Capitalism versus Socialism

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Its unfair for 95% of the population. 95% of the population has to work their ass off for a sucky wage while in the mean time the remaining 5% does next to nothing but does cash in all the profit. And dont say they deserve it because they have such a responsible position or because they worked hard to get there.quote>

A lot of people end up with a lot of things they don't deserve. This much is true.

On the other hand, what's the alternative? Taxing all that wealth away? Yeah, that'll do wonders for the economy.

And even when they ***** up, they get government bailouts. After which they just continue to do what they where doing and heading straight for a certain doom. quote>

Indeed. Bailouts are just rewarding failure. Which then breeds a lack of accountabilty or sensibility. Why do anything right if you can have the taxpayers bail you out when your escapades go sour?

But yes, like I said, unfair. Then there is this American dream myth. Work hard and you get somewhere. Oh really? No matter how hard you work, there is no way youre going to be able to pay for an Ivy league uni.quote>

But you don't need an Ivy league degree of even a college degree to be successful. Bill Gates dropped out of college to go and start Microsoft, literally out of his garage. More clasically, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller.... none of these people ever went to college at all. Nor did any of them come from affluent backgrounds.

The flaw with the idea of "work hard and you get somewhere" is that it takes more than just working hard - it takes having an idea, a willingness to take risks... entrepreneurial spirit in general. Most people don't have these qualities.

Regardless, you don't need to become the head of a huge successful company to lead a decent life. The 95% of the population that has to "work their ass off" isn't necessarily doing so for a "sucky wage". A lot of people make a decent living doing trade work.

Meanwhile, not everyone who isn't affluent is necessarily doing all that much work when you introduce the welfare factor. You get people like... this relative of mine, let's call him "Uncle Joe" (that's neither his actual name nor his actual relation to me). Uncle Joe has never worked a day in his life. He shares a small apartment with a couple roommates and lives off of social security disability checks. Except, he's not disabled. He claims to "have a bad leg", and he walks around with a cane, but it's an act. There's nothing wrong with him, he's just cheating the system because he'd rather sit on his ass and recieve a free check in the mail every month than do work to earn (more) money.

That's the key problem with a welfare state. It encourages this sort of bheavior, and in doing so fails to actually produce money that can be used for anything. As the old saying about the Soviets goes, "We'll pretend to work and you'll pretend to pay us".

Then there is this myth that if the government doesnt interfere the economy will do whats best for itself. Oh how dumb we are. So far, letting the economy do whats best for the 5% (making as much money possible) has NOT been in the best interest of the country. Outsourcing, firing entire departments because that was the only way to make MORE profit, raping the earth for a few extra % profit, thats what happens when you let greedy people take over the business world.quote>

Outsourcing takes place because people in places like China are willing to work for less than people are here, and it is economically and practically feasible to make things there and ship them here. Obviously this isn't good for us, but we have no one to blame for it but ourselves.

As for "raping the Earth"... yeah, well, industry pollutes. In some cases it could pollute less, and if it saves money to be more efficient, people will take steps towards it. If it costs money, then it must be questioned whether it's worth it.

True, there are good causes out there other than profit.... but the fact remains that money is the lifeblood of modern human civilization. Anything that disregards that and makes a society bleed money is doomed to fail.

That makes socialism better. Its fairer for everyone, the economy works better under a more socialist system and it makes people happier as well. quote>

It only makes people happier if it's what people want. An awful lot of people in America do not want Socialism. Then again, an awful lot do. The country is very divided on the matter.

[morriswalters 16]

Ah the "Uncle Joe's of the world", how sad.  To speak to the situation of people who have never worked that draw disability, that would be limited to an amount less than 700 dollars a month.  The program is called SSI.  That's why he lives with others.  If he's crooked, drop a dime on him to the Social Security Fraud department.  It's that easy.  Waste and fraud exist and they are inescapable.  Nobody can run fast enough to stop it.  But it isn't just poor people who are guilty of it.  Name any business you care and I can find enough fraud to choke on.  It's the nature of people.  Not to do something because people cheat is tantamount to saying do nothing. 

What I tire of the most though are how people find it so easy to ignore how many things are subsidized(socialism at work). 

If you want a pure free enterprise system let us quit fooling ourselves.  Get rid of these programs.

Public Schools of any stripe(Including Universities and Colleges)

Medicare

The Interstate highway system(make all roads toll roads, they are thinking of doing something like this in Louisville,KY to finance a new bridge and people are screaming)

Fix the so called tax system. Keep the taxes just get rid of the garbage.(used to reward all kinds of special interest groups,  I laugh when I think of the biggest bribe paid every year , the mortgage interest deduction.)

All guaranteed loans of any type.(So much for the myth of the middle class access to education)

All federal subsidies of any kind.(Hear the screams)

Social Security

Plus the hundreds of programs I either don't know about or found too tedious to list.  Kill any one of them and I'll nominate you for a medal.

And last but not least offshoring.  If fuel prices continue to climb that competitive edge and the ability to ship goods cheaply will disappear.  i read an interesting article about how ships had been mothballed during the downturn because they were too expensive to maintain,  It's led to a shortage of  hulls for freight. 

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: Duke87

That's the key problem with a welfare state. It encourages this sort of bheavior, and in doing so fails to actually produce money that can be used for anything. As the old saying about the Soviets goes, "We'll pretend to work and you'll pretend to pay us". quote>

Actually, i'd disagree. Its a key problem with a badly regulated system, but a welfare state can exist without anything like that going on if the proper checks are done properly. For example, down here they'll watch you with (hidden) camera's if they suspect something is up. If they get the video evidence that your not actually disabled (one example was, guy who claimed he had a crook back who pushed a caravan into a shed), they'll make you pay all the money that they gave you back. That alone might be a bit of a turnoff for some people.

[raja_indy14 8]

I don't know if this has been said or not, but I support phasing out the current U.S. welfare system in favor of a system that more avidly encourages people to find work.quote>

Expecting people to find work when jobs are simply not available is not a very effective strategy. Yes, some people are lazy or suffer from mental disabilities that prevent them from getting or keeping a job, but there are also many people that have lost their jobs recently for reasons that are beyond their control. Is it just that these people should be abandoned to the elements when a society possesses the resources to assist them? This is particularly relevant in a society that has largely abandoned traditional, non-state approaches to welfare (such as family and the church), or where these are much less capable of providing the necessary support to the numbers of people that need it.

you do realise that free-market economics would actually leave a large section of the population deadquote>

Not necessarily. Free market economies are the most productive agricultural societies that humans have ever produced, and this food is available at a price that is a fraction of the average wage. In practically all other models there are occasional, or even frequent, periods of food scarcity and even starvation. Collective farming is highly inefficient and there would have been severe shortages in the Soviet Union if they did not purchase grain from the West. So in many ways, free market economies are the most effective at feeding a larger population cheaply, and this has historically been one of the major impediments to population growth and a major cause of death and disease.

free markets don't work since currencies are artificially inflated (US dollar) or deflated (Chinese Yuan/most east Asian currencies except Japanese Yen) quote>

And yet the renminbi is kept at an artificially low rate by way of state policy, how is this an example of free markets not working?

Its unfair for 95% of the population. 95% of the population has to work their ass off for a sucky wage while in the mean time the remaining 5% does next to nothing but does cash in all the profit. And dont say they deserve it because they have such a responsible position or because they worked hard to get there.quote>

This reminds me of the nomenklatura system in the former Soviet Union. At any rate, successful capitalism breeds a strong state, a strong state creates ministries, bureaucracies, public education and healthcare programs, all these things employ massive amounts of public employees and all their wages ultimately come from the proceeds of a capitalist economy. In most advanced capitalist democracies there are all sorts of service jobs that require considerable investment in education and which pay high salaries for a persons intelligence or other marketable skills and attributes. Yes, an unregulated free market that really and truly left everything up to the private sector (i.e. there is no conception of public goods/services) would probably be a horrible society to live in, and there would likely be gross inequality. But capitalist societies as they exist in reality have a variation of wealth inequality, and it isn't necessarily inherent that such a wide disparity must exist as you've painted here, indeed, that level of disparity is rare, particularly in advanced capitalist societies.

At any rate, this doesn't seem like a trait that can reasonably be attributed to capitalist societies alone.

After a few years of extreme profits, the bubble has finally collapsed with the destruction of the global economy as a consequence. Because this isnt over yet, the bailouts merely bought the mighty captains of industry some more time. But in the next decade, it will collapse entirely and everybody will be poorer then ever.quote>

Oh my, how dreadful. I am not someone who believes in the inevitability of progress, but on what are you basing this prediction of global economic collapse? Obviously we are not necessarily through the worst of it, and the view may seem particularly rosy from where I stand, but collapse of the capitalist economic order within a decade seems somewhat extreme, especially when not supported by much (or any) evidence. The Depression of the 1930s was exacerbated because governments did not know how to respond to such a crisis and stuck to supporting the gold standard and maintaining a hands off, liberal approach to the economy. What we now know is that government policy in handling an economic crisis is key, the crisis may not be over but it would likely have been much, much worse if governments reacted as they did in 1929/30.

And look at todays society. All thanks to capitalism. We got teens bored out of their mind, half of the people are suffering from mental disorders like depression, stress is at an all time high, we are culturally dead, science produces absolutely nothing of value, and 95% of the population just works for the sake of working, leaving no time for things like family and hobbies. quote>

Well, if you want to be pessimistic about it. I suppose back in the good old days before capitalism everyone pranced about blissfully in the fields at one with nature and each other? Please. Yes, there are negative aspects to modern capitalist society, but to say that teens are bored out of our minds (Was I? Should I have been entitled to 24/7 entertainment and interaction? Were teenagers three hundred years ago having so much more fun? Oh wait, they were working...) or that "we are culturally dead" is simply hyperbole. Science produces nothing of value, eh? I'd always thought that modern medical research that is helping to save more and more lives had value, but I guess I was wrong. And no, people don't work for the sake of working, people work to have an income. Working for the sake of work would be an improvement.

When I was a kid, eggs cost 12 cents a dozen, bread was about 5 cents a loaf, and my father made $90. a month as a private soldier of which half came to my mother who also worked for about $20 a week just to keep things going. Bread and milk were delivered door to door, and nobody complained about fuel for the delivery vans, which were horse-drawn. Now it is too expensive to run door-to-door services for daily groceries, so each individual has to make his way to the store to get it. I wonder which costs more? Add up all the fuel for each person to go to a selling point, and see. Now eggs are around $3 per dozen and bread is well over $1.50 a loaf. *sigh*quote>

Yes, that is sad, we should go back to the good old days of Diocletian's price and wage freezes.

I suppose looking back at things through rose tinted glasses allows people to ignore the fact that the economic crises of the 1970s to 1980s were largely a result of state interventions. Inefficiencies and inflexibility were the result of excessive government support, while massive US budget deficits - yes, in part because of the Vietnam War - broke down the Bretton-Woods system and paved the way for the debt crisis and the wave of economic liberalization that swept the world in the 1980s. Governments are often just as much to blame for economic outcomes as corporations are, and they wield vastly more real power and influence. State management of the economy can work for a time in certain situations, but like many things it is not a panacea and the level of state involvement should shift over time in response to changing circumstances. Inflexibility is dangerous. In the 1960s and 70s, state management managed to assist dramatic capitalist reconstruction and growth following the Second World War. Over time, however, this system experienced intractable problems leading to the conservative liberal reaction of the 1980s (which seemed to have swept most of the globe and took the Soviet Empire with it). There were problems, this is not something that can be ignored or wished away. As is usual, the conservative reaction probably took things too far in the opposite direction, and now there is a renewed role for government in the wake of this latest crisis. Institutions change in response to altered situations, static institutions are vulnerable to dissent and overthrow.

We could have had cars riding on cleaner, more efficient, cheaper fuels about a decade ago if it wasnt for the big oil companies to stop funding this kind of research because it did not produce results quick enough. quote>

Yes, because it wouldn't have sold. In the 1980s Boeing began planning and design of a more fuel efficient commercial aircraft as a response to market demand for fuel efficiency in an environment of high oil prices. When oil prices went down in the early 1990s the project was abandoned because fuel efficiency was no longer a major marketable feature. Since 2001, however, with the crisis of the airline industry and spikes in the cost of aviation fuel, fuel efficiency is once again a marketable feature that is quite clearly seen in the latest Airbus and Boeing offerings. Unfortunately, corporations cannot afford to be altruistic, and without the widespread public outcry that exists now, democratic governments - fairly inertial at the best of times - are unlikely to provide the backing to support such projects. This isn't to say that oil companies do not use tactics to undermine the development of alternatives to an oil economy - although in reality, many have now jumped on the emerging renewable energy bandwagon - but there are pragmatic reasons why corporations do not have altruism-based planning that looks decades into the future...

Ive gotta give credit to capitalism for one thing though. They are masters of deceit. They managed to convince everyone that capitalism is better then anything else, while its not.

That makes socialism better. Its fairer for everyone, the economy works better under a more socialist system and it makes people happier as well.quote>

This takes the cake for ridiculous statements.

Capitalism is a system of economic organization, how can "they" be masters of deceit?

If you mean that exponents of capitalism have managed to convince everyone that capitalism is better then anything else than you are very much mistaken. Support for socialism or socialist elements remains fairly strong and is far from a marginal fringe in most countries. You are hardly unique in your opposition to capitalism, indeed, it is practically a mainstream view at this point.

What definition of "socialism" are you using, and where is the data that supports your claims? The only system that might be called "socialist" that I would consider successful is European socialist democracy. Since this system requires capitalism to function, I have a hard time understanding how you can criticize it (capitalism).

people in places like China are willing to work for less than people are here, and it is economically and practically feasible to make things there and ship them here. Obviously this isn't good for us, but we have no one to blame for it but ourselves. quote>

Well, it is good for you actually. Living standards are improved because goods can be produced more cheaply than if production was kept domestically. The problem is that the large number of people who benefit, the consumers, individually gain very little, while those who lose their job (a smaller number) are effected more significantly, creating a vocal group that challenges off shore production. In reality, most things have trade offs, and in this case American firms can make more profit and American consumers can pay less; unfortunately a number of American manufacturing jobs will be lost. If all production was domestic, and in fact, the US is a relatively self-sufficient economy already, US consumers would be paying higher prices for all goods which would depress their real standard of living.

Trade that is not imposed or coercive is mutually beneficial, or else people would not engage in it. At the national level, some people may lose on both sides, but overall there is a net benefit.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Duke87

A lot of people end up with a lot of things they don't deserve. This much is true.

 On the other hand, what's the alternative? Taxing all that wealth away? Yeah, that'll do wonders for the economy. quote>

How will it be bad for the economy if you tax certain excesses away? Take that guy from Goldman Sachs. Hes an arrogant bank manager that is partly the cause of the economic crisis. He is a fraud and he has earned millions with bonuses. So why not put a 99% tax on a bonus that is more then 100.000 dollar? Dont tell me these guys need millions to keep the economy running. Dont tell me that these people single handily keep the economy running with their extreme salaries. 

But you don't need an Ivy league degree of even a college degree to be successful. Bill Gates dropped out of college to go and start Microsoft, literally out of his garage. More clasically, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller.... none of these people ever went to college at all. Nor did any of them come from affluent backgrounds.

 The flaw with the idea of "work hard and you get somewhere" is that it takes more than just working hard - it takes having an idea, a willingness to take risks... entrepreneurial spirit in general. Most people don't have these qualities.quote>

People like that would have existed in a socialist enviroment as well. They wouldnt have been as rich, sure, but I dont believe that money is the sole drive behind people to get stuff done. 

 

Regardless, you don't need to become the head of a huge successful company to lead a decent life. The 95% of the population that has to "work their ass off" isn't necessarily doing so for a "sucky wage". A lot of people make a decent living doing trade work. quote>

Oh, nobody starves from their jobs. At least, the middle class doesnt. The lower class needs to work two to three jobs to just survive, while their bosses dont do a lot and cash in from the work their wage slaves do for them. The middle class gets a decent salary, but then again, they do have to work their ass off, taking away all their time they should be spending with their kids or doing something for themselves. 

You see, our problem is that we have turned humans into a resource. Much like oil is a resource, so are humans. Companies even have the arrogance to call us that: Human Resource Management. To the big corporate suits most of us are nothing more then expendable resources. You use them till they are burned out, then you fire them and get a new guy and repeat the process. 

Is that how we want to be treated? I know I dont want to be treated like that. 

 

Meanwhile, not everyone who isn't affluent is necessarily doing all that much work when you introduce the welfare factor. You get people like... this relative of mine, let's call him "Uncle Joe" (that's neither his actual name nor his actual relation to me). Uncle Joe has never worked a day in his life. He shares a small apartment with a couple roommates and lives off of social security disability checks. Except, he's not disabled. He claims to "have a bad leg", and he walks around with a cane, but it's an act. There's nothing wrong with him, he's just cheating the system because he'd rather sit on his ass and recieve a free check in the mail every month than do work to earn (more) money. 

 That's the key problem with a welfare state. It encourages this sort of bheavior, and in doing so fails to actually produce money that can be used for anything. As the old saying about the Soviets goes, "We'll pretend to work and you'll pretend to pay us".quote>

 

Thats not the fault of the welfare system, its the fault of society. And its easily solved. If people would realize that uncle joe is living of their tax money for free Im pretty sure they wouldnt like uncle Joe that much. In fact, I think that some people would go and tell uncle Joe that he should get his ***** together or they will tell the government that hes cheating the system and he would risk a nice fine as well as some jail time. Cases like uncle Joe would be gone in no time. 

[raja_indy14 8]

How will it be bad for the economy if you tax certain excesses away? Take that guy from Goldman Sachs. Hes an arrogant bank manager that is partly the cause of the economic crisis. He is a fraud and he has earned millions with bonuses. So why not put a 99% tax on a bonus that is more then 100.000 dollar? Dont tell me these guys need millions to keep the economy running. Dont tell me that these people single handily keep the economy running with their extreme salaries. quote>

That isn't a necessary aspect of a capitalist system. Bonuses can be important as an incentive to work harder and better, however, like most things, they can also be abused. I don't think you will find the same thing in all capitalist economies, at least not to that excessive level.

The lower class needs to work two to three jobs to just survive, while their bosses dont do a lot and cash in from the work their wage slaves do for them. The middle class gets a decent salary, but then again, they do have to work their ass off, taking away all their time they should be spending with their kids or doing something for themselves. quote>

Firstly, the lower classes do not need to work three jobs to survive, except possibly if they have a lot of kids. There are many people in my, capitalist, society that survive with several kids on welfare payments. If you are aboriginal and have a few dependent children you can get upwards of CAD$50 000/year in welfare payments. These people do not otherwise work. What pays for this profligacy? A capitalist economy...

If the middle class did not have so many superfluous needs, they would not have to work so much. Do they need holidays in the Caribbean every year? Do they need two new cars every second year? Do they need a massive house in suburbia? The drive to work is, in large part, a result of the culture of excessive consumption that pervades the middle classes. In my mind, once someone is working for luxuries and not simply a comfortable existence, you can no longer pull out the "they have to work their asses off and neglect their families" card.

Is that how we want to be treated? I know I dont want to be treated like that.quote>

Well labour is a resource, what sort of system would you prefer to live in where this isn't the case? Most socialist systems treat labour as a resource as well, de facto if not de jure, because that's what it is. In pre-capitalist slave societies, labour was treated as a resource, in feudal societies it was treated as a resource. The great thing about the modern world is that human labour is not actually required to perform a wide array of functions as it was in the past.

Also, please do read and respond to my post above, it addresses your earlier posts in some detail.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Good grief!  Go away for a day or so, and everyone gets very prolix on the subject.  If you want to discuss the failings of the system and how to remedy it, perhaps a new thread would be useful.  We have taken a long detour from the subject of this thread or it is mistitled.

To talk about the U.S. economy in the same breath as capitalism is an oxmoron.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14Expecting people to find work when jobs are simply not available is not a very effective strategy. Yes, some people are lazy or suffer from mental disabilities that prevent them from getting or keeping a job, but there are also many people that have lost their jobs recently for reasons that are beyond their control. Is it just that these people should be abandoned to the elements when a society possesses the resources to assist them? This is particularly relevant in a society that has largely abandoned traditional, non-state approaches to welfare (such as family and the church), or where these are much less capable of providing the necessary support to the numbers of people that need it.quote>

I don't know if this is what he actually meant, but when people loose their jobs, just saying "ok here's a check" is a bit silly. they should, at least, be trying to improve their skills etc. with all the extra time that they have. Of course, setting up a fair and balanced system for that would be difficult (eg, people who don't live near a place of study).

[hamsterTK 93]

I don't think it's an either-or situation.

On one hand the advantage of capitalism is that people decide their needs by voting with their dollars, so to speak. It's not so much about rewards as it resource allocation and personal choice. It would be unfair if everyone was forced to conform to what the government wanted for them, or thought reasonable based on some paternalistic ideology. You wouldn't see the creation of new prosperity via efficiency and new ideas that characterizes functioning or effective capitalist societies

On the other hand you still want fairness. Everyone human should be entitled some basic standard of living to the extent that can be managed. This complements and I dare say may be necessary to have a decent capitalist economy, because then all individuals are fully part of the system. One of the greatest weaknesses of developing economies in poor countries is that the lower classes are shut out from the formal economy. They can't produce or consume and ultimately contribute because they don't have the basic means to do so. To do this you tax everyone progressively and provide those things.

So, you'd have a system that's mostly capitalist with perhaps even less government involvement in the working economy than is the status quo, but then there would be a moderate level of progressive taxation to fund social programs and public infrastructure.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

That isn't a necessary aspect of a capitalist system. Bonuses can be important as an incentive to work harder and better, however, like most things, they can also be abused. I don't think you will find the same thing in all capitalist economies, at least not to that excessive level.quote>

Bonuses are non essential. Its what the corporate top has convinced so many people, but its not true. Studies show that people wont work any harder if they get huge cash rewards. Especially if these bonuses are laid down in your contract and you can cash them in regardless of your work. They can sit back and relax and still get their bonuses at the top. 

Besides that, its simply a matter of decency. Capitalism is based on greed and greed and decency do not fit together. Short term profits are way more important these days, and short term thinking ruins entire companies. A recent study has shown that corporations that focus on short term profit loose profit in the long run. This capitalism is ruining the economy, its destroying itself. Why are we keeping a system that rewards failure, undecency, greed and is in the end, self destructive? 

There are much better alternatives. Much more stable alternatives. Alternatives that the free market and capitalism cannot provide because they are to short term focused. A government has the power to do things on a much longer term and to remain stable for a much longer term. 

 

Firstly, the lower classes do not need to work three jobs to survive, except possibly if they have a lot of kids. There are many people in my, capitalist, society that survive with several kids on welfare payments. If you are aboriginal and have a few dependent children you can get upwards of CAD$50 000/year in welfare payments. These people do not otherwise work. What pays for this profligacy? A capitalist economy...

 If the middle class did not have so many superfluous needs, they would not have to work so much. Do they need holidays in the Caribbean every year? Do they need two new cars every second year? Do they need a massive house in suburbia? The drive to work is, in large part, a result of the culture of excessive consumption that pervades the middle classes. In my mind, once someone is working for luxuries and not simply a comfortable existence, you can no longer pull out the "they have to work their asses off and neglect their families" card.quote>

I assume that means youre from Australia. I also assume that the government has some special kind of deal with the aboriginals in order to make up for past atrocities. And I assume that if youre not an aboriginal, it means you wont get as much welfare as them. And it might be paid by a largely capitalistic system, any welfare system is by default based on socialistic ideas. Welfare is socialistic. And the amount of welfare provided usually determs how socialistic a government is. 

Oh yes, we are slaves to our need. A logical result from a consumer society. And a consumer society is the logical result from a society who has based its economy on capitalism. Capitalism would have never worked if there wasnt for consumerism. Everything would go bankrupt if people suddenly didnt care anymore for their cars, their tv's and holidays to whatever place. The entire economy is based on the luxury needs of people. However, to increase profits, companies are stimulating this. And they are decreasing the lifetime of the products. How else can they continue to make more profit if people dont buy more stuff. So eventually at some theoretical point, will basically be buying a new car every week, and a new mp3-player everyday. Of course, such a thing is unsustainable, because of the lack of resources. So, company profits will fall, and they are going to lay off more company divisions. Profits increase for the next fiscal quarters, but after that drop again, so more cutting will be required. What the corporate hardly realizes is that they are cutting in their own money pool. Who do you think that buys most of the crap that is produced these days? Africans? Chinese? Vietnamese? Hell no, Europeans and Americans do. But yeah, nobody is going to buy anything if they dont got any jobs. Jobs that happened to be outsourced to China and Vietnam. People that where laid off because they needed to make 1.1 billion dollars instead of just 1 billion. See what Im saying? The system is going to destroy itself because its based on a unsustainable short term approach. 

 

 

Well labour is a resource, what sort of system would you prefer to live in where this isn't the case? Most socialist systems treat labour as a resource as well, de facto if not de jure, because that's what it is. In pre-capitalist slave societies, labour was treated as a resource, in feudal societies it was treated as a resource. The great thing about the modern world is that human labour is not actually required to perform a wide array of functions as it was in the past.quote>

Then in that sense socialism is just as wrong. However, in a socialist society, the society will provide for you once youre used up. In a capitalistic society, youre screwed. 

Take a look at the Netherlands, thats where Im from. Currently we are facing an economic crisis combined with the fact that people are getting older. So what do we do? We raise the pension age to 67, we want to force 2 year olds into school that goes on from 8 till 6 so mommy and daddy can work full time. Asides from that, wages are going to be frozen and people will have to do more because its more efficient. People are going to be treated as simple coal to fuel the fire of the economy. Im not coal and Ill be damned if the government decides when Im going to work, how long Im going to work, and when Im allowed to stop working.  

Also, please do read and respond to my post above, it addresses your earlier posts in some detail.quote>

[raja_indy14 8]

On the other hand you still want fairness. Everyone human should be entitled some basic standard of living to the extent that can be managed. This complements and I dare say may be necessary to have a decent capitalist economy, because then all individuals are fully part of the system.quote>

Adam Smith addresses this in Theory of Moral Sentiments, that book of his that people tend to forget about. He believed that for the invisible hand to function properly people needed to have developed a system of moral sentiments that prevented highly exploitative behaviour. For him this development was necessary for there to be truly free markets, in the meantime he believed that the state should function to address the lack of moral sentiment. Basically, in the absence of equality arising naturally because actors are compelled to assist their fellow human beings, the state would have to impose moral sentiments to ensure that people were not trampled upon under the boot of a laissez-faire capitalism.

Personally, I think that a truly free market would be horrible from a human point of view, and I don't even think it would necessarily be the most prosperous. Capitalism as a system rests on the inviolability of private property, the freedom of people to make economic choices with an aim to accumulating or producing more capital, and the rule of law to protect individuals and their property from the state. I think that allowing largely free markets to allocate resources is the most efficient and productive method, attempting to artificially control this through bureaucratic central planning is unlikely to be successful, although there are examples were some sort of management has been successful. Perhaps in the future highly advanced computer models will be able to plan economies centrally to maximize both public welfare and prosperity.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Originally posted by: raja_indy14Expecting people to find work when jobs are simply not available is not a very effective strategy. Yes, some people are lazy or suffer from mental disabilities that prevent them from getting or keeping a job, but there are also many people that have lost their jobs recently for reasons that are beyond their control. Is it just that these people should be abandoned to the elements when a society possesses the resources to assist them? This is particularly relevant in a society that has largely abandoned traditional, non-state approaches to welfare (such as family and the church), or where these are much less capable of providing the necessary support to the numbers of people that need it.quote>

I don't know if this is what he actually meant, but when people loose their jobs, just saying "ok here's a check" is a bit silly. they should, at least, be trying to improve their skills etc. with all the extra time that they have. Of course, setting up a fair and balanced system for that would be difficult (eg, people who don't live near a place of study).

quote>

It doesn't work that way in Canada.  If you are an Employment Insurance claimant you must be ready and willing to work each day and you must report what efforts you have made to find work.  You can be audited at any time.  Fraudulent claims require restitution, and you will be kicked out of the system.  The problem lies in those whose EI has expired.  They automatically fall through the cracks and are no longer even counted as unemployed by Statistics Canada.  StatsCan needs a new category of "Fallen off the system and unreported further' which should show up somewhere for at least a year.  In my case, I had to find part-time work until I reached retirement age or we would have starved as my wife was disabled and I had two kids in school.  Needless to say, all this ate my retirement savings and I am now on basic Canada Pension and the Income Supplement.  This allows me to make ends meet, but leaves no room for previously acquired debt payments, so I am now a deadbeat, and the bank is foreclosing my house.  This too shall pass.

[raja_indy14 8]

Bonuses are non essential. Its what the corporate top has convinced so many people, but its not true.quote>

I actually wasn't referring specifically to bonuses for CEOs, I meant bonuses existing throughout the system. For instance, I have a friend in retail and they get a regular wage plus a bonus (not a commission) based on sales. This encourages better work on their part. Bonuses and awards are used consistently throughout society to encourage excellence and achievement. I'm not saying that in the case of CEO bonuses these are reasonable or effective, but that (a) excessive CEO bonuses are not an inherent element of capitalism, and (b) as with most things they are open to abuse (as they clearly are being here). Obviously if a bonus isn't tied to performance it ceases to have much effect.

Why are we keeping a system that rewards failure, undecency, greed and is in the end, self destructive? quote>

Do you mean, why are we keeping capitalism, or why are we keeping the current model of capitalism? If capitalism is so self destructive, how has it managed to survive and prosper for so many years. Also, what other system succeeds as consistently at producing wealth and lifting people out of poverty?

I assume that means youre from Australia. I also assume that the government has some special kind of deal with the aboriginals in order to make up for past atrocities. And I assume that if youre not an aboriginal, it means you wont get as much welfare as them. And it might be paid by a largely capitalistic system, any welfare system is by default based on socialistic ideas. Welfare is socialistic. And the amount of welfare provided usually determs how socialistic a government is. quote>

The "CAD$" should have suggested Canadian, but it's basically the same thing. And no, you generally can't get the same levels of welfare as them, but as I am technically a visible minority I do get a boost, particularly if I want to get a government job, it's almost as good as speaking French. But hey, at least we're starting to pay for our past actions, I wonder how far Holland has gone to reimbursing the people of Indonesia for four centuries of economic exploitation? (Before you go criticizing Canada for our atrocities)

Either way, Canada is a capitalist country, not a socialist one.

And a consumer society is the logical result from a society who has based its economy on capitalism. Capitalism would have never worked if there wasnt for consumerism. Everything would go bankrupt if people suddenly didnt care anymore for their cars, their tv's and holidays to whatever place. The entire economy is based on the luxury needs of people. However, to increase profits, companies are stimulating this. And they are decreasing the lifetime of the products. How else can they continue to make more profit if people dont buy more stuff. So eventually at some theoretical point, will basically be buying a new car every week, and a new mp3-player everyday. Of course, such a thing is unsustainable, because of the lack of resources. So, company profits will fall, and they are going to lay off more company divisions. Profits increase for the next fiscal quarters, but after that drop again, so more cutting will be required. What the corporate hardly realizes is that they are cutting in their own money pool. Who do you think that buys most of the crap that is produced these days? Africans? Chinese? Vietnamese? Hell no, Europeans and Americans do. But yeah, nobody is going to buy anything if they dont got any jobs. Jobs that happened to be outsourced to China and Vietnam. People that where laid off because they needed to make 1.1 billion dollars instead of just 1 billion. See what Im saying? The system is going to destroy itself because its based on a unsustainable short term approach. quote>

I'm wondering what your background is in political economy, do you happen to have a degree in it? (I hope not)

Yes, capitalism would be much less prosperous if there wasn't a rampant consumer culture, but to be honest it doesn't seem like the current levels of consumption are at all sustainable even in the medium term. Not from a resource perspective, but from a credit one. Western societies, and particularly that of the United States, can only have so much personal and public debt being owed overseas before the system either collapses or there is a large scale takeover of the US economy by foreign interests. Yes, capitalist free markets suffer from cyclical crises, they do fail periodically and luckily we have strong states (in the west anyways) to pick it up when it stumbles. The overproduction of durable goods in the booming 1950s and 60s contributed economic problems in the 1970s when the need for fridges, stoves, and cars went down. It is a dangerous thing to constantly require more and more consumption to keep the economy going, that's why I think there are serious systemic problems with many western, and particularly the US, economies. Do I think that the entire thing will meltdown in the next decade? Probably not, but I suppose it is possible.

As for outsourcing, it is only seen as "taking a job" if viewed through the lens of economic nationalism. Globally, the job simply moves somewhere else to someone that is willing to work for less in poorer conditions and with less benefits. But western economies are largely service economies anyways. The US might lose ten manufacturing jobs overseas but create jobs in retail to sell these cheaper, more numerous goods, or perhaps use the profits to hire more management consultants, advertisers, or accountants. People need to stop viewing it as a zero-sum game. If it were a zero-sum game, we'd still be back where we were three hundred years ago. And the outsourcing crisis is hardly as extreme as all that, it's been happening for decades without precipitating a general collapse of the world capitalist system.

Anyways, if we want to look at it humanely, what is so bad about a job going from a (relatively) wealthy American who will have some access to welfare in his home country to a Chinese migrant laborer living in absolute poverty who may otherwise have to watch their children starve to death? It is harsh, I'll grant you, but you have to start somewhere. Britain? Europe? Japan and South Korea? They all started off industrialization with horrific working conditions, it was the factories of nineteenth century Britain that convinced people there had to be a better way of organizing things (socialism).

However, in a socialist society, the society will provide for you once youre used up. In a capitalistic society, youre screwed. quote>

And yet most capitalist societies are ruled by states that encourage and provide old age pensions. In fact, the idea of a pension was invented in a capitalist society, by a capitalist!

Im not coal and Ill be damned if the government decides when Im going to work, how long Im going to work, and when Im allowed to stop working.quote>

Bravo! You've just described a socialist system.

People are going to be treated as simple coal to fuel the fire of the economy.quote>

In some socialist societies, this could almost be taken literally.

There was no evidence at all that the big recession from the 30's was coming. The day before it happened the President of the US hold a speech to the congress saying everything was running smoothly and they had no reason assume that would change.quote>

To be fair to them, knowledge of economies and gathering and making sense of detailed economic data was far more primitive back then compared to today. Also, I wouldn't say speeches to Congress are the most reliable indicators of economic reality, he's hardly going to say "under my presidency the US economy is going to crash and burn" (cue: standing ovation). That said, yes, I do tend to be skeptical of medium to long term economic forecasts, particularly those that are overly optimistic or overly pessimistic.

As for clean fuel, back in the 80's we knew oil would dry up some day.quote>

Well a few academics forecast it and people were beginning to realize that it was, indeed, finite. On the other hand, oil could be expected to spurt out the Arabian desert for the foreseeable future, and superfluity for the foreseeable future is all humans need to start and continue overconsumption. Even our cavemen ancestors did this, it seems to be an intractable human character defect. It is evidenced by human societies throughout history, it's only when serious shortages loom do people begin to start mitigating consumption, often too late and accompanied by bloodletting of some form or another. Of course, if you're an optimist about human nature you might be surprised that we're still like this, if you're more realistic you'd simply see it as business as usual.

Yet it was to expensive to further research on the short term (like I said, we all focus on short term profits, thats why anything that takes more then 5 years to research is not funded). Had they done it, they would have had a cheap plane that would have used fuel much more efficiently, which in turn would have helped them on the long run a lot more then what they saved by scratching the project and focus on conventional fuels. quote>

Most humans are shortsighted. Is this a defect peculiar to capitalist societies? I don't know, did the Soviet Union practice sustainable development? Did the pre-capitalist Spaniards let the wholesale destruction of their forests get in the way of producing merino wool? Was the Great Leap Forward so successful at increasing long term economic productivity at minimal cost in human lives and to the environment as to be worthy of emulation?

Anyways, the plane wouldn't have been cheap, you pay a premium for fuel efficiency.

Europe is more energy efficient because it was forced to be. If the same constraints had existed in North America we likely would have been forced to adopt similar measures earlier, but there have to be incentives. In the absence of an inflamed public crying about global warming or high oil prices, the government is hardly going to take the steps necessary to induce firms to research energy efficient technologies. Without government intervention, firms will hardly start producing things that consumers don't seem to want.

As for the fairy tale that all is better if stuff is cheaper when you produce it somewhere else. Yes, it is cheaper. But cheaper wont do you anything if you dont got any job to pay for even cheap stuff. Out sourcing makes the rich class richer because they are the ones that actually profit from decreased costs in stuff. But in the mean time, the lower classes loose their jobs and suddenly cant pay for anything but the basic things. And in an economy that mainly works on luxury stuff thats a bad thing....quote>

It isn't a fairytale, it's comparative advantage. Complaining about outsourcing is rather silly. Manufacturing jobs have been outsourced from Canada and we don't have the income inequality of the United States, ditto for Europe, Japan, or South Korea. The system as it exists in the United States exacerbates wealth disparities, but you can hardly blame all that on outsourcing. Outsourcing also happens to increase the wealth of the countries where the jobs migrate too. Yes, if we want to be economic nationalists and selfish we might say "why should a Chinese person have a job?", but is there any fundamental reason why a job that can be done more cheaply and efficiently somewhere else must stay in the country?

Also, a lower cost of consumer goods actually helps poor people, not rich people (this is fairly basic). If we didn't have Wal-Marts with its cheap, outsourced goods, many poorer people would be much more constrained in their choice of consumer goods. Lower consumer goods help a lot of poorer people make ends meet. Yes, for a few people the cost is acute, but there are tangible benefits to a lot of other people (both within and outside of the country). What I am saying is that the cost-benefit analysis of outsourced labour is not nearly so simple as "we're losing jobs to foreigners", that is just the simplistic explanation that grabs peoples attention and can be used for political ends or to sell newspapers.

(Of course, if I lost my manufacturing job because it was outsourced, I would have a different opinion. The difference being that that opinion would be highly emotionally charged.)

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

I actually wasn't referring specifically to bonuses for CEOs, I meant bonuses existing throughout the system. For instance, I have a friend in retail and they get a regular wage plus a bonus (not a commission) based on sales. This encourages better work on their part. Bonuses and awards are used consistently throughout society to encourage excellence and achievement. I'm not saying that in the case of CEO bonuses these are reasonable or effective, but that (a) excessive CEO bonuses are not an inherent element of capitalism, and (b) as with most things they are open to abuse (as they clearly are being here). Obviously if a bonus isn't tied to performance it ceases to have much effect.quote>

Your friends bonuses arent likely to be excessive when he sells a bit more stuff. 

At the other hand, bonuses do work dirty selling in the hand. Ive worked for call centers that gave a bonus for everything you sold, and there where quite some people who still made sells to people who said they werent sure yet about it. You hear complaints like that all the time. Its probably one of the other reasons why everyone hates call centers, besides them bugging you during dinner.  

 

 

Do you mean, why are we keeping capitalism, or why are we keeping the current model of capitalism? If capitalism is so self destructive, how has it managed to survive and prosper for so many years. Also, what other system succeeds as consistently at producing wealth and lifting people out of poverty?quote>

It managed to survive because everyone believed in it. So far there have been about 3 major crisis caused by flaws within the system. And everytime the government believed in it and kept pumping money into the economy and into the system to prevent it from collapsing. If they hadnt done it, kept pumping money in it, kept keeping it alive then capitalism would have ceased to exist back in the 30's. 

And you can say a lot about Communist Russia, but before the revolution, Russia was a backward peasant country with no notable industry at all. In a few decades after the revolution, Russia was suddenly an industrial and political giant and its citizens sure ended up richer and better fed then before the revolution. It is doubtful if they would have done that without communism. 

The problem with communism was that it was trying to rival with capitalism one terms like wealth and manufactured goods. In other words, it was trying to beat capitalism on its own terrain. Which of course it was doomed to loose. Because youre right, when it comes to the division of resources, the free market is the most effective. Communism was less effective, but does that mean its a totally worthless system? 

 

 

The "CAD$" should have suggested Canadian, but it's basically the same thing. And no, you generally can't get the same levels of welfare as them, but as I am technically a visible minority I do get a boost, particularly if I want to get a government job, it's almost as good as speaking French. But hey, at least we're starting to pay for our past actions, I wonder how far Holland has gone to reimbursing the people of Indonesia for four centuries of economic exploitation? (Before you go criticizing Canada for our atrocities)

 Either way, Canada is a capitalist country, not a socialist one.quote>

Oh my bad, didnt realize the CAD$ part. And no, I wasnt criticizing Canada for atrocities against anyone. Im merely saying that your welfare is partly based on the fact that youre  a minority and its probably part of some payback deal or something. 

As for us trying to repay Indonesia, I think we have done as much as we could and as much as they wanted us. We have been, and in certain cases, still are, involved politically in our former colonies. Either with advice as well as financial support. Cant say the same about most other countries former colonies who just got abandoned and left to their own (judging by the state of Africa anyways) 

I'm wondering what your background is in political economy, do you happen to have a degree in it? (I hope not)quote>

Still studying. 

 

Yes, capitalism would be much less prosperous if there wasn't a rampant consumer culture, but to be honest it doesn't seem like the current levels of consumption are at all sustainable even in the medium term. Not from a resource perspective, but from a credit one. Western societies, and particularly that of the United States, can only have so much personal and public debt being owed overseas before the system either collapses or there is a large scale takeover of the US economy by foreign interests. Yes, capitalist free markets suffer from cyclical crises, they do fail periodically and luckily we have strong states (in the west anyways) to pick it up when it stumbles. The overproduction of durable goods in the booming 1950s and 60s contributed economic problems in the 1970s when the need for fridges, stoves, and cars went down. It is a dangerous thing to constantly require more and more consumption to keep the economy going, that's why I think there are serious systemic problems with many western, and particularly the US, economies. Do I think that the entire thing will meltdown in the next decade? Probably not, but I suppose it is possible.quote>

Well you get it. Only difference here is that Im much more pessimistic about the future of capitalism, mainly because next time it fails there are no strong states to pick it up, because all those states are in huge debts already. America cannot afford another bail out like before. And the alternative for the bail out is  a total economic meltdown. It would be the same as pushing the reset button for the entire world economy. Global trade would pretty much cease to exist, unemployment rates go up, starvation at certain areas, social discontent, the rise of extremist movements, its going to be the 1930's all over again. 

 

As for outsourcing, it is only seen as "taking a job" if viewed through the lens of economic nationalism. Globally, the job simply moves somewhere else to someone that is willing to work for less in poorer conditions and with less benefits. But western economies are largely service economies anyways. The US might lose ten manufacturing jobs overseas but create jobs in retail to sell these cheaper, more numerous goods, or perhaps use the profits to hire more management consultants, advertisers, or accountants. People need to stop viewing it as a zero-sum game. If it were a zero-sum game, we'd still be back where we were three hundred years ago. And the outsourcing crisis is hardly as extreme as all that, it's been happening for decades without precipitating a general collapse of the world capitalist system.

 Anyways, if we want to look at it humanely, what is so bad about a job going from a (relatively) wealthy American who will have some access to welfare in his home country to a Chinese migrant laborer living in absolute poverty who may otherwise have to watch their children starve to death? It is harsh, I'll grant you, but you have to start somewhere. Britain? Europe? Japan and South Korea? They all started off industrialization with horrific working conditions, it was the factories of nineteenth century Britain that convinced people there had to be a better way of organizing things (socialism).quote>

Its starts with manufacturing jobs, but its rather naive to think that only manufacturing jobs are the ones that are going to be outsourced. Those countries are developing rapidly, and pretty soon, it will be cheaper to outsource the services as well to those areas. And maybe not entire companies, but just a whole bunch of company divisions. I mean, why pay for expensive American accountants if there are a bunch of equally good Chinese people who will do the same for half the price? Its inevitable that at some point, entire companies just move pretty much everything to those countries because everything is cheaper there. 

 

And yet most capitalist societies are ruled by states that encourage and provide old age pensions. In fact, the idea of a pension was invented in a capitalist society, by a capitalist!quote>

Who, Bismark? Hehehehe, he only did it because he hated communists and socialists and thought that if he would do this, he would beat them at their own game. Realpolitik. 

Also, the ones that encouraged it are all largely in Europe and Europe is dominantly socialist (especially when compared to America) in its views. But that changes, because yeah, we want to keep our jobs and that means we must maintain a good economical position compared to other countries, so wages and stuff cant go up to much or we will become to expensive and companies move away en mass to China. And since the crisis left us with huge debts, we will have to cut our budget with approximately 30 billion euros in 4-8 years. So, pensions? much to expensive, away with it. Welfare? also to expensive, major cuts there too. Like I said, everyone MUST participate in the economic process if we want to maintain the current level of wealth. 

 

To be fair to them, knowledge of economies and gathering and making sense of detailed economic data was far more primitive back then compared to today. Also, I wouldn't say speeches to Congress are the most reliable indicators of economic reality, he's hardly going to say "under my presidency the US economy is going to crash and burn" (cue: standing ovation). That said, yes, I do tend to be skeptical of medium to long term economic forecasts, particularly those that are overly optimistic or overly pessimistic.quote>

Even now they cant forecast anything. There was like one economic expert that predicted the crisis, and everyone else just ignored him or said it wasnt true. As I mentioned above, we need to cut the government budget with about 30 billion euros. We dont know for sure, because some economic experts say we must cut it with 60-70 billion euros while others say that 16 billion euros is enough. Nobody knows for sure. Nobody can know for sure. There are so many factors that can have huge effects on the economy. Besides that, its mostly just psychology, and humans utterly fail in that.

 

 

Well a few academics forecast it and people were beginning to realize that it was, indeed, finite. On the other hand, oil could be expected to spurt out the Arabian desert for the foreseeable future, and superfluity for the foreseeable future is all humans need to start and continue overconsumption. Even our cavemen ancestors did this, it seems to be an intractable human character defect. It is evidenced by human societies throughout history, it's only when serious shortages loom do people begin to start mitigating consumption, often too late and accompanied by bloodletting of some form or another. Of course, if you're an optimist about human nature you might be surprised that we're still like this, if you're more realistic you'd simply see it as business as usual.quote>

What I meant to say was that if science wasnt completly funded by corporate money, scientist might already have invented cars or fuel that where more efficient, cleaner, etc etc. But because of their corporate funding, science has become completely dependent on what a bunch of suits somewhere in a sky scraped decide what to continue and what not. And due to the short term thinking of those corporate suits, science does not produce a lot of new things anymore, because its to expensive and the immediate gains are to little. 

Thats what I meant with that science produces nothing anymore. 

 

 

It isn't a fairytale, it's comparative advantage. Complaining about outsourcing is rather silly. Manufacturing jobs have been outsourced from Canada and we don't have the income inequality of the United States, ditto for Europe, Japan, or South Korea. The system as it exists in the United States exacerbates wealth disparities, but you can hardly blame all that on outsourcing. Outsourcing also happens to increase the wealth of the countries where the jobs migrate too. Yes, if we want to be economic nationalists and selfish we might say "why should a Chinese person have a job?", but is there any fundamental reason why a job that can be done more cheaply and efficiently somewhere else must stay in the country?

Also, a lower cost of consumer goods actually helps poor people, not rich people (this is fairly basic). If we didn't have Wal-Marts with its cheap, outsourced goods, many poorer people would be much more constrained in their choice of consumer goods. Lower consumer goods help a lot of poorer people make ends meet. Yes, for a few people the cost is acute, but there are tangible benefits to a lot of other people (both within and outside of the country). What I am saying is that the cost-benefit analysis of outsourced labour is not nearly so simple as "we're losing jobs to foreigners", that is just the simplistic explanation that grabs peoples attention and can be used for political ends or to sell newspapers.

(Of course, if I lost my manufacturing job because it was outsourced, I would have a different opinion. The difference being that that opinion would be highly emotionally charged.)
quote>

The fact that wal mart is the cause people need extremely cheap goods is easily forgotten. People might say that wal mart with its cheap goods helps poor people get around, but wal mart itself keeps those same people poor. They dont pay their employees more then the bare minimum and they destroy local economies by driving everything out of business that cant compete thus destroying local jobs. Both cause that people remain poor. 

Also, yes, why should a Chinese guy get the job? Why cant China develop its own economy and give Chinese people jobs in Chinese companies? Let them compete in the quality of the product instead of the price. Wouldnt that be much better for the consumer? Having choice between 2 products, one is cheaper but technically inferior, the other is more expensive, but the quality lies a lot higher. No excessive profits, and a real choice between products that obviously differ from each other in other things then price. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

What I tire of the most though are how people find it so easy to ignore how many things are subsidized(socialism at work). 

If you want a pure free enterprise system let us quit fooling ourselves.  Get rid of these programs:

Public Schools of any stripe(Including Universities and Colleges)quote>

Okay. I'd like that. At least get the federal government the hell out of the business, locally it's less of an issue.

Medicarequote>

is a bloated crock of you-know-what and ought to be killed.

The Interstate highway system(make all roads toll roads, they are thinking of doing something like this in Louisville,KY to finance a new bridge and people are screaming)quote>

A practical problem with that is that tolls must be placed at specific points, and in order to prevent people from bypassing them you must either place them profusely or design the road system so there isn't a viable free alternative.

Besides, our "free" public highways aren't really socialist in nature because they are funded by taxes on gas and motor oil. Thus, you pay for them in ammount proportional to your use of them. They aren't "subsidized" in the technical sense.

I would, however, offer that federal highway funding shouldn't exist. The states are already the ones designing and maintaining the major highways, why not pay for them on that level, too?

Fix the so called tax system. Keep the taxes just get rid of the garbage.quote>

If you mean that taxes need to be simpler, I agree wholeheartedly. Also, not just simpler, but lower.

All guaranteed loans of any type.quote>

Yup. If someone defaults on a loan you gave them, the taxpayers shouldn't be picking up the tab.

All federal subsidies of any kind.quote>

Well, there are so many of them that statistics dictate you could probably find one I may actually sort of like. But generally speaking? Yeah. Federal subsidies shouldn't exist.

Social Securityquote>

Indeed. This idea of a government pension plan is silly. As for supporting the disabled, there is no reason that needs to be handled all the way up on the federal level.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

How will it be bad for the economy if you tax certain excesses away? Take that guy from Goldman Sachs. Hes an arrogant bank manager that is partly the cause of the economic crisis. He is a fraud and he has earned millions with bonuses. So why not put a 99% tax on a bonus that is more then 100.000 dollar? Dont tell me these guys need millions to keep the economy running. Dont tell me that these people single handily keep the economy running with their extreme salaries. quote>

The problem is that if you tax away all the "excessive" wealth of people like bank managers, there is no incentive to work for that much money and we wouldn't have bank managers. They'd all go work some other lesser job where they'd actually get to keep a decent portion of their paycheck.

So far there have been about 3 major crisis caused by flaws within the system. And everytime the government believed in it and kept pumping money into the economy and into the system to prevent it from collapsing. If they hadnt done it, kept pumping money in it, kept keeping it alive then capitalism would have ceased to exist back in the 30's.quote>

Oh please. This idea that things like the New Deal or ARRA are somehow "saving" capitalism is BS. Bailouts go utterly against capitalist principles. They are not a rescue of it, they are an attack on it. And indeed, they only serve to prolong recessions and depressions. If the government hadn't pumped money into the system in the 30s, capitalism would not have failed. It is perfectly capable of recovering on its own without government intervention.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

All this talk about government intervention reminds me that a lot of this is due to one man, namely John Maynard Keynes.  Keynesian economics is what got us into this in the first place.  If anyone should have been strangled in his cradle it is this stupid theoretician.

In a true capitalist system, the weak go to the wall.  In the Keynesian system, the weak make begging noises at the government and the government, not wanting to exacerbate its low ratings with the peepull, give in.  The most recent event here is the series of bailouts.  Wall Street would look just fine with fewer banks and even fewer brokers busily inventing new ways to hook people out of their money.  A little leanness and meanness would go a long way to sobering up those money-drunken fools.

As for the big three auto makers:  when you continue to perpetrate a shoddy product on the public in the face of imported quality while ignoring people like John Crosby (Quality Without Tears), you deserve to have the system take its toll on you.  Here you have big labour as well as big business putting pressure on the government (us!) to save their souls (if they have one) and jobs.  They all want to keep their 4,000 square foot homes with the swimming pools and three-car garages.  The auto sector worker is the most overpaid and underproductive group that has ever been described as "workers".  Engineered obsolescence is one of the curses on our society that was invented by these guys.  Their designers should be ashamed and the engineers should hang their heads for pulling this trick on the public for so long.  I note that of the big three, only Ford was prudent enough to avoid asking for a bailout, and they have pulled through.  General Motors is far to general and diversified to be a proper business, and Chrysler Corporation (is it still called that) deserves to go to the wall, like any failed business.  These guys have managed to make the economy "dependent" on them, and we deserve what we get for allowing it to happen.  They are part of the military/industrial complex that really runs the western economy which treats governments as bank branch offices.  Nothwithstanding the employment dislocations, maybe it is time for them to really, really face up to their lack of success.  Before you jump on me, success is not measured by sales or wealth resulting from this, but by the simple principle of doing well while doing good.  They have been around too long for any good they are doing, and it is time to go.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Duke87

The problem is that if you tax away all the "excessive" wealth of people like bank managers, there is no incentive to work for that much money and we wouldn't have bank managers. They'd all go work some other lesser job where they'd actually get to keep a decent portion of their paycheck.quote>

If thats the case, all the more proof that a capitalistic system only breeds greedy rotten people that should have no place in any society. If money is the only thing that motivates you, then your motivation is pretty bad to begin with. 

And dont tell me that people will work at a more boring, less challenging job that sucks in many more aspects only because the netto win is a more then being top manager at a big business bank.  Like everyone wants to work for a call center because it pays more then a wal mart. Where I come from most people dont hold it out much longer then a month at a call center, while people who work behind the counter in the supermarket dont have so much motivational problems, while a call center earns thrice as much as a super market.  

 

Oh please. This idea that things like the New Deal or ARRA are somehow "saving" capitalism is BS. Bailouts go utterly against capitalist principles. They are not a rescue of it, they are an attack on it. And indeed, they only serve to prolong recessions and depressions. If the government hadn't pumped money into the system in the 30s, capitalism would not have failed. It is perfectly capable of recovering on its own without government intervention.

quote>

Well you obviously dont understand how it works, allow me to explain it. 

We had several runs on banks because they where falling over. What exactly is a run on a bank? You get a run on a bank when people loose their trust in the bank. Remember: they loose their TRUST. Trust is something that you can loose regardless of the how the bank is doing. So the bank could be perfectly healthy and people could still loose their trust and initiate a run. This is contrary to the belief of free market prophets, who claim that only the healthy banks would survive. That is utter bull*****. Why? Because if 3 or 4 major banks fall over due to the credit crisis, its the human nature to become paranoid about the healthy banks. In the mean while, the healthy banks will do everything to try and keep the peoples faith in their bank. The fact that they are doing this will only fuel the paranoia. People will start to wonder why the bank is claiming they are doing great. They never did that before, so why would they be doing that now? The seemingly logical conclusion most people will get is that the bank isnt healthy at all, and is just saying it to prevent a run. So, what happens? EXACTLY! A run is initiated. So the healthy banks will fall over as well, because runs on banks have nothing to do with the health of the bank. Its all psychological. So each bank that succumbs to a run will spark two other runs on other banks due to the global panic caused by the media that will cover each aspect of every bank run. 

So, after a few months, when the dust has settled, what do we see? Well, no banks, they have all fallen over. And what would that trigger? Well seeing how banks are the number one credit creators, it means that everyone is screwed. People, companies, even countries. Nobody can pay of their loans suddenly because each and every single loan suddenly has to be paid instantly. Nobody can afford that. So everyone goes bankrupt. The entire world economy goes bankrupt. Besides that, nobody can do anything anymore because they cant loan any new money because the banks dont exist anymore. Also, nobody has their savings anymore because the banks are gone, along with all the money they used to have. So, total economic collapse on a global scale. Suddenly we are all just as poor as the poorest guy in Africa. Social discontent spreads due to the huge failure of the government in preventing this, as well as the huge economic failure because the market didnt prevent this. Of course the market didnt prevent this, this is after all the true essence of the free market. So, strong individuals arise, America turns into a theocracy because fundamental christians grab power, in Europe the fascists take over and a decade later World War 3 ravages across the world, killing 3 billion people. 

Well the last is just speculation, but the total economic collapse is true. If the bail out didnt happen, there wouldnt be any economy left to save. Everything would have collapsed, no exceptions. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Some people want to make money so that they can get the prestige of publicly donating millions of dollars to charities or having one's name on a library, school, hospital, etc. Some people who make a lot of money do not live that "fabulously;" I cannot say the same thing about their heirs.

[BoxCarRacer 1]

IMO capitalism works the best. It rewards the hard working, punishes the lazy, and allows people to reach their full potential. I don't want to live in a society where no matter what I do, I'm going to reach the same point that everyone else reaches. That just sucks the motivation out of me. Think about school. School throughout the world is "capitalist". The students level of work and effort determines there grade. Imagine if a teacher gave everybody a 75 on the test, regardless of how many questions they got right. Would you ever study? Would you ever bother to learn the material?

Some students are born smart and therefore they may get better grades than classmates who work equally hard. Are you saying we should punish those kids, and deduct from there grade, just because they were born with intelligence that their classmates weren't? I don't think anyone here would say that. For that same reason, why punish somebody who was born into an affluent situation, and was able to use there opportunities to get a great job. Did they ask to be born into a rich family? is that there fault?

If you answer every question on the test right, you earn a 100. If you work hard in life and play your cards right, and sign a deal for a million dollars at a great job. Congrats, you earned it. You don't deserve to lose what you work for your whole life because someone else didn't work as hard as you, didn't get the opportunity you got, or works harder than you. Imagine if a teacher gave everybody a 75 on the test, regardless of how many questions they got right. Would you ever study? Would you ever bother to learn the material?

Thats why I don't like socialism. My success so far in life has all been made out of outworking others. In football, I was one of the last people on the depth charts my sophomore year. The day after the season ended, I went into the weight room, and lifted, ran, and trained every single day. While the people ahead of me where sitting on a couch smoking pot, I was working, and I earned a big role on the team when my junior season came around. In school, when everybody else is playing COD or [once again, sitting on a couch smoking pot haha] i'm working hard on my work or extracurriculars. That's why i'm looking at top level colleges and some people I know will be lucky to get into one college.

Now, I come from an affluent community, so perhaps my view is biased towards the current system. I understand that if you are struggling under the current system, it seems unfair and it seems like the wealthier just get whatever they want. It's not true. You can be born into money and comfort, but you have to work hard to stay into it, because every year kids from my community graduate and because they don't work hard or they mess up, in a few years they are back at square one, without money and a good future. And for every one person who falls from wealth to poverty, there is another that rises from poverty to wealth. Just because there are a few greedy jerks like the Goldman Sachs guy, and a few rich brats who use daddy's money to get famous [paris hilton] doesn't mean the system in general is broken.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: BoxCarRacer

IMO capitalism works the best. It rewards the hard working, punishes the lazy, and allows people to reach their full potential. I don't want to live in a society where no matter what I do, I'm going to reach the same point that everyone else reaches. That just sucks the motivation out of me. Think about school. School throughout the world is "capitalist". The students level of work and effort determines there grade. Imagine if a teacher gave everybody a 75 on the test, regardless of how many questions they got right. Would you ever study? Would you ever bother to learn the material?

Some students are born smart and therefore they may get better grades than classmates who work equally hard. Are you saying we should punish those kids, and deduct from there grade, just because they were born with intelligence that their classmates weren't? I don't think anyone here would say that. For that same reason, why punish somebody who was born into an affluent situation, and was able to use there opportunities to get a great job. Did they ask to be born into a rich family? is that there fault?

If you answer every question on the test right, you earn a 100. If you work hard in life and play your cards right, and sign a deal for a million dollars at a great job. Congrats, you earned it. You don't deserve to lose what you work for your whole life because someone else didn't work as hard as you, didn't get the opportunity you got, or works harder than you. Imagine if a teacher gave everybody a 75 on the test, regardless of how many questions they got right. Would you ever study? Would you ever bother to learn the material?

Thats why I don't like socialism. My success so far in life has all been made out of outworking others. In football, I was one of the last people on the depth charts my sophomore year. The day after the season ended, I went into the weight room, and lifted, ran, and trained every single day. While the people ahead of me where sitting on a couch smoking pot, I was working, and I earned a big role on the team when my junior season came around. In school, when everybody else is playing COD or [once again, sitting on a couch smoking pot haha] i'm working hard on my work or extracurriculars. That's why i'm looking at top level colleges and some people I know will be lucky to get into one college.

Now, I come from an affluent community, so perhaps my view is biased towards the current system. I understand that if you are struggling under the current system, it seems unfair and it seems like the wealthier just get whatever they want. It's not true. You can be born into money and comfort, but you have to work hard to stay into it, because every year kids from my community graduate and because they don't work hard or they mess up, in a few years they are back at square one, without money and a good future. And for every one person who falls from wealth to poverty, there is another that rises from poverty to wealth. Just because there are a few greedy jerks like the Goldman Sachs guy, and a few rich brats who use daddy's money to get famous [paris hilton] doesn't mean the system in general is broken.

quote>

All nonsense. I dont see a Paris Hilton do a day of honest work in her entire life, yet she earns millions by just partying. Why? Because she got lucky and was born into a rich family. 

Simple fact. People who are born in rich family have so much more to get better grades, go to a good college and end up in a well paid job, while their actual achievements are mediocre. 

What your saying is that someone who works 14 hours a day for a minimum wage somehow deserved that. The actual reason why that person works 14 hours a day for a minimum wage is because college was to expensive and her family was to poor to pay for it. Only in socialist countries these people get a chance to make something of their life. Only in socialist environments these people are given a chance, not based on their parents wealth but based on their actual achievements. 

Socialism does not reward the weak. It does not give everyone a 75 on a test regardless of how many questions they got right. Those that work hard get somewhere in socialism. Those that dont get a sucky job. But at least they wont starve from their mistakes. Unlike in a free for all social Darwinist Capitalistic society where you will be punished for the mistakes of your grandfather. In capitalism once poor means that you will be poor forever. And your kids and grandkids as well. 

[CroatianZGB 1]

Sory for my English first, but... Sweden have strong economy, and the best social program in the world!!! (If you are unenployed, you get payed 1500 Euros a month (maybe more, don't know for shure))...So, capitalism and socialsm can work together just fine, if the people are smart to chose wright goverment for them! Unforutentlly in my country and in rest of "transicion countris" on power is almoust caothic "feudal capitalism", in which case i vote for socailsm... Luckly even we in Croatia have free medical ensurance, which has saved my life 3 years ago, cause i get complicated operation, for which in US i wold not have money for, and probably bin dead now! Socialism is much more fair and wright! "American type capitalism" is more like feudal society from the start of industrial age to me! Work anthill you die, and if you get sick, you die! This is just unacceptable in 21st century!!!

[CroatianZGB 1]

Lexus:

"

All nonsense. I dont see a Paris Hilton do a day of honest work in her entire life, yet she earns millions by just partying. Why? Because she got lucky and was born into a rich family. 

Simple fact. People who are born in rich family have so much more to get better grades, go to a good college and end up in a well paid job, while their actual achievements are mediocre. 

What your saying is that someone who works 14 hours a day for a minimum wage somehow deserved that. The actual reason why that person works 14 hours a day for a minimum wage is because college was to expensive and her family was to poor to pay for it. Only in socialist countries these people get a chance to make something of their life. Only in socialist environments these people are given a chance, not based on their parents wealth but based on their actual achievements. "

quote>

[raja_indy14 8]

It managed to survive because everyone believed in it. So far there have been about 3 major crisis caused by flaws within the system. And everytime the government believed in it and kept pumping money into the economy and into the system to prevent it from collapsing. If they hadnt done it, kept pumping money in it, kept keeping it alive then capitalism would have ceased to exist back in the 30's.quote>

The state is necessary to jump start capitalist economies after cyclical depressions, but I don't think massive and sustained infusions of public capital are really required to keep the system going. More like periodic infusions and restructuring/regulation to get the economy back on track. After the 1930s depression, economic recovery was restarted (in the US) by massive government spending on war production, but this level of expenditures did not continue at the same rate after the war and was not necessary to keep the system going. Why cyclical depressions and periodic public infusions of capital are ultimately doomed to failure (more than any other system at least) I cannot fathom.

And you can say a lot about Communist Russia, but before the revolution, Russia was a backward peasant country with no notable industry at all. In a few decades after the revolution, Russia was suddenly an industrial and political giant and its citizens sure ended up richer and better fed then before the revolution. It is doubtful if they would have done that without communism. quote>

Yes, that is certainly true. On the other hand, similar success stories have been witnessed in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, even Communist-ruled China might be included. All of these countries experienced extremely rapid economic growth using capitalist principles, and managed to do it without killing off millions upon millions of their own people and reducing millions more to a state of slavery. Overall, I would take rapid capitalist development over rapid 'socialist' development, they're both fairly painful but at least capitalism has shown you can achieve phenomenal success without killing off millions of people.

Communism was less effective, but does that mean its a totally worthless system?quote>

As I said, in future computer modelling might be able to manage a centrally planned economy with greater efficiency and equality than a capitalist free market. But there can never be a long lasting system predicated on perfect equality. Firstly, human beings are not equal in abilities or ambition. Trying to force people into constraints of equality is likely doomed to failure, people are too different and varied for that. Economic equality is not everything, it has always amused me how much Socialists tend to fixate on income equality. If you try to enforce economic equality you have to use power inequalities, if everyone will be forced into economic equality regardless, what incentive is there to work hard? Perfect equality cannot work because it means there cannot be incentives to excel.

Its starts with manufacturing jobs, but its rather naive to think that only manufacturing jobs are the ones that are going to be outsourced. Those countries are developing rapidly, and pretty soon, it will be cheaper to outsource the services as well to those areas. And maybe not entire companies, but just a whole bunch of company divisions. I mean, why pay for expensive American accountants if there are a bunch of equally good Chinese people who will do the same for half the price? Its inevitable that at some point, entire companies just move pretty much everything to those countries because everything is cheaper there. quote>

Japan has been developed for about half a century now, why hasn't there been mass flight of American service jobs to that country? People were just as worried about losing manufacturing jobs to Japan in the 1980s as they are about losing them to China today. Service jobs are generally less mobile than manufacturing jobs. For instance, many services still require face to face contact with the customer (although this is admittedly becoming less important today). Higher end service jobs require considerable investment in education and there are real quality differences. A pair of hands to work a machine on an assembly line is a requirement almost anyone can fulfill, a mind that has experience and has been educated to perform complex mental tasks is something entirely different. So long as you can keep an edge in educating your population as employable lawyers, architects, media designers, etc etc you should be largely safe from outsourcing. And if you fail at educating your workforce? Well, you really only have yourself to blame then.

Also, as other countries develop, their wages tend to inflate, particularly for higher end jobs, making them less competitive. Also, it tends to be a relatively smaller number of people because they needed to be educated. At the beginning, a developing country is a massive reservoir of unskilled labour, with a very small cadre of educated elites. As the number of skilled and university-educated laborers increases, they are normally involved in the nascent domestic service industry (i.e. there is no surplus for outside sources to tap). Additionally, there is the language barrier that becomes much more important in service jobs. A pair of hands working on an assembly line can belong to a person speaking any language, it's practically irrelevant, on the other hand someone that is doing accounting (etc) must be fluent in English if they are going to work for an American company. This tends to be a relatively smaller number. Also many service jobs are government jobs, and they would be loathe to outsource these sorts of jobs. Imagine the outcry if teaching was outsourced to China?

Who, Bismark? Hehehehe, he only did it because he hated communists and socialists and thought that if he would do this, he would beat them at their own game. Realpolitik. quote>

Yes, he was rather clever. But my point still stands, a capitalist society and implemented by a capitalist.

Also, the ones that encouraged it are all largely in Europe and Europe is dominantly socialist (especially when compared to America) in its views. But that changes, because yeah, we want to keep our jobs and that means we must maintain a good economical position compared to other countries, so wages and stuff cant go up to much or we will become to expensive and companies move away en mass to China. And since the crisis left us with huge debts, we will have to cut our budget with approximately 30 billion euros in 4-8 years. So, pensions? much to expensive, away with it. Welfare? also to expensive, major cuts there too. Like I said, everyone MUST participate in the economic process if we want to maintain the current level of wealth. quote>

Europe is not Socialist. The European economic model is essentially capitalist, sometimes mercantilist capitalism as in the case of France, with a relatively large role for the state as compared to more liberal democracies such as the United States or Canada. But you can only extract so much wealth from the capitalist economy before it begins to have deleterious effects, and you can only impose so much rigidity into the system before its inflexibility becomes a major drawback. Europe is going through this problem right now. European governments frequently lean towards democratic socialism or Christian democracy, but this doesn't make Europe "socialist" except under the broadest (and meaningless) definitions of the word.

Globalization causes problems, it is hardly a panacea for the worlds ills. The western world may have to make some sacrifices *shock horror* and realize that our unsustainable and pampered existences might have to change in the future, particularly if we are going to make room for increasingly prosperous populations in China and India. It may be that unfair global relationships that have favoured the western world for the last five hundred years may be coming to an end, and that we will have to put up with a global situation where we exert less economic power and influence, where some of our people may live in desperate poverty for a change. Obviously it is in our rational interests to prevent this, to reject this, but there is nothing that fundamentally guarantees that we in the west deserve the right to pensions, to massive welfare programs, or to full and high paying employment.

As an aside, and I pointed this out earlier, Socialist societies by definition control your working life.

There was like one economic expert that predicted the crisis, and everyone else just ignored him or said it wasnt true. As I mentioned above, we need to cut the government budget with about 30 billion euros. We dont know for sure, because some economic experts say we must cut it with 60-70 billion euros while others say that 16 billion euros is enough.quote>

Well, Europeans and Americans have been paying for their socialist welfare programs and massive military, respectively, through massive and unsustainable deficit financing. It is hardly a surprise that it would one day come home to roost. People didn't think about it, as they didn't think about oil running out for instance, until it really becomes apparent as a major problem. As a Canadian I can feel slightly smug about this, since we got rid of deficit financing a decade ago (although it is back now ).

What I meant to say was that if science wasnt completly funded by corporate money, scientist might already have invented cars or fuel that where more efficient, cleaner, etc etc. But because of their corporate funding, science has become completely dependent on what a bunch of suits somewhere in a sky scraped decide what to continue and what not. And due to the short term thinking of those corporate suits, science does not produce a lot of new things anymore, because its to expensive and the immediate gains are to little.

Thats what I meant with that science produces nothing anymore. quote>

Firstly, science receives considerable government funding in most developed countries, and even some developing countries. Secondly, if it is the fault of corporations for not researching the things that you feel should be researched, why don't you blame the government for not picking up the slack (and therefore adding to your already unsustainable budget deficit)? Thirdly, scientists have invented more efficient and cleaner cars, you can notice the difference when a vintage car drives by, and these were invented by scientists working for corporations. Fourthly, science was never really about producing things, that's technology. Science is concerned with understanding the natural world. This can be applied to real life problems, hence technology, but it isn't a necessary end goal.

Global trade would pretty much cease to exist, unemployment rates go up, starvation at certain areas, social discontent, the rise of extremist movements, its going to be the 1930's all over again.quote>

Possibly. Then again, governments in the 1930s had little idea what to do and dealt with the crisis with varying degrees of incompetence. I don't think a repeat of the 1930s Depression is likely, what we will probably see in the next few years is a reversal of the liberalization the has been occurring since the 1980s and a move towards an increasing state role in the economy.

Also, yes, why should a Chinese guy get the job? Why cant China develop its own economy and give Chinese people jobs in Chinese companies? Let them compete in the quality of the product instead of the price. Wouldnt that be much better for the consumer? Having choice between 2 products, one is cheaper but technically inferior, the other is more expensive, but the quality lies a lot higher. No excessive profits, and a real choice between products that obviously differ from each other in other things then price. quote>

I guess you are an economic nationalist then. Europe did not develop its own industry in isolation from the rest of the world. Europe destroyed foreign economies. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century Britain effectively destroyed the Indian manufacturing economy because all of the jobs were outsourced to cheaper, more efficient English factories in cities like Leeds and Manchester, paving the way for the success of the Industrial Revolution. Europe actively exploited other people for domestic economic benefit. How laughable it is for a European to demand that underdeveloped countries pursue their own isolated path to industrialization without threatening the working class of Europe when Europe benefited so greatly from the destruction of non-European economic and trade relationships and the mass exploitation of their resources and labour. I would be laughing at the suggestion if it wasn't so callous and brutal in fact. What ever happened to international solidarity, I though that was a primary tenet of Socialism?

I don't think any country has successfully industrialized in isolation. Name me one and I'll give you a cookie. (And one measure of "successful" is that it didn't result in the mass die off of its own populace)

As for your suggestion, well, it simply doesn't make economic sense.

is a bloated crock of you-know-what and ought to be killed.quote>

Yes, the American public healthcare systems is one of the most retarded I've ever come across. More money spent per capita than in Canada (with our universal healthcare coverage) and yet you have poorer health outcomes.

If you mean that taxes need to be simpler, I agree wholeheartedly. Also, not just simpler, but lower.quote>

I love how Americans always want lower and lower taxes but are unable to constrain public expenditures. They don't seem to understand that massive public debt, particularly as it is increasingly owed abroad, is an untenable system. Sooner or later something is going to give, before you're selling Yellowstone National Park to a Chinese developer to pay off the massive debt.

Well, there are so many of them that statistics dictate you could probably find one I may actually sort of like. But generally speaking? Yeah. Federal subsidies shouldn't exist.quote>

Once in place, subsidies are extremely difficult to remove politically. They practically require a crisis that necessitates drastic emergency action.

Oh please. This idea that things like the New Deal or ARRA are somehow "saving" capitalism is BS. Bailouts go utterly against capitalist principles. They are not a rescue of it, they are an attack on it. And indeed, they only serve to prolong recessions and depressions. If the government hadn't pumped money into the system in the 30s, capitalism would not have failed. It is perfectly capable of recovering on its own without government intervention.quote>

Wrong. Governments reacted slowly and pursued largely indifferent policies in the opening years of the depression, greatly prolonging it. Capitalist free markets will not necessarily recover from a crash, at least, not in a politically feasible time frame. The New Deal didn't save capitalism, but recovery would have been far more painful without it. Without the massive public expenditure of the war, economic recovery would have been much slower and we would not have been talking about the booming 50s. Capitalism probably would not have failed, but it would have undergone a severe crisis. Luckily the Fascists held the Soviet Union at bay and destroyed their infrastructure, not to mention sparked massive US government military spending that jump started a stagnant economy (that was, admittedly, already starting to make a slow recovery). If Germany had fallen to the Communists in the 1920s/30s, then capitalism in Europe may very well have failed.

This is contrary to the belief of free market prophets, who claim that only the healthy banks would survive.quote>

A run on a bank is usually precipitated by either real concerns with the solvency of a particular bank or by a systemic crisis of the banking sector that causes people to lose trust in many banks. The latter is normally symptomatic of a larger economic crisis, by which point many firms will probably fail regardless of their health before the crisis (unless propped up by governments, of course).

So, after a few months, when the dust has settled, what do we see? Well, no banks, they have all fallen over. And what would that trigger?quote>

Well, normally some banks survive. Also, there are foreign banks. This is probably not a viable solution in the case of an (unlikely) total collapse of the American financial sector, but in smaller economies there are foreign sources of credit from overseas banks or things like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

Nobody can pay of their loans suddenly because each and every single loan suddenly has to be paid instantly. Nobody can afford that. So everyone goes bankrupt. The entire world economy goes bankrupt. Besides that, nobody can do anything anymore because they cant loan any new money because the banks dont exist anymore. Also, nobody has their savings anymore because the banks are gone, along with all the money they used to have. So, total economic collapse on a global scale. Suddenly we are all just as poor as the poorest guy in Africa. Social discontent spreads due to the huge failure of the government in preventing this, as well as the huge economic failure because the market didnt prevent this. Of course the market didnt prevent this, this is after all the true essence of the free market. So, strong individuals arise, America turns into a theocracy because fundamental christians grab power, in Europe the fascists take over and a decade later World War 3 ravages across the world, killing 3 billion people. quote>

Oh please, that is far too exciting. Sounds like you've been reading a B-grade apocalyptic novel...

If you answer every question on the test right, you earn a 100. If you work hard in life and play your cards right, and sign a deal for a million dollars at a great job. Congrats, you earned it. You don't deserve to lose what you work for your whole life because someone else didn't work as hard as you, didn't get the opportunity you got, or works harder than you. Imagine if a teacher gave everybody a 75 on the test, regardless of how many questions they got right. Would you ever study? Would you ever bother to learn the material? quote>

I agree with the general sentiment, but the analogy doesn't really work. Every pupil is given the opportunity to take the test, whereas not everyone is given the opportunity to be considered for jobs paying million dollar plus salaries. It would be more like if the teacher only gave the test to the five smartest kids in the class and then selected the top grade from those five for a scholarship.

[Shingure 56]

I would like to state that Capitalism solely is a system that is vulnerable to long term failure.

Take a look around , the U.S Economy is in shambles thanks to the laissez-faire and free market ideals. Millions have lost homes , jobs , their livelyhoods , and so many other things that is boggles the mind. Do you think that the credit crisis and the global market collapse couldhif regulations were placed heavily on banking institutions and large corporations. The answer is simple , 'NO'! The problem is Capitalism is like tree vines , you have to keep them under control and cut back and regulated , otherwise it can do serious damage to the area it inhabits , can grow out of control , grow to a level of instability , and kill absolutely everything , including it'self. The current issue we are dealing with is how the vines of Capitalism have not been checked and, to an extent, been given a fertilizer enabling it's out of control growth!

When you tax the poor the heaviest and give tax breaks to the rich , the social and financial gap increases almost instantaneously. When someone is making 25,000 USD a year and you take 10 percent of their income it makes a huge difference. For that person it's a matter of ' How am I going to keep a roof over my head ' or 'How can I feed and clothe my children. ' Meanwhile the person who makes 250,000+ a year , who is taxed at 2.5% is asking themselves if they can buy themselves a pair of Dior Sunglasses or Prada heels. Quite frankly , when you have this occur , people are disallusioned at both ends. One is on the brink of failure while the other lives the life of excess. When you regulate Capitalism down to a more socialist level , You can still let the rich be rich , but at the same time the person who is on the verge of losing it all in the un-/underegulated and current system can be able to have a home to live , have healthcare , feed their children , and give them proper educations at the high school and college level. In the US right now , the present system is set up so that the rich stay rich because they can afford tertiary education while those who are poor and have the ability above even an average rich person will have to work 10x as hard just to be noticed a peep.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

The state is necessary to jump start capitalist economies after cyclical depressions, but I don't think massive and sustained infusions of public capital are really required to keep the system going. More like periodic infusions and restructuring/regulation to get the economy back on track. After the 1930s depression, economic recovery was restarted (in the US) by massive government spending on war production, but this level of expenditures did not continue at the same rate after the war and was not necessary to keep the system going. Why cyclical depressions and periodic public infusions of capital are ultimately doomed to failure (more than any other system at least) I cannot fathom.quote>

Ah, see, THE STATE. See, the reason for the economic revival was the second world war. Or to be more exact, the state planned economy that was required to fight the war. After the war, the state kept planning parts of the economy. It kept parts of the market under state control. Think of health care, transportation etc. This is why the economy revived. It was forced. The market itself and the corporate world cannot enforce things. Once they fail, they are doomed unless they are saved by a legitimate government that has the trust of the people. That is what keeps an economy going: trust. The failure of any economy essentially comes down to people loosing their trust in the economy. They loose their trust in the corporations, and thus the corporation shares plummet, and more people loose their trust. Until the shares are worth nothing and the company is about to collapse. But there comes the government, a group of people entrusted by the nation to lead everyone in the right direction. And if they save a corporation, then that must be true and the corporation must have been saved. So people regain their trust and all starts over again. 

As I said, in future computer modelling might be able to manage a centrally planned economy with greater efficiency and equality than a capitalist free market. But there can never be a long lasting system predicated on perfect equality. Firstly, human beings are not equal in abilities or ambition. Trying to force people into constraints of equality is likely doomed to failure, people are too different and varied for that. Economic equality is not everything, it has always amused me how much Socialists tend to fixate on income equality. If you try to enforce economic equality you have to use power inequalities, if everyone will be forced into economic equality regardless, what incentive is there to work hard? Perfect equality cannot work because it means there cannot be incentives to excel.quote>

I never said we should aim for total equality. It doesnt exist and that wouldnt be fair either. 

And no, thats not true. People will work for more then just money. Its a capitalist fallacy to think that money is the only driving force behind people (although generally in our consumer society, money has indeed become the main driving force). But you can create a system where intellectual challenge, power and increased responsibility are perfect ways to successfully  encourage people to work as hard as they can. 

Globalization causes problems, it is hardly a panacea for the worlds ills. The western world may have to make some sacrifices *shock horror* and realize that our unsustainable and pampered existences might have to change in the future, particularly if we are going to make room for increasingly prosperous populations in China and India. It may be that unfair global relationships that have favoured the western world for the last five hundred years may be coming to an end, and that we will have to put up with a global situation where we exert less economic power and influence, where some of our people may live in desperate poverty for a change. Obviously it is in our rational interests to prevent this, to reject this, but there is nothing that fundamentally guarantees that we in the west deserve the right to pensions, to massive welfare programs, or to full and high paying employment.quote>

So, youre suggesting that instead of searching for a good alternative, we keep on going like we do now, and surely end up working in our own sweatshops? Thanks but no thanks, I prefer to keep most of my wealth level while finding a solution for others to develop as well and that all in a sustainable way. 

I guess you are an economic nationalist then. Europe did not develop its own industry in isolation from the rest of the world. Europe destroyed foreign economies. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century Britain effectively destroyed the Indian manufacturing economy because all of the jobs were outsourced to cheaper, more efficient English factories in cities like Leeds and Manchester, paving the way for the success of the Industrial Revolution. Europe actively exploited other people for domestic economic benefit. How laughable it is for a European to demand that underdeveloped countries pursue their own isolated path to industrialization without threatening the working class of Europe when Europe benefited so greatly from the destruction of non-European economic and trade relationships and the mass exploitation of their resources and labour. I would be laughing at the suggestion if it wasn't so callous and brutal in fact. What ever happened to international solidarity, I though that was a primary tenet of Socialism?

I don't think any country has successfully industrialized in isolation. Name me one and I'll give you a cookie. (And one measure of "successful" is that it didn't result in the mass die off of its own populace)

As for your suggestion, well, it simply doesn't make economic sense.quote>

Oh thats lame. Because Im from an area where some people 2 ages ago made decisions that I have nothing to do with, I deserve to burn for it? I didnt call for the massive exploitation of other countries. If it where up to me, I would have searched for other ways. Sure, its easy to say for me, because I didnt live back then. But thats also exactly my point. Thats the past, Europe generally doesnt exploit poor countries like that anymore, and when it does Im against it. And seriously, we are having a interesting and Id like to think, mature discussion on the matter of economics. There is no need to try and personally insult me like that. 

And you may call it not a successful industrialization because it doesnt fit your argument, but the point remains that the USSR developed from a backward retarded peasant nation to a industrial super power in 2 decades. Yeah lots of people died, but that doesnt change the fact that it was a quick and highly successful industrialization process. 

And please explain why it doesnt make any economic sense? 

A run on a bank is usually precipitated by either real concerns with the solvency of a particular bank or by a systemic crisis of the banking sector that causes people to lose trust in many banks. The latter is normally symptomatic of a larger economic crisis, by which point many firms will probably fail regardless of their health before the crisis (unless propped up by governments, of course).quote>

In this case it was a larger crisis and healthy banks did fall over. Of course in such a crisis some firms wont survive. Thats not the problem. The problem is that our entire economy is dependent on the banks. Without the banks, the flow of money would simply be impossible. Basically every company larger then a individual house painter who gets paid in cash would choke to death. After that, the house painter would choke to death as well since nobody has cash anymore. Companies like wal mart who supply our food and other daily needs would close down. Hospitals would cease to work as nobody would be able to pay them anymore. The world would come to a hold if the large majority of banks would suddenly fail and cease to exist. Along with billions of dollars. 

Well, normally some banks survive. Also, there are foreign banks. This is probably not a viable solution in the case of an (unlikely) total collapse of the American financial sector, but in smaller economies there are foreign sources of credit from overseas banks or things like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.quote>

Overseas banks arent safe. All these banks work closely together. If one goes down, good chance it will drag another one with it. Or seriously damages another bank. The media of the countries bank would hear of it, tell it to the public, public panics because the crisis has invaded their country as well, and the would start a run on the bank as well. It happened over here. Then of course, there was the fact that certain banks where actively speculating that their competition was failing, only fueling the panic of the stock brokers and the public. In other words, these banks where busy destroying each other because that meant less competition! 

Oh please, that is far too exciting. Sounds like you've been reading a B-grade apocalyptic novel...quote>

Its basic economics. Its simply what was likely to happen if the government didnt interfere and saved those banks from collapsing completely. 

[fukuda 351]

What I meant to say was that if science wasnt completly funded by corporate money, scientist might already have invented cars or fuel that where more efficient, cleaner, etc etc. But because of their corporate funding, science has become completely dependent on what a bunch of suits somewhere in a sky scraped decide what to continue and what not. And due to the short term thinking of those corporate suits, science does not produce a lot of new things anymore, because its to expensive and the immediate gains are to little.

Thats what I meant with that science produces nothing anymore. quote>

Science isn't completely funded by corporate money.. Research is still going on about the respiratory system of passerines even if there is no corporate interest behind it. It's not the job of science to invent or design things anyway, that's an engineer's job. Science still produces knowledge.

[raja_indy14 8]

Ah, see, THE STATE. See, the reason for the economic revival was the second world war. Or to be more exact, the state planned economy that was required to fight the war. After the war, the state kept planning parts of the economy. It kept parts of the market under state control. Think of health care, transportation etc. This is why the economy revived. It was forced. The market itself and the corporate world cannot enforce things. Once they fail, they are doomed unless they are saved by a legitimate government that has the trust of the people. That is what keeps an economy going: trust. The failure of any economy essentially comes down to people loosing their trust in the economy. They loose their trust in the corporations, and thus the corporation shares plummet, and more people loose their trust. Until the shares are worth nothing and the company is about to collapse. But there comes the government, a group of people entrusted by the nation to lead everyone in the right direction. And if they save a corporation, then that must be true and the corporation must have been saved. So people regain their trust and all starts over again. quote>

If you read my posts, you will see that I am far from averse to state involvement in a capitalist economy. But government is not always a panacea, it does not always lead the nation in the right direction. Many European states that arose in the chaotic inter war period were not the kinds of states I would like to live under.

And no, thats not true. People will work for more then just money. Its a capitalist fallacy to think that money is the only driving force behind people (although generally in our consumer society, money has indeed become the main driving force). But you can create a system where intellectual challenge, power and increased responsibility are perfect ways to successfully encourage people to work as hard as they can. quote>

I meant perfect equality. As in, no single member of society is considered above anyone else, no member of society receives special privileges of any sort or recognition of exemplary contribution. So you interpreted it wrong, I meant perfect equality, not necessarily income equality. Yes, some people will work at things, but as a whole far less efficiently. Besides, someone has to do the dirty work in society, how do you force people to do these jobs?

So, youre suggesting that instead of searching for a good alternative, we keep on going like we do now, and surely end up working in our own sweatshops? Thanks but no thanks, I prefer to keep most of my wealth level while finding a solution for others to develop as well and that all in a sustainable way. quote>

In a world of finite resources there is only so much prosperity that everyone can have. The planet probably cannot sustain a human population 9-12 billion people at the levels of affluence of the western world. Yes, new technologies will probably increase carrying capacity further (as they already have), but it seems unlikely that there will be any breakthrough in the next couple of decades that would enable that level of widespread affluence. Essentially, you are being selfish. That's fairly ironic for a socialist. (Aside from being selfish, your rather vague alternate proposal is fairly delusional).

Oh thats lame. Because Im from an area where some people 2 ages ago made decisions that I have nothing to do with, I deserve to burn for it? I didnt call for the massive exploitation of other countries. If it where up to me, I would have searched for other ways. Sure, its easy to say for me, because I didnt live back then. But thats also exactly my point. Thats the past, Europe generally doesnt exploit poor countries like that anymore, and when it does Im against it. And seriously, we are having a interesting and Id like to think, mature discussion on the matter of economics. There is no need to try and personally insult me like that. quote>

It isn't lame. I did not suggest that you should burn for anything. I was suggesting that you are being extremely hypocritical to complain that Asians are taking European jobs and then expecting them to somehow create their own prosperity in an isolated economy. I find it funny that you are taking it as a personal insult, it was a statement of fact. I was pointing out your hypocrisy. It also shows a lack of understanding of global political economy.

Here's what I was saying in plain language:

(1) Europe began industrialization in part because it took manufacturing jobs away from Asian economies (we can call this reverse outsourcing)

(2) Isolated economies do not prosper as a general rule, at least without significant domestic costs

(3) The expectation that China should achieve prosperity on its own without effecting Europeans is delusional

(4) If you believe that Chinese prosperity now should be dependent on not negatively effecting any Europeans, then just keep in mind the negative effects European prosperity has (and continues to have) on the rest of the world.

No, I am not trying to make you feel guilty. This is just a statement of fact, European economic prosperity cost many people around the world a lot, and I find it supremely arrogant of you to complain about some lost jobs and blaming it on the economic prosperity of others. Secondly, I was criticizing your unrealistic alternative for Chinese development.

And you may call it not a successful industrialization because it doesnt fit your argument, but the point remains that the USSR developed from a backward retarded peasant nation to a industrial super power in 2 decades. Yeah lots of people died, but that doesnt change the fact that it was a quick and highly successful industrialization process. quote>

Is the USSR your only example? Okay, here's why I don't think it's a viable development model in the current international system.

(1) It required massive political repression and the use of millions of slave labourers. China gets into a lot of trouble today for the condition of its sweatshops, can you imagine the outcry if China enslaved millions of people and worked them to death in the cause of economic development?

(2) The USSR was able to dramatically increase prosperity from a very low base. However, the economy of the USSR was fundamentally flawed, suffered from massive inefficiencies, and was reliant on expansive economic growth. Compared to capitalist development, economic development in the USSR was a disaster for the environment. By the 1980s the USSR economy had reached its expansive limits and was unable to intensify productivity, eventually resulting in a political-economic crisis and the collapse of the system. The modern Russian economy is still suffering from the deleterious effects of the flawed Soviet model combined with an extreme capitalist oligarchy.

(3) I love your callous disregard for human life. I thought I was supposed to be that big bad capitalist?

And please explain why it doesnt make any economic sense? quote>

Take more courses in political economy and history, you'll understand. It's difficult to explain why it doesn't make sense when it isn't really a model of development at all, but sounds rather more like wishful thinking. Perhaps if you fleshed it out more I could get back to you on that.

Overseas banks arent safe. All these banks work closely together. If one goes down, good chance it will drag another one with it. Or seriously damages another bank. The media of the countries bank would hear of it, tell it to the public, public panics because the crisis has invaded their country as well, and the would start a run on the bank as well. It happened over here. Then of course, there was the fact that certain banks where actively speculating that their competition was failing, only fueling the panic of the stock brokers and the public. In other words, these banks where busy destroying each other because that meant less competition! quote>

Well, the Canadian banking system managed to get through the crisis of the American one without a great deal of difficulty. Obviously if the American one had actually failed it would be a different story, but it didn't. A strong state stepped in and prevented that.

Anyways, I don't think there's really much more to discuss on the issue, this could go on indefinitely.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

If thats the case, all the more proof that a capitalistic system only breeds greedy rotten people that should have no place in any society. If money is the only thing that motivates you, then your motivation is pretty bad to begin with. quote>

Like it or not, the idea of work producing reward is central to human psychology. And that only works if the reward is contingent upon the work. Reward everyone, and no one will do any work because there is nothing to work for.

True, there are different types of rewards out there, but none are quite so effective as money/material goods and power. People will work for a paycheck, and people will work to gain influence. Working "for the good of society" tends to be psychologically unsustainable unless the person is really passionate about their work, which most are not.

And dont tell me that people will work at a more boring, less challenging job that sucks in many more aspects only because the netto win is a more then being top manager at a big business bank.quote>

Fact: if the work someone does fails to yield sufficient reward, it stops being worth it and they stop doing quite so much work. Think about it. If you were running a business that was making you a million dollars a year and the government decided to tax at 99% everything over $250,000, would you:

A) continue working the same way for only $7500 of the latter $750,000?

-or-

B) do a quarter of the work and just live with $250,000?

Nobody is going to pick A, because three quarters of their work is wasted that way. This is the problem "taxing the rich" starts to produce. Take away all the money they make and they'll stop making it, since they no longer have any reason to.

And no, I'm not talking about the Paris Hilton's of the world who are just rich "by luck", here. We're talking about all the people who work long hours at stressful professional jobs and make a fair amount of money doing it. Doctors, lawyers, store managers, high-level office workers, etc.

Well you obviously dont understand how it works, allow me to explain it.quote>

!

We had several runs on banks because they where falling over. {...} nothing to do with the health of the bank. Its all psychological.quote>

Well, yes. Perception is more important than reality. This is something that must be kept in mind with regards to human behavior.

So each bank that succumbs to a run will spark two other runs on other banks due to the global panic caused by the media that will cover each aspect of every bank run. quote>

Ah. See, there you go. Global panic. This is the failing of tying the entire world together economically through "globalization". It becomes all or nothing. If one country fails, it takes everyone else out with it and (ashes! ashes!) we all fall down.

Meanwhile, if we weren't all so interdependent, one local failure would not so easily progress into catastrophic failure.

Even still...

So, after a few months, when the dust has settled, what do we see? {...} So everyone goes bankrupt. The entire world economy goes bankrupt. Besides that, nobody can do anything anymore because they cant loan any new money because the banks dont exist anymore. Also, nobody has their savings anymore because the banks are gone, along with all the money they used to have. So, total economic collapse on a global scale. Suddenly we are all just as poor as the poorest guy in Africa.quote>

...somehow I doubt we'd quite get to this point. The banking system can take a huge hit, but some will manage to survive. And based on that, things will recover if we just let them.

Think of it this way: if you don't put a forest fire out, it will not just keep burning and consume everything. What do you think happened before people were around to put them out? They went out on their own eventually. And you don't need to plant new trees afterward, either. They'll grow back quite naturally.

Well, banks are like trees and the economy is like a forest.

(and, in this analogy, bailouts are like some chemical which slows the burning down but in doing so makes it last longer)

Social discontent spreads due to the huge failure of the government in preventing this, as well as the huge economic failure because the market didnt prevent this. Of course the market didnt prevent this, this is after all the true essence of the free market. So, strong individuals arise, America turns into a theocracy because fundamental christians grab power, in Europe the fascists take over and a decade later World War 3 ravages across the world, killing 3 billion people. quote>

It is true that in a crisis, leaders tend to emerge and radical things tend to get done. But it is not always a change for the worse.

Regardless, crisis prevention is not something we can rely on. Crises will arise. And when they do, and we find ourselves at a fork in the road, all we can do is try and figure out which is the right one to go down.

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

Yes, that is certainly true. On the other hand, similar success stories have been witnessed in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, even Communist-ruled China might be included. All of these countries experienced extremely rapid economic growth using capitalist principles, and managed to do it without killing off millions upon millions of their own people and reducing millions more to a state of slavery.quote>

Well, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are valid examples. But china.... killed millions of people? Check. Reduced people to a state of slavery? Check. And, oh, look at that, this happened as the country became communist!

I love how Americans always want lower and lower taxes but are unable to constrain public expenditures. They don't seem to understand that massive public debt, particularly as it is increasingly owed abroad, is an untenable system. Sooner or later something is going to give, before you're selling Yellowstone National Park to a Chinese developer to pay off the massive debt.quote>

The problem is that everyone wants to cut funding but nobody wants their funding cut. And since people can't agree on what cuts to make, they don't happen. It's a classic problem brought about by simple human selfishness. Nobody wants to bear their share of the burden.

Being cognizant of this, I've made a personal pledge to not complain about any spending cuts.

Originally posted by: Shingure

I would like to state that Capitalism solely is a system that is vulnerable to long term failure.quote>

All systems are vulnerable to long term failure. Nothing mankind can do is ever perfect or eternal.

Take a look around , the U.S Economy is in shambles thanks to the laissez-faire and free market ideals.quote>

Except that the US hasn't really been "laissez-faire" in a long time.

Besides, the idea that an option exists which won't ever leave us "in shambles" is a fantasy. Again: nothing we do is perfect. Anything imperfect can fail.

When you tax the poor the heaviest and give tax breaks to the rich , the social and financial gap increases almost instantaneously.quote>

Um... last I checked, people who make more money have to pay more of it in taxes, not less. The poorest among us don't even pay income tax.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

See, the reason for the economic revival was the second world war. Or to be more exact, the state planned economy that was required to fight the war.quote>

I'm going to have to question the causation in that correlation. After all, it didn't take state planning for the economy to recover from the previous recession before the "Great Depression" (ended by cutting taxes). Or from this one (also ended by cutting taxes). Or this one (ended by returning to the gold standard, thus curbinig inflation).

The market itself and the corporate world cannot enforce things. Once they fail, they are doomed unless they are saved by a legitimate government that has the trust of the people. That is what keeps an economy going: trust.quote>

Problem: if we assume that trust is what keeps an economy going, then that would mean that what makes the economy recover is entirely dependent on whom people trust. If they trust the free market, the free market will do it. If they trust the government, the government will do it. Bear in mind that trusting the government is something many Americans (myself included) find themselves largely incapable of.

you can create a system where intellectual challenge, power and increased responsibility are perfect ways to successfully encourage people to work as hard as they can.quote>

Doubtful. So long as money exists, it will be a motivator, and will come to dominate. Nobody has ever successfully built a system not dependent on money and had it succeed. Not on any significant scale.

I prefer to keep most of my wealth level while finding a solution for others to develop as well and that all in a sustainable way.quote>

That simply isn't going to work mathematically. The amount of poverty in the world can't be solved by people who are not in poverty keeping anything near "most"of their wealth level. Too many poor people, not enough wealth.

And you may call it not a successful industrialization because it doesnt fit your argument, but the point remains that the USSR developed from a backward retarded peasant nation to a industrial super power in 2 decades. Yeah lots of people died, but that doesnt change the fact that it was a quick and highly successful industrialization process. quote>

Riiiight, and killing millions of people was totally worth it, I'm sure.

[raja_indy14 8]

Well, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are valid examples. But china.... killed millions of people? Check. Reduced people to a state of slavery? Check. And, oh, look at that, this happened as the country became communist!quote>

I obviously meant China since they began market reforms in the 1980s. Hence 'Communist-ruled' rather than simply 'Communist' China.

Really, there is no need to convince me that socialist states have a poor track record, as should be clear from my earlier posts.

Um... last I checked, people who make more money have to pay more of it in taxes, not less. The poorest among us don't even pay income tax.quote>

Yes, this is a rather persistent myth. Just because the US has one of the least progressive tax systems in the developed world, people tend to automatically jump to the conclusion that your taxes fall heaviest on the poor while the wealthy get away with paying next to nothing. I think it's what happens when people read a little packaged factoid the way they want it to read so as to fit into their view of the US as an evil, capitalist empire ruled by piggish Wall St bankers.

I'm going to have to question the causation in that correlation. After all, it didn't take state planning for the economy to recover from the previous recession before the "Great Depression" (ended by cutting taxes). Or from this one (also ended by cutting taxes). Or this one (ended by returning to the gold standard, thus curbinig inflation).quote>

The first one appears to be caused by the correction of the economy from a state-dominated war time one to a private capital-dominated peace time economy, obviously this is not a typical 'Depression' and was self-correcting.

The wikipedia article for the second one states that the effects of that depression did not end until the onset of the Civil War (which is both a significant amount of time and seems to suggest that recovery was not complete until considerable public war spending), also none of the remedies attempted by the government are listed as tax cuts.

The third depression may have corrected by itself, but considering that it was both the longest period of contraction in the US economy and that the economy did not recover in 1879, unless you discount the shaky state of the US economy for the remainder of the nineteenth century, it suggests that markets alone are not able to provide swift and full recovery. Yes, eventually markets will probably correct by themselves, but this can be a very long and painful process.

Bear in mind that trusting the government is something many Americans (myself included) find themselves largely incapable of. quote>

It certainly makes sense, governments have been the cause of more suffering in the last century than all corporations in the history of humanity combined. But I'm not sure that I would actually create a constitution designed to paralyze the various branches of government in order to protect myself from tyranny. I think that you can trust government if it is accountable to the people and there are protections for individual rights.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

The first one appears to be caused by the correction of the economy from a state-dominated war time one to a private capital-dominated peace time economy, obviously this is not a typical 'Depression' and was self-correcting.quote>

Either way, it still wasn't state-planned economics that corrected it.

The wikipedia article for the second one {...} none of the remedies attempted by the government are listed as tax cuts.quote>

Oh no?

The Tariff Act of 1857 reduced the average tariff rate to about 20%.

Sounds like a tax cut to me!