Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

Once again you have way too much faith in "markets" markets are simply collections of individuals, so therefore it is paramount that you study scientifically the biological and scientific basis of economies, most economists are little more then religious priests of their social order. There's way too much propaganda. Look I'm all for a for profit economic system, we just need to put the breaks on individuals and families abilities to acquire too much wealth and power... governments have checks on power, so why doesn't capitalism have checks on economic power?? Since economic power is in a very powerful sense the parent of political power.

Not likely, I have not met any of the class warriors that you speak of and the distribution of happiness in the American system actually matches that of even more egalitarian systems so it does not seem like a problem.
It can be argued as imperfect, really though I am not that concerned considering that this is the worldwide 2%(120 million people) and that it must be recognized that significant, non-capitalist parts of the world are in poverty.
Yeah, there can actually be sane arguments. None that you may accept, however, I know that sane people can definitely argue against welfare even with that knowledge.

Ok, so? We see worse inequality in other parts of the world as measured by the gini coefficient.

They have both been in a good number of wars including some of the same wars. Russia probably worked more at securing resources though considering that they took most of eastern europe.

You are arguing for your idea of sanity. I am not that concerned considering that amongst the 30 million people you say own us all, there will not be any set conclusions or collusions. Not only that but I don't have a problem with Walton's daughter buying a 68 million dollar painting either, Walton did create one of the largest and most successful companies today that is noted for its low consumer prices. Really, I don't think that class warfare is effectively taking place though


Nope, by all accounts they have worked more in previous times and wage depression ultimately is arising from competition. The only thing about the original affluent society is that it could not last, as we would not leave good for bad. We left it, likely due to unsustainable hunting practices as I believe I have heard that argument.

Ok, we aren't showing any signs of massive unhappiness we have good equality of happiness and Americans are currently relatively happy as well. Really though, considering that the names on top are not always the same, I don't have much concern, not only that but rich people support many different ideologies as well so I still don't have much concern either.
Ok, priests equals opinions. The issue I have with that is that limits can often slow down economic growth, a reduction in economic growth really does not benefit me either because of the connectedness of an economy.

Ehrmm. Thats just a tad over doing it I think..
I'm from Denmark.
In Denmark there is a 'somewhat' socialist system and its certainly not 'failing'...it's actually doing extremely well.
In Denmark its like this:
a) All hospital and doctors appointments is free to all. There is a very high standard of hospitals comparable to anywhere in the west.
b) All education is free to everybody, including university and PhD level, and students even get a free grant from the government for living/housing expenses. There is a very high standard of schools and universities, comparable to anywhere in the west and the quality of the school does not depend on its location (ie. if its in a rich area or not).
c) Everything works. Trains are super modern and on time. Roads are nice and have no potholes. There are pretty green areas, parks etc, everywhere. Government offices are nice and the people who work there are generally friendly (not like gov people elsewhere).
d) There are practically NO homeless people on the streets. There are NO poor people.
e) Its the most computerized country in the world (computers per capita) and it has the most people with broadband connections (per capita) and its broadband connections were recently found to be the best in the world.
f) Difference between rich and poor is amongst the smallest in the world, whereas countries like the US rates along with Nigeria and other african states. (according to CIA World Fact Book)
g) There are maybe about 10 or so political parties in government, meaning level of democracy is better than many other countries.
h) Minimum wage is around 15$ per hour... yes thats right.. 15. Only few people make only minimum wage.
i) People generally have min 5 weeks holiday per year, and they dont have to work 80 hours a week....

Now, I wouldn't exactly call this a faillure, would you?
And its not because there are lots of resources. There is only some oil and natural gass and thats about it! and its nowhere near in the amounts that Norway has f.ex. The main natural resource is PEOPLE, who are well educated, and dont just want factory jobs for minimum wage, they do the designing and devellopment for other countries which is why they earn more.
The drawback is the taxes are very high, amongst the highest in the world, but hey? look at what you get for it...

So don't call socialism a faillure, you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't beleive it then come visit and see for yourself. Dont outright beleive your governments propaganda..

The problem with tat is that all people are NOT created equal! Therefore someone can be working really hard and be really talented and also be really poor! Doesn't sound particularly fair to me.
If someone with AS is not a good business leader but is a really good programmer and works just as hard, is it fair that the business leader gets all the dosh while the programmer gets 60$k/year and dental? Your answer will probably be that if the programmer is really good then he will get a top paying programming job, but hey do the math...maybe there are only 10 top jobs available and 50 top programmers, they can't ALL get the top job... so it comes down to who they know and who their family knows and what school they went to and all that crap.

eipsa---

Denmark is a mixed economy, not pure socialist. If it follows the "Scandinavian Model" of socialism, it nationalizes cosumption rather than production---or, in other words, it allows the silly Kapitalists to make money, and then tax the wages and profits and use that money to buy social benefits. And it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Sweden isn't doing so well.

All men ARE created equal. All men share the same natural rights. Natural rights and economic "fairness" are two very different things. I am not talking about somone being a better programmer----I can't program, so anyone who can program is better than me and should get a programming job----or someone having more skill than another person. In that respect, all men are different. What I am talking about is having me, the political economist, be treated the same under the law as a computer programmer, and having us both be treated the same as some wealthy CEO or government official.

Equating monetary compensation with human equality is foolish.

The best system is also the simplest one. If I own something and want to sell it I ought to be able to do so, and sans anyone else' permission, IF someone wants to buy it. We come to a deal advantageous to each and make the trade. this is the free market. Capitalism is already a pertubation of the free market.

The free market always exists. Even if a government tries to eliminate it, it simply goes underground.

The free market, allowed, is what we all do naturally. We do not have to learn it. and it is fair. If you want something, just do something, produce something that someone will accept in trade for what it is that you want.

Any other system is illogical, antihuman, and unjust. Period.

Interesting idea, what do you mean by perturbation though? I am just curious. Do you mean intellectual property or what characteristic? Usually the competition is capitalism vs socialism or capitalism vs government intervention, but rarely capitalism vs free markets.

Well, I don't know. I think that there is a difference between capitalism and a free market. Capitalism, I think, becomes less than a free market when government sets protectionist measures to maximize their profit at the expense of another. So things like quotas and tariffs are not a free trade system, but they are part of "capitalism."

Well, it really depends on opinion. I have seen them used interchangeably many many times so I end up losing a flavor for the difference.

This is true. This is also why I almost always try to use the term free market instead of capitalism.

I make no effort because well, it isn't incorrect, and I see the usage of capitalism and free-market used so often interchangeably anyway that I see no reason.

Well, whatever. That's cool. I think there is, even if it is just an issue of semantics. The negative connotation of the word "capitalism" tends to, at least in my discussions with my peers, tends to take the argument away from a discussion of markets and the creation of wealth and whatnot, and pushes it more into an argument over "social issues." If I use the term "free market," people are more apt to listen to my argument before jumping to the thought of redistribution of wealth and market failures and whatnot.

That is a good point. Maybe I do need to use "free market" more.

They share the same rights, but they are NOT equal. Some are short some are tall, some are NT some are AS, some are clever some are not etc etc. Some fit nicely into 'the system' and can make loads of cash, some don't fit into 'the system' and wont. I don't think natural rights and fairness are two different things. Furthermore, especially in places like the US, people don't receive equal schooling, your schooling depends on who you are born to and where you are born, so people are definently NOT created equal there.
If you were living on an isolated island with 10 other people, you would see just how quickly everybody would be having the same standard of living and everybody would be helping each other. When the groups become too large (100 people?) then things start to happen because now you can be a greedy ass and exploit people but the group is still large enough that you will still have friends or 'followers'.
There is no sane arguement for why a talented programmer (or whatever) should not earn a high salary like a talented CEO of a successfull company, or rather the CEO should earn alot less.
The capitalist system rewards people who are good at making money, i.e. stockbrokers, lawyers, corporate raiders, moviestars. Everybody else are scraping by in comparrison.
Its a great mantra this thing of 'everybody gets the same chance' etc etc and all are treated equal and you just have to get off your butt and not be lazy and go live the american dream. haha. yeah right. How many people actually in reality do succeed in that?
Its similar with Democracy, in democracy the leaders are the ones wo are really good at one thing and one thing only and that is 'to get elected'. They generally have no clue how to actually run a country or how to make good decisions. They are just good at being elected.

On the topic of Denmark, you seem to dismiss it because it's not a 'real' socialist system. Thats probably true, but nonetheless everything works ALOT better than in most more pure capitalist systems. The middleclass is something like 80-90% I would guess. A carpenter who builds houses can easilly earn the same (high) salary as a civil engineer. And why not? the carpenter has also undergone extensive training, is also working hard, is also talented (and the result of this is beautiful houses for everyone). And in reality it doesn't matter *how* it is done, its the end results that matter, so if the method is to have a capitalist system but taxed super heavily and then the taxes are redistributed then thats the same as whatever a 'real' social system is, the result is the same.
I also forgot one last thing thats a great result of all this: No crime! Well offcourse there is some crime, but there is very little going on in that department. Why is that? because everybody have a job or is on a welfare that you can actually live on. So only the psychos comit crimes, not regular people that would otherwise be forced to because they gotta eat. (That said, violent crimes are up recently because the current rightwing government has increased in-equality)
In the US you have rampant crime and drugs, why? where would you rather live? in a peacefull society or a violent one?

I disagree that Sweeden is doing badly. They seem ok to me. They had economic probs in the nineties but they seem to have gotten over it largely.

So does socialism... what do you think piracy and stealing is? It's people wanting social benefits.

The simplest and hence "best" system is war and domination, why pay for what you can steal? That's "pure" capitalism -- kill your creditors and make a profit (less cost). That is the simplest system - i.e. slavery. and mankind used that system for thousands of years.