the earth beneath is dug, drowned, and paved without attention to species, by-products, ecology, or humanity. Only profit and power drive the calculations.

Anti-globalization activists oppose capitalist globalization because capitalist globalization violates the equity, diversity, solidarity, self- management, and ecological balance that activists pursue.

Since the mid-1970s, the most fortunate one percent of households have doubled their share of the national wealth. They now hold more wealth than the bottom 90 percent of the population. (NYU Economist Edward N. Wolf, Top Heavy)

Nearly one quarter of all workers – more than 28 million in all -- earn less than $8.78 an hour, the amount needed to lift a family of four above the poverty line with full-time work (about $18,200 a year). (Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America 2002-03, p. 355)

In 1998, the top 1 percent of Americans owned 47.7 percent of all stock, while the bottom 80 percent owned 4.1 percent. Between 1989 and 1998, nearly 35 percent of all stock market gains went to the top 1 percent of shareholders. 64 percent of American households have stock holdings worth $5,000 or less, or own no stock at all. (NYU Economist Edward N. Wolff, cited by Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America 2002-03, pp. 286-289)

Middle-class families enjoyed 2.8 percent of the stock market gains between 1989 and 1998, but accounted for 38.8 percent of the increase in household debt. (Economic Policy Institute)

60 percent of U.S. workers say that if they were laid off, their savings are sufficient to maintain their current standard of living for a few months or less. Only 29 percent said they are able to save for the future. 40 percent say they earn enough to be comfortable, but not to save, while 27 percent said they earn only enough to get by, and 3 percent said they are unable to pay their bills. (Fleet Bank, contact Rena DeSisto, 212-703-1961)

Fewer than 50,000 estates -- 2 percent of the total -- paid federal estate taxes in 1999. (Internal Revenue Service)

As of 1998, the richest five percent of U.S. households held more than 59 percent of the nation's private wealth. The top 1 percent of households held 38 percent of the wealth. (NYU Economist Edward N. Wolff, cited by Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America 2002-03, p. 281)

Niall001 · Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 3:45 pm Post subject: Robbocop Part 4

First, let me say, this post isn't going to contribute much/anything to this thread. I've only skimmed through it so I've only a rough idea of the viewpoints being put forward. Though one casual observation is that tact is lacking on some posters' parts. Nonetheless, every cloud has a silver lining, in this case it has been entertaining.

Moving on.
Theres one problem in evaluating capitalism/socialism/whatever. How do you judge it? For me a fair system strives to maintain and improve the health of those who are subject to it. It strives to create an equal society in which people are rewarded for innovation and excellence. It strives to create an open, free and educated society.

In other words I think that the best system, the subjects would all receive equal opportunities in education and all aspects of their health would be taken care of. Thats my main problem with Americanish systems. It is flawed because for all its talk of equality.

Equality means that all people should have equal opportunities. If you want equal opportunities then you've got to have a universal (high) standard of education. You've got to ensure that ones family environment is not an obstacle to success. Everyone should be allowed to live in a clean, safe, environment where hunger etc. is not an issue. Until that situation occurs, then its rubbish to talk of equality.

One's geographical location and/or ancestry should be neither a help nor a hindrance to achieving success. Reward should be the result of effort and ability.

Economically, no country can claim to have bested the US. But theres more to it than that. Different countries have different priorities. Theres Standard of Living, Income, Inequality, Health Care, Sex, Crime, Pollution , Leisure Time
Democracy etc. Here are some comparisons:

www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

Europe and the US have different priorities. Europeans have been willing to sacrifice some of their economic competitiveness in order to provide themselves with a greener, safer environment.

Moving on again.

People have made certain judgments regarding certain systems based on historical performance etc. What they seem to neglect is that when a political system is implemented on a country, the outcome cannot be taken as definitive judgment on that system. It is only one of a number of systems which combine to create government. For instance democracy has resulted in some terrible systems like Nazism. Yet we know that under certain circumstances it can work.

What I see as the problem with supporters of capitalism is that they justify capitalism as the system which is the most practical. It fits the people, in a one size fits all kind of way. They look at the lazy, the violent and all of those who who have not earned anything and they see it as fair that they have nothing.

From my perspective, there is a solution. You change the people so that they fit a fair system. Would anyone object to a system where wealth was equally divided among all members of society if all members of society worked equally hard? No socialist system will work properly unless the people are willing to work. Cultures of idleness, violence and lawlessness must be eliminated before a fair system can be implemented in a fair way. Eliminating these cultures is the hard part. But I feel that the key is education, crime prevention and universal access to the bare necessities. And time. :rolleyes


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT