Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

For most conversations free market, property-based economy is considered synonymous with capitalism thus making socialism and capitalism very different systems. I really don't see why you don't point at other groups though, such as CEOs, which often have more wealth than individual bankers, or point at stock holders. I mean, Sam Walton, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett are the wealthiest individuals to have existed in the modern age and none of them were bankers.

correct, but they influence little outside of the direct operation of their corporations. a banker on the other hand determines who or what will get investment capital. it is not about wealth, it is about power.

Wealth and power according to most who argue this angle go hand in hand. Given the number of bankers and banking companies and other forms of financing though it cannot really be that effectively these people really have that much power if only due to the number of different sources of money. Socialism is usually considered guided by a single driving vision, these ideas and minds are scattered and pushing for their own purposes more so than of power. Even if one argues concentration of wealth it must be recognized that the top 1% of society is 3 million people and that they are not likely to hold huge secret underground meetings on how to coordinate the economy, especially considering that not all of them really care to rule.

does anyone know that the distribution of wealth was the same in the USSR as in the USA. Pie divvied up the same, smaller pie. Which, USSR, USA subsidized the other?

If socialism is the morally correct economical system, does it not stand to reason that low taxes are a crime?
Believe it or not, that IS the position of the European Union.

Let us then harness those who will work to support those who chose not to. Oh wait! We are already doing that.

Some of the kindest words ever spoken:
"He who will not work will not eat." (pretty close anyway
-Cotton Mather

Capitalism already has huge problems:

http://www.creditcave.com/nations-in-de ... -worse.php

Lastly it's not work, its about being able to work on what you want to work on, and still be paid, rather then for some stupid business.... think about how many restaurants or fast food places their are, they exist because they make a profit, not necessarily because people want them, they are simply fast food addicts. Many industries are totally based around psychological and chemical addiction. The truth is people are forced to work because they do not own food and energy sources, which they ultimately should. An array of random private tyrants manage the energy and food production systems. The problem is people are not responsible, no economic system you could possibly implement can get away from the mediocrity of the man in the system. Even capitalism has its failings.

Last edited by Mordy on 13 Feb 2007, 12:56 am, edited 4 times in total.

Yes, and let's not forget the national debt, the result of Keynesian welfare economic policy...

If it wasn't for keynesianism you would have had revolution long time ago you obviously don't understand the psychological dynamics of having millions of poor people in suffering ready to overthrow your economic system.

Not likely. The majority don't want to overthrow it, and the major issue at the time in which that would have happened was the great depression which was caused by monetary mismanagement, as argued by Friedman but more importantly accepted by Ben Bernanke, our current head of the federal reserve who is noted for his love of studying the great depression, this is not an argument against all recession however, it seems that some of the much lauded aspects of Keynesianism are not perfect. The millions of poor people who supposedly hate us are still significantly richer than their ancestors by most standards if not all.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 13 Feb 2007, 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Funny, most analysts that I read and I read a lot really don't see a great depression. They see a deficit problem, caused by the government, however, they also see strong health. In fact, just this morning I read a Nobel Prize winning economist lauding the American economic system.

And we have had a lot of that in past societies, and we will have that in an economic system with less ability to deal with information problems and such, people can often work in what they want to work in, they just have to make sacrifices and trade-offs as they should in any good system. My free internet webcomics are based upon psychological addiction, that does not mean I don't want them. People working maintains these systems as well. People are responsible for the most part and are more responsible for their individual actions than under any socialist system. Capitalism is not perfect, this world is not perfect, democracy is not perfect, I think that the problem results from the 2nd thing mentioned not the first or last. In a perfect world, there would be no flaws, flaws exist in everything, therefore the world is imperfect.

Oh, and Russia's communism worked out WAY better.

Not again.

So, basically what you're saying is that Kapitalism leads to consumer debt, which is bad, but that national debt incurred in the name of welfare/social economics is okay?

Ever since the work of John Maynard Keynes, economists have sought the causes of unemployment outside the labor market. They have blamed consumer demand, investment spending, interest rates, the money stock, exchange rates, and assorted other variables in unrelated markets.

Prior to the Great Depression, in contrast, economists usually attributed high unemployment to faulty prices within the labor market. Market prices should tend toward an equilibrium that equates the quantity demanded with the quantity supplied. If prices are held above equilibrium, quantity supplied will exceed quantity demanded. You will observe a surplus, which in the labor market is called unemployment. The pre-Keynesian neoclassical economists, as well as economists of the Austrian school, therefore blamed excessive unemployment on wage rates that, for whatever reason, were too high.



Precisely.

Without considering prices, many people confuse money with wealth, and thereby make themselves susceptible to serious errors in judging an action's or policy's effect on wealth. Income is typically thought of in nominal terms. Nominal income is the quantity of monetary units (e.g., dollars) of income. Real income is the amount of wealth that can be acquired with income; it is the ratio of nominal income to prices. So, for example, if a person makes $50,000 a year and the prices of everything he buys fall by 50%, his nominal income has not changed, but his real income has doubled since he can buy twice as much wealth. If he gets a pay raise from $50,000 to $100,000 and the prices of everything he buys also double, his nominal income has doubled, but his real income has not changed since he can't buy any more wealth.

To determine the level of wealth that income represents, real income should be considered and not nominal income. Prices are equally as important as dollar incomes; they are half the equation. To a person's well-being, a fall in prices (other things unchanged) is the equivalent of an increase in pay (other things unchanged).

And that means what? In modern society people have the lifestyles of the rich beamed at them daily, they live among the middle class, when they see they are basically slaves *relative* to other classes they will put a bullet in you because in their nation they are not getting their fair share. The whole propertarian idealogy is screwed up to begin with because it doesn't take into account power of technology and owning key strategic assets. People no longer own food or energy production either, if their were a less barbaric mixed economy with two sectors, One more private other more publc, we'd live in a much saner world.

You have too much private property and you have private tyrany, the top 2% of the population own more then 50% of the earths wealth, that is an enormous failure of capitalism right there.

There is no sane argument against welfare when Waltons daughter can afford a 68 million dollar painting.

But wait next is the killer:

In the United States

The United States is the richest country, and in 2000, the mean wealth was $144,000 per person.[3] In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

Last edited by Mordy on 13 Feb 2007, 7:53 am, edited 4 times in total.

History is far from over, look at how many wars the US has been involved in compared to russia? The US would be totally f****d if they didn't have that power to capture and secure strategic resources, their economy would be hugely effected.

No country or system is perfect, I'm not arguing for ANY system I'm arguing for sanity, when the waltons daughter can afford to spend 68 million dollars on a painting and someone is struggling to get by that is a failure of an economic and property system, money is social energy, and the more energy and power you have, the more you can control the prices to secure strategic assets in a society and block other classes or enslave them via debt / loans with interest.

Next is the killer:

In the United States
The United States is the richest country, and in 2000, the mean wealth was $144,000 per person.[3] In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

Last edited by Mordy on 13 Feb 2007, 7:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Economics does not live in the theoretical world of mathematics, you have psychological and evolutionary issues at work. As soon as the gap becomes too wide between rich and poor (relative to their own nation/country) you are going to have major unhappyness. The truth is capitalism creates stratification and caste like behaviour in the market because of the power distribution (money/wealth). Those with more money keep gaining more money at a faster and faster rate then those who have less and this leads to huge runaway effects in political power and idealogical power.

Next you totally forget that wages have been so depressed that people are working more and more then ever before in history, or have you never heard of the original affluent society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

Most ancients worked less then 15 hours a week for food, the rest they had to do what they wanted to do. Compare that to modern society.

Next is the killer:

In the United States
The United States is the richest country, and in 2000, the mean wealth was $144,000 per person.[3] In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth