Capitalism versus Socialism

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by:

Meg

Originally posted by:

Barbarossa

 Besides, my comment that humans are different appears to have been ignored. We are self-aware, and we manipulate our environment, animals do not.  quote>

um . . . maybe not all animals are self-aware but some are.  They can understand language and initiate conversations.  They can tell the difference between their name and the names of those around them.  They know when they are hungry or cold.  They know when they are in pain.  They have dreams when they sleep.

As for manipulating the environment, beavers building a dam do that.  Some primates use tools.  Take a stick, insert into an anthole, remove the stick, eat the attached ants.  A primitve tool, granted, but still a conscious effort to use an object to achieve an objective.

This is a bit off-topic; it might need a thread of its own.

quote>

Originally posted by:

morriswalters

Does possession of wealth make it easier to acquire more wealth and what are the ramifications if it is true? quote>

Short answer, yes.   Possession of wealth makes it easier to acquire more wealth.  If only because there is money "left over" to invest after the basic needs are met.

Stated differently, if capital attracts capital, does that imply that wealth will eventually become so concentrated at one end of the range that it will become impossible for anybody to acquire enough capital to become wealthy?  And if this is incorrect what mechanism prevents it?quote>

There are several mechanisms to prevent it. 

One, anyone can invent "the next great thing" or even "the next silly thing" and sell it and become wealthy.  Granted, this is easier for some than others but it doesn't require wealth to do it.  Just convince some investors it's a good idea and they will lend you their wealth to get started.

Doesn't this simply demonstrate the point of my question?  Since old wealth takes a part of new wealth.

Two, the secret to become wealthy is fairly obvious but most people ignore it:   Live beneath your means and invest the difference. 

I know many people who claim they can't do this; that they need to spend all of their money.  I disagree.   Anyone can save a small percentage of their income (hey, start at 1%).    You can be surprised at how quickly it builds up.

 

If you had started saving 50 years ago, and had managed to save 600 dollars amonth at 3 percent compounded you would have ended up with a tidy sum of over 800,00 dollars.

Granted, you might have to not buy something or not do something.  It's an issue of short term goals versus long term goals.

For further information, read

The Millionaire Next Door

.

quote>

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: chicah

hym: That argument has never been valid, and I don't understand how anyone can think it is. People kill eachother, does that mean we should think "well, it happens anyway, no point in trying to stop it, just keep it up..." or that we shouldn't mind terrorism or wars because it'll happen anyway? Standing idly by irks me more than trying to help and failing. You say capitalism is the best solution because it simply is there.quote>

I never said capitalism was the best solution because it was already there.  I said it was the best solution because it recognized basic realities about human nature, such as greed, and that those realities could be used for benefit.  Ideologies that believe in fairness and everyone helping the less unfortunate ignore the basic reality that human nature is greedy, and thus these ideologies render themselves worthless as actual solutions to the problem.  This is why I believe that capitalism is the only long-term solution and socialism is a failure; the former accepts basic facts about what human are actually like while the latter isn't anywhere close.

I think we should always try to aim for something better. The world would not have developed into this if people didn't dream of change, of something better, of a future. Simply succumbing to the present and saying we shouldn't bother ensures no development at all. We have to actively DO something. And the fact that it is unfair should be a valid argument, because if millions suffer for our wealth, should that be accepted?quote>

Ignoring for a moment the fact that "what is fair?" is partly a question of emotion and that emotion is an informal logic error, so fairness cannot ever be a valid argument...

What is fair is a matter of perspective, nothing more.  A socialist looking at people in a Third World country working for nearly nothing would likely argue that the system is unfair and regulations need to be enacted to ensure they are paid fairly.  On the other hand, it can be argued that the socialist's proposal is actually more unfair than the current system, because by forcing the company to pay them equivalent to everyone else, they are removing the company's reason to employ the people at all, and thus leaving them in an even worse condition than before.  In this case, who is being more unfair to the people?  The person that proposes a plan that leaves the people in the same state as before, or the person that proposes the existing plan be left in place because despite the poor pay the people are receiving for their work, it is an improvement over what they had before?  Logically, they are better off being used like "slaves" than they are being treated "fairly."

If the third world rises to "take revenge", it would not be surprising.quote>

That won't ever happen if governments remove the incentive for companies to hire people in Third World countries, because without the money flowing in from the companies, those people won't ever have the money to wage a revolt.

[morriswalters 16]

Hym

I can't argue the logic of your last paragraph, but is that an ethical position that I would want a company to take when I might do business with them?  Could I expect their ethics to be different when they deal with me, and if they are is that important?

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: hym

Several years ago, polticians in the US, Europe, and other countries thought that it would be good for the Third World if we established an international minimum wage.  The claim was that it would end the "economic oppression" of people in underdeveloped nations by international companies that were using them as little more than slave labor.  However, economists from both ends of the political spectrum blasted it as the most asinine economic development policy ever proposed for underdeveloped nations and with good reason.  These countries need outside investments to foster the economic development needed to lift the citizens out of poverty, and for many such countries, the only thing they have to offer is cheap labor and resources.  Take that away (which is what a global minimum wage would do) and you have destroyed any reason companies have for employing the people and thereby doomed them to live in continued poverty.quote>

These "developing" countires have been indebted by there past masters, western colonialism, through neo-colonialism. Since these developing countires have the economic means to become developed, but this is stymied by debt, puppet governments, and capitalist tools like intellectual property, monopolies. Remove capitalists tools, and the knowledge can passed freely and educate those willing to organize and extracts such resources for development. Who cares about "our masters" the corporation, or outside investments. These are only necessary when capitalists tools use force though western states.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I've never seen this thread before, so I'll just post my position and vote.

When people are free to do what they will so long as they do not initiate force on others, a capitalist economic system results. Therefore, I vote for capitalism.

quote>

Umm, no. An anarchist economic system is the result. Anarchism is anti-capitalist, despite ideas of anarcho-capitalism, which I can forgive somewhat, because it is different than state capitalism. State capitalism is all about the initiation of force to preserve economic rent (Intellectual property, monopolies, capital gains, interest).

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

this is a post for the thread starter, could you rename it to "Corporatism vs Socialism" please

corporatism and socialism are both capitalistic (there are no systems that DON'T involve capital)

corporatism is the practice of concentrating wealth (ergo power) into the hands of very few people

socialism is the practice of concentrating power in the hands of government

democracy helps to balance out government corruption and abuse of power (but not entirely)

quote>

Socialism is not a concentration of power in the hands of government, it is decentralizing power to the hands of the workers. Earlier I pointed out anarcho-capitalism. The one concession I make for it is the Murray Rothbard, an anarcho-capitalist, said a very socialist things, despite his redefinition of the term, through his Austrian economic background, that said the Russians serfs, and the black slaves when they were freed should have gotten their masters land. They were the ones who worked the land, and homestead the land. And while he went on to say that this would have prevented the "communist" revolution later on. But it was a very socialist idea by Rothbard, and one that the Mutualist, Proudhon, would have applauded

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

A free market allocates capital more efficiently and is more likely to generate new wealth, but does not provide fairness or order. Socialism provides fairness and order but upsets economic activity to a degree that this outweighs any benefits.quote>

A free market is socialist in its nature. If we are to count Adam Smith and David Ricardo as free-market economists, than these two both encourage wealth redistribution, and the elimination of economic rent that help to concentrate wealth. But for some reason, people follow the definition in neoclassical economic, aka neoliberal economics, which is the opposite of classical economics.

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

If you ask me the real problem is we worship at the altar of Ayn Rand while other countries have discovered Fordismquote>

Well worshippers of Ayn Rand are oxymorons. As for Fordism, as in Taylorism, as in Scientific management sound, as this mode of organization is capitalist, with highly paid managers who do nothing but talk deal on the golf course, while the works, producers, labourers are low paid and over worked. Fordism is unsustainable and leads to overproduction resulting in recessions, and why fewer and fewer people will get jobs, as they will simply no longer exists. Sustainable.. HAH!

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: hym

I never said capitalism was the best solution because it was already there.  I said it was the best solution because it recognized basic realities about human nature, such as greed, and that those realities could be used for benefit.  Ideologies that believe in fairness and everyone helping the less unfortunate ignore the basic reality that human nature is greedy, and thus these ideologies render themselves worthless as actual solutions to the problem.  This is why I believe that capitalism is the only long-term solution and socialism is a failure; the former accepts basic facts about what human are actually like while the latter isn't anywhere close.quote>

The basics facts are, human nature is monkey see monkey do. Infact, these mirror neurons are much greater in humans, than in monkeys. This is to create solidartity, that lead to organization, and formation of a society. i would consider greed to be a charlatan who fools someone, like  prophet who says he speak to god. This is a confusing thing. God doesn't talk me. Or how about someone with three cars compared to someone who can't even acquire one. This removes the solidarity. It creates the system we have seen for thousands of years. Prophets, kings, emperors, capitalist, etc. This removes the solidartirty and creates a hive mentality (like a queen bee, only I can speak to god, or only I can create this thing, or create rent on this thing I created) that society functions for these select few charlatans. This cannot be copied, if you do, there is intellectual property, copy right, for prophets, and priests, heresy. it cannot be human nature when it is the minority who uses such tactics.  Monoarchy, monotheism, monpoly.. these are human nature? If anything, it would suggest, creativity is a basic reality of human nature.

If humans are greedy, it is a the environment they are in, and one that is the most dominant, like a Richard Dawkins meme. Human do not evolve so much in a genetic manner, but more of a memetic manner.

Basic reality, basic facts.. how about... discrimination. You focus, or are obsessed about one human trait above all the others.

[morriswalters 16]

Greed and social organization are survival mechanisms, programmed into us at a genetic level.  Greed is simply the desire to obtain the requirements of life so that an organism can survive to reproduce, natural selection at it's purest.  Social orders  represent the fact that organisms that use them survive better than those who don't, again natural selection.

Eventually all societies form into hierarchies.  With power concentrated at the top.  Roughly represented by a pyramid.  I know of no society not structured in this manner, past or present.  Capitalism and Socialism are simply tags meant to represent theoretical organization of these structures.  Neither has ever existed in it's pure form.

These systems in any form exist to manage these survival mechanisms.  To allow people to coexist with as little friction as is possible given the basic nature of humans.  Eventually they all breakdown and fail, reorganize and start again.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Greed is simply the desire to obtain the requirements of life so that an organism can survive to reproduce, natural selection at it's purest.quote>

Obtaining the requirements? That is not greed. Greed is going beyond the requirements, and things that are not required at all.

When Haitians are causing disorder getting food or looting building rubble, this is not greed. Acquiring a diamond ring by stealing is greed.

Self interest and greed are different things.

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by: Motina

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Greed is simply the desire to obtain the requirements of life so that an organism can survive to reproduce, natural selection at it's purest.quote>

Obtaining the requirements? That is not greed. Greed is going beyond the requirements, and things that are not required at all.

When Haitians are causing disorder getting food or looting building rubble, this is not greed. Acquiring a diamond ring by stealing is greed.

Self interest and greed are different things.

quote>

The definition of greed comes from the social order we live in.  The behavior comes from somewhere else.  Neither is the definition absolute.  Even within the social order different people will interpet it differently.  I suspect that a member of an isolated tribe of natives in the Amazon river basin might have a different definition than yours or mine.  A thief is an example of someone who has chosen for whatever reason to live outside the restraints of the social order.  Respecting no survival but his.  An extreme example of the behavior.

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

The definition of greed comes from the social order we live in.  The behavior comes from somewhere else. Neither is the definition absolute.quote>

Sure, definitions are never absolute. But your use of the word greed with survival is way off. You are applying the wrong definition to a behaviour. Greed has nothing to do with survival. Never has and never will, by any definition.

Originally posted by: morriswaltersEven within the social order different people will interpet it differently.

I suspect that a member of an isolated tribe of natives in the Amazon river basin might have a different definition than yours or mine.quote>

Your definition is fundamentally different than mine though, so much so that it describes a completely different behavior. But  you have not done anything to solidify this at all in your post.

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Respecting no survival but his.  An extreme example of the behavior.quote>

But respcting no survival but his is not greed. It is selfishness or self-interest. You are using a definition that does not match up with the behavior. Greed has nothing to do with survival. It is a delusion, a silly frivolous thing that comes out of the insane, odd or creative thing that is the human mind, like needing three cars. It has nothing to do with survival.

[morriswalters 16]

Greed is an ethical abstraction.  You can't define it without using right and wrong.  The pure behavior is basically amoral.  It's interpretation is seen always through the lense of the social mechanism.  Therefore taking more than you need of something and calling it greed is a product of the social mechanism not the behavior itself.  So Hym's point is correct such that it is.  The weakness of his position is an ethical one.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Then the company can fail.  Period. quote>

You know very well that in the real world the company won't fail anyway, at least not as long as there are no global rules concerning this. And then they are more probable to fold than fail. The only thing that'll happen is that the employees won't get paid.

Money has little to do with actual revolution.  Just ask the French.  All you need is motivation and a pitchfork.  The poor, as insulted as they are by the other classes, far outnumber the wealthy and stand to lose more.  Never back a man into a corner if he has nothing to lose.

quote>

Using fists only is a poor choice… If you want to succeed, you should at least be able to afford some basic weapons. It is a common misconception that Europe's revolutions and the struggle for social rights were waged by people that had nothing to lose under the regime they laboured under—rahter they had nothing to win under it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The world capitalistic system is in trouble because it got the bit in its teeth. Anything that is abused has bad consequences.

In Canada, we had the smallest economic disturbance even though the United States is our largest trading partner and we have many trade ties that really bind. The reason for this is that our big banks are bound by a set of regulations that have their origin in the Bank Act of 1936 which was designed to prevent more meltdowns like the Great Depression. Surprise, surprise: It worked like the charm that it is. I thank heavens for the foresight of our legislators of almost one hundred years ago.

Laissez faire capitalism is nearly as deadly as a Soviet Five Year Plan. One of the main rots in this nest of fools is the idea that expansion can go on forever. There are ample instances in the past to show that this is not the case: The South Sea Bubble; the Wall Street Meltdown of 1929; and the most recent collapse of New York banking houses due to the attempt to get something for nothing (invention of derivatives). When you put the economic machine into a positive feed-back loop, you can expect to get shaken up.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Then the company can fail.  Period.  This is Almighty Capitalism at work.  We should never be concerned with the impact a decision or practice has on a company.  If we are, then our economy is far too weak and we need to address it.  Besides, there are plenty of other businesses that will step up to the plate and will be successful.quote>

I wasn't suggesting that the company would go belly up if it wasn't allowed to hire workers from impoverished countries at next to nothing salaries.  My apologies on the confusion.  Maybe a hypothetical scenario would be clearer.

ABC Corporation makes widgets that it is able to sell for a high price and the company enjoys proft margins that are the envy of Wall Street.  The company has almost no debt, huge supplies of capital, and is in no danger of collapse.  The company's internal analysts inform the directors that the company can widen its profit margin even more by moving it's operations to Burma and the local population can be employed for approximately $3 a day.  So the directors approve the move, the company closes its existing plant, and begins manufacturing widgets out of its factory in Burma.  To those living in an industrial country, $3 might a day might seem like the company is using them like slaves, but for the workers, the opportunity to work in a modern manufacturing facility making $3 a day is a major step up from working in a sweat shop earning $0.79 a day.

Now what happens if some sort of international minimum wage law is passed and ABC Corporation is now required to pay those workers in Burma the same rate as the company paid its employees in the US?  The company has no incentive to move it's operations to Burma, and the Burmese people that would have been employed in the plant lose the opportunity to improve their living conditions.  Such a law means nothing to ABC Corporation in terms of its survival as the company can make huge profit margins regardless of whether it makes its widgets in the US or in Burma, but to the Burmese people, the law represents a lost opportunity to improve their condition by getting a higher paying job from a company that was interested in employing the people because they were cheaper than their US counterparts.

Hopefully that better explains what I was thinking.

Money has little to do with actual revolution.  Just ask the French.  All you need is motivation and a pitchfork.  The poor, as insulted as they are by the other classes, far outnumber the wealthy and stand to lose more.  Never back a man into a corner if he has nothing to lose.quote>

True, but nowadays determination doesn't mean much if you have inferior weaponry and little military training.  The Ethiopians who attempted to defend their country against the Italian army in 1935 were very determined to defend their country, yet the Italians killed many of them anyway, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

[saltandsauce 0]

Two, the secret to become wealthy is fairly obvious but most people ignore it:   Live beneath your means and invest the difference. 

I know many people who claim they can't do this; that they need to spend all of their money.  I disagree.   Anyone can save a small percentage of their income (hey, start at 1%).    You can be surprised at how quickly it builds up.

 

If you had started saving 50 years ago, and had managed to save 600 dollars amonth at 3 percent compounded you would have ended up with a tidy sum of over 800,00 dollars.

Granted, you might have to not buy something or not do something.  It's an issue of short term goals versus long term goals.

quote>

i'm going to convert this into real terms in the UK, before all this "economic end game" (the only change in my area is that there are more Polish unemployed plumbers kicking around) the average salary for my district was £21,000 p/a

however my area includes a small city (1/2 million apart from summer where it trebles to 1.5 milllion) and this city has some financial institutions and a couples insurance firms. The actual mean wage is closer to £18,000 (for a worker with a degree) and salaries for non-degree jobs are £14,000 and under. so for the white collar jobs, (i'll use the pre-crash exchange rate of $1.4: £1) = £428

most people can't actually give away the "modest" sum you proposed because they need that money. unless you want to live in a corrugated steel shack you built yourself on wasteground. This will be demolished by the city authorities every 2 months.

the secret to become wealthy is to have wealth or at least have a very rich friend

even if you invent something, the investors steal the rights to it and basically make money off of your idea and give you some measly sum. You could also be shot down by the fact it costs a fortune to patent something and that nobody will manufacture it unless you consign them big shares because it uses an ISO 3000 bolt (patent expired) and demand you pay commission for it.

you need wealth to make wealth or you need 3 tons of narcotics and means to sell them if you want to be rich.

you can't even start up a shop (because rates and rents are so high) or a business (because conglomo inc. will outprice you)

or build property (because of ridiculously high land values, "planning" regulations and the skyrocketing cost of buying off local government)

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

most people can't actually give away the "modest" sum you proposed because they need that money. unless you want to live in a corrugated steel shack you built yourself on wasteground. This will be demolished by the city authorities every 2 months.

quote>

I'm not talking about giving away anything.  I'm talking about saving it.  and investing it.

People don't "need" as much as they think they need.   It is not necessary to have every electronic toy that is produced.  It is not even necessary to have any of them.   It is not necessary to eat expensive food or drink expensive coffee.  It is not necessary to buy every cute little thing that you feel like buying.

I know people who moan and wail that they don't have enough money and they need to spend all that they have.  and, when you look at where their money goes, a lot of it goes to unnecessary crap.

One friend who was always broke turned out to have subscriptions to 30 (count 'em, 30) different monthly magazines.  That's reading one full magazine a day.  Ain't gonna happen.  Her reason:  the kids selling the subscriptions were so cute.

Another friend who was always broke subscribed to 3 different for-pay cable stations but never watched them because she didn't have time.   So she was throwing money out the window each month because she "might" want to watch something on them.

Check cashing stores -- another pet peeve of mine.  People pay $1.50 - $3.00 a week for these losers to cash their paycheck.  Not a lot of money, right?   Except that adds up to $75 - $150 a year that they are just throwing out the window.

The vast majority of people (I'll grant there are some exceptions) could save a lot of money if they sat down, looked at how they were spending their money, and how they could spend it differently.  But many people do not bother to keep track.

[Duke87 1,070]

The problem is a lot of people don't realize how much the little things can add up ("death of a thousand paper cuts"). They aren't too concerned about "wasting" money here and there, and would liken anyone who is to Ebenezer Scrooge: petty and miserly. This especially holds true in more affluent areas where people tend to have money to burn. There's a social expectation that people not be afraid to "waste" money.

Which just makes me even stranger. The Target in town charges $1 to park in their garage. Yes, a dollar. I never pay it. I park a couple blocks away for free and walk. My cellphone is old and beat up and looks hideous, but it still works, so I refuse to spend a cent on a new one. People tell me I'm crazy. Maybe I am.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

The problem is a lot of people don't realize how much the little things can add up ("death of a thousand paper cuts").  quote>

That's a good way to put it.

They aren't too concerned about "wasting" money here and there, and would liken anyone who is to Ebenezer Scrooge: petty and miserly. This especially holds true in more affluent areas where people tend to have money to burn. There's a social expectation that people not be afraid to "waste" money.

Which just makes me even stranger. The Target in town charges $1 to park in their garage. Yes, a dollar. I never pay it. I park a couple blocks away for free and walk. My cellphone is old and beat up and looks hideous, but it still works, so I refuse to spend a cent on a new one. People tell me I'm crazy. Maybe I am.

quote>

No, you're not crazy (at least not about this ).   You've just learned not to let your money dribble away needlessly. 

If I understand your circumstances correctly, you do have $1 that you could spend on that parking garage.  You just chose not to waste it in that way.   Which gives you more options of what you can do with that $1.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: Duke87

The problem is a lot of people don't realize how much the little things can add up ("death of a thousand paper cuts"). They aren't too concerned about "wasting" money here and there, and would liken anyone who is to Ebenezer Scrooge: petty and miserly. This especially holds true in more affluent areas where people tend to have money to burn. There's a social expectation that people not be afraid to "waste" money.

Which just makes me even stranger. The Target in town charges $1 to park in their garage. Yes, a dollar. I never pay it. I park a couple blocks away for free and walk. My cellphone is old and beat up and looks hideous, but it still works, so I refuse to spend a cent on a new one. People tell me I'm crazy. Maybe I am. quote>

Sounds like we're polar opposites. I own 3 cellphones atm (only using one), from 2 different providers. I'm considering buying a new one, from a third provider in the next month or two. I enjoy the conveniences of new technology, and am not afraid to "invest" in them. I'd probably also park at the Target, purely for the convenience.

That being said, I also have some personal restraint.. I won't let my bank account drop below a certain number, for example, and never will I use my credit card to buy something I can't afford.

[PhilsCafe 8]

@Duke: That's the definition of "homo economicus"... although that model is flawed, since a lot of people don't seem to be as rational as you

[morriswalters 16]

Meg

While what you describe is rational and makes very good sense, but it will never make the average wage earner wealthy.  He must balance the risks he can take against  the fact that any savings he has must support him when he can no longer work.  Any discussion of this type must always take that into account.(IMO)  The dangers of excessive risk in the pursuit of greater returns is illustrated by the Madoff scandal.  Most people can't afford those types of risk.

The discussion in the US on the merits of Capitalism versus Socialism too often appeals to ingrained fears of Communism to attack points of view only remotely connected to Socialism.  Financial regulation is often attacked as Socialist, however this is often a "straw man" argument.  All laws and regulations serve the purpose of protecting the members of a society both from each other as well as outsiders.  That is their purpose.  That they are created to protect the common welfare does not make them Socialist. 

Hym is correct(again from my POV) when he argues that Capitalism is a true reflection of base behaviors of man.  However it is arguable that Capitalism as a social structure only works well when it is tied to  communities where social constraints can apply a measure of control.  In this context it is certainly easy to have the point of view that multinational corporations are amoral and accept no ethical constraint other then, that required for their continued existence.  This article in the Wikipedia  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_capitalism   presents an interesting definition of one type of capitalism related that POV..

[saltandsauce 0]

my point is that you can't support a family with 2 point children on a £14,000 salary.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

my point is that you can't support a family with 2 point children on a £14,000 salary.

quote>

You know, there's no rule that says you have to have children. If you can't afford to raise them, then maybe it's unwise to be reproducing.

*ducks*

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Meg

While what you describe is rational and makes very good sense, but it will never make the average wage earner wealthy.  He must balance the risks he can take against  the fact that any savings he has must support him when he can no longer work.  Any discussion of this type must always take that into account.(IMO)  The dangers of excessive risk in the pursuit of greater returns is illustrated by the Madoff scandal.  Most people can't afford those types of risk.

The discussion in the US on the merits of Capitalism versus Socialism too often appeals to ingrained fears of Communism to attack points of view only remotely connected to Socialism.  Financial regulation is often attacked as Socialist, however this is often a "straw man" argument.  All laws and regulations serve the purpose of protecting the members of a society both from each other as well as outsiders.  That is their purpose.  That they are created to protect the common welfare does not make them Socialist.  quote>

The fears over socialism and Communism stem from the basic American tenet that gov't power must also be curtailed for the welfare of all, just as it seeks to regulate other segments of our society for the same reason. Americans don't trust concentrations of power, whether civil authority or corporate entity. It is my belief that a healthy distrust of increasing gov't regulations and power is both a wise perspective, and a justified one.

Hym is correct(again from my POV) when he argues that Capitalism is a true reflection of base behaviors of man.  However it is arguable that Capitalism as a social structure only works well when it is tied to  communities where social constraints can apply a measure of control. 

quote>

Now here you touch on something I have always said... our structure requires a moral, honest,  hardworking populace to function properly. A gov't  "by, for, and of The People" is going to act just like, well, the people. IMO our country has been slouching ever more, the problems of State are the problems of the people. Politicians are fat/ greedy/ lazy/corrupt? Our 'representation' in gov't is exactly that... a picture of ourselves.

[saltandsauce 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87

You know, there's no rule that says you have to have children. If you can't afford to raise them, then maybe it's unwise to be reproducing.

*ducks*

quote>

fact is, about 30% of the working population earn that wage and have families. a lot of western societies have problems with an ageing population, perhaps then the gray dawn will come around if people stick to your logic

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Our 'representation' in gov't is exactly that... a picture of ourselves.

quote>

My solution for that is to dismantle the political machinery behind both major parties.   They have way too much power and we didn't elect most of the people running them.

Then we need to teach everyone that "the opposition" is not each other but al qaida and the taliban.  Those folks must be getting a big chuckle over watching us squabble amongst ourselves.

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

fact is, about 30% of the working population earn that wage and have families. quote>

"the working poor".   In some cases, they can't make their own lives better but they can make things better for their children. 

I do not have to look far to find upward mobility.   My grandfather was a coal miner.  My dad (who grew up during the Depression) worked on the original big-as-a-house computers.  I spent my working life, to put it in SC4 terms, in high tech.

a lot of western societies have problems with an ageing population, perhaps then the gray dawn will come around if people stick to your logic quote>

Most Americans do not understand what is involved in dealing with the elderly.  They do not understand what Medicare costs and what will happen when the baby boomers hit that age.   If they did, they wouldn't be fussing about changing the health care system.

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by:

Meg

Originally posted by:

manticorefan

Our 'representation' in gov't is exactly that... a picture of ourselves.

quote>

My solution for that is to dismantle the political machinery behind both major parties.   They have way too much power and we didn't elect most of the people running them.

Money fuels the machine, remove the money starve the machine.

Then we need to teach everyone that "the opposition" is not each other but al qaida and the taliban.  Those folks must be getting a big chuckle over watching us squabble amongst ourselves.

Both Hitler and Stalin as well as a number of lesser known dictators have used this technique very effectively.  As to the Taliban, I doubt that they are laughing very loudly, since they spend a lot of time listening for Predator drones.  A better stategy there might have been to leave them in power and stand off and kill them whenever they popped their heads up.  It's very hard to hide when you have to govern.

Originally posted by:

saltandsauce

fact is, about 30% of the working population earn that wage and have families. quote>

"the working poor".   In some cases, they can't make their own lives better but they can make things better for their children. 

I do not have to look far to find upward mobility.   My grandfather was a coal miner.  My dad (who grew up during the Depression) worked on the original big-as-a-house computers.  I spent my working life, to put it in

SC4

terms, in high tech.

a lot of western societies have problems with an ageing population, perhaps then the gray dawn will come around if people stick to your logic quote>

Most Americans do not understand what is involved in dealing with the elderly.  They do not understand what Medicare costs and what will happen when the baby boomers hit that age.   If they did, they wouldn't be fussing about changing the health care system.

I use this argument myself, I wonder however if it's valid, assuming that we in some fashion have information known only to us.  In this particular case  most of us have parents, I've buried both, and have a very good idea about end of life issues.

quote>

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Greed is an ethical abstraction.  You can't define it without using right and wrong.  The pure behavior is basically amoral.  It's interpretation is seen always through the lense of the social mechanism.  Therefore taking more than you need of something and calling it greed is a product of the social mechanism not the behavior itself.  So Hym's point is correct such that it is.  The weakness of his position is an ethical one.quote>

Yes, the pure behaviour is of course amoral. Examples, it's "opposite", is like stamp collecting, or what my mom does, collect her cats whiskers and places them in the cheeks of her stuffed animals. However, this is not the argument I am making. You and hym make this out to be a "base act" or survival. My argument is that it is not. It is beyond evolutionary boundaries and is in the realm of psychology. It has nothing to do with survival, but everything to do with the mental "misfirings" that we call creativity.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

well, that's one way of looking at it

The famous speech from Wall Street had power because it is true; greed works. It is human nature, capitalism is the only system to harness it instead of attempting to suppress it. It is also the system that has brought more wealth to more people across all walks of life than any other, and the fans of socialism cannot claim the same thing.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa