Capitalism versus Socialism

[svachon 3]

Our capitalist society sprang from our constitution which gave the people the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It was the first of it's kind.  It revolutionized governments and the world.  It made us the richest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world.  It helped set the foundation to elimate slavery around the world.  Many have tried to copy it.  Our founders were geniuses.  And that document is the single greatest document produced by mankind.

I think to even compare our capitalist society to socialism is a really really sad.  And demostrates the mis-education our schools have produced over the years. 

God Bless America......The greatest country of all!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: svachon

Our capitalist society sprang from our constitution which gave the people the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It was the first of it's kind.  It revolutionized governments and the world.  It made us the richest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world.  It helped set the foundation to elimate slavery around the world.  Many have tried to copy it.  Our founders were geniuses.  And that document is the single greatest document produced by mankind. quote>

Okay.  All of those statements are arguably true, at least they were at various points in time.

I think to even compare our capitalist society to socialism is a really really sad. quote>

Why?   What is so awful about discussing various economics systems, their pros and cons, and how they compare with each other?   If nothing else, it's an exchange of ideas and points of view.

And demostrates the mis-education our schools have produced over the years.  quote>

Our schools are in sad shape, no doubt about that.  But I don't see how this discussion is evidence of that.

God Bless America......The greatest country of all!quote>

That is, of course, a matter of opinion.   They are plenty of people in the world who found our society personally offensive for a variety of reasons.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: svachon

Our capitalist society sprang from our constitution which gave the people the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It was the first of it's kind.  It revolutionized governments and the world.  It made us the richest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world.  It helped set the foundation to elimate slavery around the world.  Many have tried to copy it.  Our founders were geniuses.  And that document is the single greatest document produced by mankind.

I think to even compare our capitalist society to socialism is a really really sad.  And demostrates the mis-education our schools have produced over the years. 

God Bless America......The greatest country of all!quote>

England got rich hundreds of years before. The US got rich by emulating England. Australia as well. China? Going the same way, albeit too slowly. India, the world's greatest democracy, lags far behind.

[svachon 3]

God Bless America......The greatest country of all!quote>

That is, of course, a matter of opinion.   They are plenty of people in the world who found our society personally offensive for a variety of reasons.

quote>

[Finkle 14]

@krbe China is good at lying, they are known for fixing their money so it looks like they are worth more than they are, lets not forget we (America) still give them foreign aid. China is like Dubai.

[Finkle 14]

@krbe China is good at lying, they are known for fixing their money so it looks like they are worth more than they are, lets not forget we (America) still give them foreign aid. China is like Dubai.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: svachon

You are correct and it is my opinion and also the opinion of millions who died for our freedoms who felt the same way about our country as I do. I personally don't care what others around the world think of us.  quote>

So, if other people in the world perceive us as a bully and treat us accordingly, that's okay with you?  Bullies aren't treated very well in the long run, ya know.

or is it okay that we look like hypocrits?    I know people who are proud of the fact that everyone in their country is taken care of and don't understand why we let those who fought for our freedoms go hungry and live in the streets.   (If you've never seen a homeless veteran, you need to visit downtown DC and get a few blocks away from the monuments.)

I know the truth. quote>

You know your opinion.  I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong.  I'm saying it's an opinion, not a fact.

The fact that they find our society is offense (and I dont think there are that many, percentage wise-10% will believe anything) says more about them than about us.quote>

10% is still a hundred million people.   and, yes, it might say more about them than it does about us.

But the question is:  what makes us right and them wrong?

The fact that our infant morality rate is worse than Cuba, Hong Kong or South Korea?   (Let's quote the CIA on this one.)

The fact that our crude death rate is worse than Djibouti, Cambodia, or Pakistan?  [link]

How about the fact that our unemployment rate is higher than Sweden, Canada, or Botswana?  [link]

My point is, we don't do everything right.  We don't even do everything as well as other countries do.  But neither does anyone else.   As with everything, there are tradeoffs. 

There are tradeoffs between "freedom to" and "freedom from".  There are tradeoffs between how much you pay and how much you get.

Just because you are happy with the tradeoffs the USA makes, that doesn't mean that that other countries are wrong when they decide to make a different set of tradeoffs.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Finkle

@krbe China is good at lying, they are known for fixing their money so it looks like they are worth more than they are, lets not forget we (America) still give them foreign aid. China is like Dubai.quote>

It's just another way of putting a negative export tariff on their own goods... And no, China is far from Dubai. While there might be a property bubble in China too, it is on a far different scale than say Dubai, Ireland or the US. Plus, they have a government that can do pretty much what they want to do about it.

Let's not forget their Eastern world view either. They've learnt from Russian and American mistakes during the Cold War, and coupled with a time frame that stretches a couple of hundred years after the next election makes them a force to watch.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

My point is, this nation was not designed to be a plutocracy but that is what it has turned into.   Our Founding Fathers did not envision a place where the rich controlled everything.  That is what they were trying to get away from.quote>

Our Founding Fathers (capitalized? Okay, whatever) did not envision a place where media was so pervasive and it was so easy to innundate people with advertisements. They did not envision a place where companies could reasonably be any larger than a guy running a shop. They did not envision a place where relatively uneducated people were permitted to vote.

This is 2011, not 1787. The world is a very different place. The system as it was set up then wasn't designed for this.

 

Personally, I think it's partly due to campaign financing laws run amok.

As a citizen living in Maryland, I should not be able to influence an election in California or Texas or in any other state.  Yet, I frequently get mail asking me to do just that.   Basically any collection of people with disposable income can contribute money to influence any election in the nation.   That's where the money for the TV ads comes from.  Granted there are limits for each individual but if a collection of upper middle class folks decide they want to influence an election in poor jurisdiction they are able to do so. 

How about we let the people of each state decide on their own who they want to elect?  Why isn't that considered to be a part of "states rights"?quote>

Your point is valid, but the change you seek will never happen without a major upheaval. No politician in their right mind is going to support anything that will cut off their source of campaign funding, that's just biting the hand that feeds you.

And that major upheaval isn't coming anytime soon because, let's face it, complacency is the name of the game these days.

The fact that our crude death rate is worse than Djibouti, Cambodia, or Pakistan?  [link]quote>

According to the list there, the US is dead average on this count. Now, being average isn't exactly something to brag about, but it isn't horrible either.

[svachon 3]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Meg

My point is, this nation was not designed to be a plutocracy but that is what it has turned into.   Our Founding Fathers did not envision a place where the rich controlled everything.  That is what they were trying to get away from.quote>

Our Founding Fathers (capitalized? Okay, whatever) did not envision a place where media was so pervasive and it was so easy to innundate people with advertisements. They did not envision a place where companies could reasonably be any larger than a guy running a shop. They did not envision a place where relatively uneducated people were permitted to vote.

This is 2011, not 1787. The world is a very different place. The system as it was set up then wasn't designed for this. 

Oh yes it was.  Our constitution is a set of pricinipals not specifics.  And it allows for an amendment process to change with the times.  It is not a "living breathign document."  It is as relavent today as it was in 1787.  Without it we woud have anarchy where the ruling party could make the rules as they see fit.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Our Founding Fathers (capitalized? Okay, whatever) quote>

enh.  It's how I had to write it in Civics class.  Guess it stuck with me.

. . . did not envision a place where media was so pervasive and it was so easy to innundate people with advertisements. They did not envision a place where companies could reasonably be any larger than a guy running a shop. They did not envision a place where relatively uneducated people were permitted to vote. quote>

Good points. 

This is 2011, not 1787. The world is a very different place. The system as it was set up then wasn't designed for this. quote>

True.  They envisioned a country that was geographically separate, not one where global economics and communication were a big deal.

 

Personally, I think it's partly due to campaign financing laws run amok.quote>

Your point is valid, but the change you seek will never happen without a major upheaval. No politician in their right mind is going to support anything that will cut off their source of campaign funding, that's just biting the hand that feeds you.  quote>

Good point.  

Reminds me of one of my favorite Constitutional amendments:  the last one.  [link]     Basically it says that Congress can’t vote itself a raise; it can only vote the next Congress a raise.   (Originally proposed September 25, 1789.  Ratified May 7, 1992.  How cool is that?)

Originally posted by: svachon

Originally posted by: Duke87

  . . . . The system as it was set up then wasn't designed for this.

Oh yes it was.  Our constitution is a set of pricinipals not specifics.  And it allows for an amendment process to change with the times.  It is not a "living breathign document."  It is as relavent today as it was in 1787.  Without it we woud have anarchy where the ruling party could make the rules as they see fitquote>

quote>

It's not a living, breathing document?   It's been amended five times since I was born.

I'm all in favor of the Constitution.  It's one reason I don't like it when people try to write Thomas Jefferson out of the history books.

[svachon 3]

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: Duke87

Our Founding Fathers (capitalized? Okay, whatever) quote>

enh.  It's how I had to write it in Civics class.  Guess it stuck with me.

. . . did not envision a place where media was so pervasive and it was so easy to innundate people with advertisements. They did not envision a place where companies could reasonably be any larger than a guy running a shop. They did not envision a place where relatively uneducated people were permitted to vote. quote>

Good points. 

This is 2011, not 1787. The world is a very different place. The system as it was set up then wasn't designed for this. quote>

True.  They envisioned a country that was geographically separate, not one where global economics and communication were a big deal.

 

Personally, I think it's partly due to campaign financing laws run amok.quote>

Your point is valid, but the change you seek will never happen without a major upheaval. No politician in their right mind is going to support anything that will cut off their source of campaign funding, that's just biting the hand that feeds you.  quote>

Good point.  

Reminds me of one of my favorite Constitutional amendments:  the last one.  [link]     Basically it says that Congress can’t vote itself a raise; it can only vote the next Congress a raise.   (Originally proposed September 25, 1789.  Ratified May 7, 1992.  How cool is that?)

Originally posted by: svachon

Originally posted by: Duke87

  . . . . The system as it was set up then wasn't designed for this.

Oh yes it was.  Our constitution is a set of pricinipals not specifics.  And it allows for an amendment process to change with the times.  It is not a "living breathign document."  It is as relavent today as it wa] quote>

It's not a living, breathing document?   It's been amended five times since I was born.

You must not follow the democrats/progressive arguement that says the constitution is a living, breathing, document.  In other words it's not to be taken seriously or literally and can be interpretted anyway they deem to fit modern day circumstances.  Gee I thought that's what laws and constituional ammendments were for. 

[Meg 368]

I guess we have different interpretations as to what "living, breathing" means.   I figure that is what the amendments are for.

On another note, why are you writing everything in bold?   It's unnecesary and could be seen as a form of shouting.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: svachon

Originally posted by: Duke87

  . . . . The system as it was set up then wasn't designed for this.quote>

Oh yes it was.  Our constitution is a set of pricinipals not specifics.  And it allows for an amendment process to change with the times.  It is not a "living breathign document."  It is as relavent today as it was in 1787.  Without it we woud have anarchy where the ruling party could make the rules as they see fitquote>

It's not a living, breathing document?   It's been amended five times since I was born.quote>

Well, there's living and breathing and then there's living and breathing. Obviously the constitution can change by being amended. But usually when the idea of the constitution being a "living document" is evoked, what's being implied is that the way the document is interpreted ought to change with the times, even without the actual text changing. As you might guess, this is a somewhat progressive idea, and many more traditionalist Americans take objection to it. The counter-opinion of course being that there is one original intended meaning which cannot change.

Personally, I kinda see it both ways. Yes, there must have been an original intended meaning, and it ought to be stuck with, but determining what exactly the intent was is often difficult. And as time marches on, we are always being confronted with new situations that nobody who wrote the constitution ever could have imagined. Besides, many provisions in the constitution are quite vague (the second amendment is the most obvious example). In such situations one can only conclude that the interpretation was meant to be flexible.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Personally, I kinda see it both ways. Yes, there must have been an original intended meaning, and it ought to be stuck with, but determining what exactly the intent was is often difficult. And as time marches on, we are always being confronted with new situations that nobody who wrote the constitution ever could have imagined. Besides, many provisions in the constitution are quite vague (the second amendment is the most obvious example). In such situations one can only conclude that the interpretation was meant to be flexible.quote>

 

Makes sense to me.  

From an article I was reading:

. . .  They even intentionally put in several vague phrases to make this point in the original text itself. Article I, Section 8 lays out the powers Congress can exercise, and both begins and ends with sweeping statements:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. quote>

quote>

I won't quote the article in full here, partly because it's rather opinionated and partly because we've strayed quite a distance away from the topic of Capitalism versus Socialism.

[krbe 193]

Vague wording is a technique used by lawmakers where they intentionally wish to grant the executive / judicial branch discretion to actually "make law". And while the US constituion in itself has nothing to do with capitalism (other than being signed the same year Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations was published), the rule of law should be recognised as one of the pillars modern capitalism should rest on.

[Azoreus 1]

It is practically impossible to begin to argue whether Capitalism prevails over Socialism, or the other way around. While Capitalism has quite a clear definition (small government, free ownership, democracy [in general]), socialism includes everything from the economic planning by the Soviet Union to the European socialism with free market yet a government that ensures social justice. In between you also have China, with a free entrepreneurship (except in heavy industries, harbours and such) yet a totalitarian government that can jump in between whenever it sees fit.

I personally do believe that a free market is essential. A state cannot through X-year-plans create an efficient market, instead private entrepreneurship is what in general takes best care that the demand and supply of goods meet each other. There has never been a successful planned economy, they've always failed. But on the other hand there must be a government that controls certain sectors, and which through progressive taxation creates a socially more unanimous and fair society. The government should take care that the poor have equally good chances to fulfill themselves as those who are richer. Free education and health-care are amongst other public services which can ensure that.

One clear mistake that has been done in the name of liberalism and capitalism was giving the banking sector free hands. Before the 80's (when globalization was really put forward) the banks couldn't loan out money just how they wanted. Officials monitored that the risks the banks took weren't too big, so that the depositors wouldn't lose all their money. This was demolished during the 80's and 90's in the US (under Bush the elders time, I believe), in Europe and other industrialized countries. Now, as the banks' risk-taking isn't regulated at all, the banks throughout the western world are collapsing and have collapsed when they've taken huge risks (such as the Sub-prime mortages in the US,  

). This inevitably means hard times for tax-payers and the government. In Iceland the banks caused the entire island's collapse!

So capitalism or socialism? Both, I suppose.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: svachon

Show me a place where socialism is tried and it works well and don't give me Sweden. How many people live there, too small a sample size. Our capitalist system has taken us from nowhere to the greatest, most prosperous country in the history of the world in just 250 yrs. Where has socialism ever done that.quote>

Worked just fine in the monastic orders of the middle ages until the states got greedy for the accumulated wealth.  In fact, many monastic orders, even today, are pure communisms.

You, my jingoistic friend, are sadly mistaken if you think the United States of america is the capitalist winner.  The winner is the British Empire, now the Commonwealth of Nations.  Things may not be roses now in old Blightly, but other Commonwelath countries would tell you that each and every one of us is a finer place to live than the U.S.  Those who don't are welcome to vote with their feet.  And as a matter of fact, the history of my part of the Commonwealth starts sometime in the 1600s with the arrival of the first governor general (the Sieur de Champlain).

[svachon 3]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Originally posted by: svachon

Show me a place where socialism is tried and it works well and don't give me Sweden. How many people live there, too small a sample size. Our capitalist system has taken us from nowhere to the greatest, most prosperous country in the history of the world in just 250 yrs. Where has socialism ever done that.quote>

Worked just fine in the monastic orders of the middle ages until the states got greedy for the accumulated wealth.  In fact, many monastic orders, even today, are pure communisms.

You, my jingoistic friend, are sadly mistaken if you think the United States of america is the capitalist winner.  The winner is the British Empire, now the Commonwealth of Nations.  Things may not be roses now in old Blightly, but other Commonwelath countries would tell you that each and every one of us is a finer place to live than the U.S.  Those who don't are welcome to vote with their feet.  And as a matter of fact, the history of my part of the Commonwealth starts sometime in the 1600s with the arrival of the first governor general (the Sieur de Champlain).

quote>

I'm saying that in only 250 yrs our capalist society has allowed us to become the world leader in innovation, medicine, space, and the only superpower on earth.  We also supply much of the worlds defense.  We helped end slavery.  Without the great experiment that allowed people to run their own government not a king or dictator, the world would be a much different place.  Thanks to our genius founders and our constituion;  the greatest political document ever.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: svachon

I'm saying that in only 250 yrs our capalist society has allowed us to become the world leader in innovation, medicine, space, and the only superpower on earth.  We also supply much of the worlds defense.  quote>

All that, imo had less to do with capitalism, and more to do with location. It is, afterall, only a very recent thing that the US is the sole superpower - and that status is surely soon to be challenged.

We helped end slavery.quote>

Within the confines of the United States, certainly.. but the British Empire arguably did more to end slavery on a global scale, than America did - and earlier, too.

Without the great experiment that allowed people to run their own government not a king or dictator, the world would be a much different place.quote>

Most European monarchies were making slow changes to allow more and more political freedom for the "commoners", throughout the 19th Century.. not to mention the numerous revolutions (see: 1848). All this had more to do with the French Revolution than the American Revolution.

[krbe 193]

Again, the US constitution, a republican government, "ending slavery" and the rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" ARE NOT what makes a country rich. If it were, how could Australia turn rich? Singapore? Sweden (if Sweden is "too small a sample size" for you regarding social democratic societies (not socialist), when did the US become large enough? It can't have been in 1776.)? The Dutch, the Italians and the English knew the secrets to wealth centuries before some guys colonising the Eastern parts of the Northern American continent decided to take some parts British society and some parts French philosophy and put it on paper -- and started emulating English economic policy. Which is, in short, the only factor making one rich: Buy low, sell high.

[svachon 3]

Originally posted by: beebs

Originally posted by: svachon

I'm saying that in only 250 yrs our capalist society has allowed us to become the world leader in innovation, medicine, space, and the only superpower on earth.  We also supply much of the worlds defense.  quote>

All that, imo had less to do with capitalism, and more to do with location. It is, afterall, only a very recent thing that the US is the sole superpower - and that status is surely soon to be challenged.

OK, we were one of two superpowers in the world for quite some time and in less than 250 yrs.  Where are GB and Europe, already well established countries,  where are they??

We helped end slavery.quote>

Within the confines of the United States, certainly.. but the British Empire arguably did more to end slavery on a global scale, than America did - and earlier, too.

What did they do, I'm not up on that.  We went to war with ourselves to end it here.

Without the great experiment that allowed people to run their own government not a king or dictator, the world would be a much different place.quote>

Most European monarchies were making slow changes to allow more and more political freedom for the "commoners", throughout the 19th Century.. not to mention the numerous revolutions (see: 1848). All this had more to do with the French Revolution than the American Revolution.

quote>

So if they with giving people great political freedoms, why did we go war with England to win our independance?  

Where have all the great inventions (medical breakthroughs, sciencific breakthroughs, space breakthru's) occured in the last century--Europe???? The world leader for the last 100-150 years is the USA.  Brought on by offering people freedom and liberty to pursue their dreams in a capitalistic society.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: svachon

OK, we were one of two superpowers in the world for quite some time and in less than 250 yrs.  Where are GB and Europe, already well established countries,  where are they??quote>

Europe was ravaged by not one, but two world wars. The industry of all the major powers on the European continent (including Britain) had to, essentially, start from scratch. The Soviets, having rebuild their industry behind the Urals during the war and with the "benefit" of a centrally planned economy was able to boost themselves up faster to be the economic and political equal of the United States. Even Germany fared better than Britain after WW2. Where Germany was swimming in Marshall Plan funding, Britain wasn't eligible for the $$.. and the United States came asking for debt repayments immediately after the end of the war. Britain was barely able to squeak by.. rationing ended in 1954.. almost a decade after the end of the war. Quite honestly, I'd shocked if the United States wasn't a global superpower in this situation.

What did they do, I'm not up on that.  We went to war with ourselves to end it here.quote>

Britain abolished slavery in their own domain in 1833. Sometime around there, they basically strong-armed the rest of Europe into putting an end to the slave trade. Without the slave trade to bolster slave numbers, full abolishment came shortly after.

So if they with giving people great political freedoms, why did we go war with England to win our independance?   quote>

The American Colonies, as I understood it, were grumpy about a few more things than having a king leading them. The Quebec Act, for example, didn't sit well with them. We didn't learn much about the American Revolution in school, and my recent British History class only touched on it briefly, but the distinct impression I've got was that it was much more complicated than a simple desire for democratic freedoms.

Where have all the great inventions (medical breakthroughs, sciencific breakthroughs, space breakthru's) occured in the last century--Europe???? The world leader for the last 100-150 years is the USA.  Brought on by offering people freedom and liberty to pursue their dreams in a capitalistic society.quote>

Certainly there have been many scientific achievements discovered within the United States. But I fail to see how that is tied to capitalism. Soviet Russia certainly wasn't a failure at science. They were the first to put a man in space, remember.

There's also the fact that many achievements, although occuring on American soil, or being American funded, were not discovered by American educated scientists.

[Azoreus 1]

On slavery, it is indisputable that the British outlawing slavery within the entire commonwealth has contributed the most to ending slavery (even though it still does occur). Not only did the law effectively end it within the empire, but it also put forward the idea that every man is free. It's silly to argue that America had contributed significantly to the end of slavery when it simply ended in their country after a civil-war, and when the oppression of the blacks continued even after the second world war, unheard of in Europe.

What one cannot dispute as well, is that America has been one of the strongest (in terms of military and economy) countries starting from the 20th century, and that a free market has significantly contributed to that. This, however, has little to do with arguing against the type of socialism that has been practiced in the Nordic countries of Europe.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: svachon

Where have all the great inventions (medical breakthroughs, sciencific breakthroughs, space breakthru's) occured in the last century--Europe????quote>

Look up where the funding to all this have come from. It is not through purely capitalist mechanisms. In the medical and scientific field, they often depend upon basic university research, funded through taxes (public "socialist" approach) or private / corporate donations (philantropy, not capitalist investment), while further research often will be conducted in independent companies in cooperation with research enviornments. Then, for the invention to go mainstream, one of the larger medical / pharmaceutical companies will often buy the independent company to capitalise on the innovations. I used to work for a medical company -- you get used to all the different divisions, inventions, company mergers, etc., etc. pretty quickly.

And although John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a rich man, I doubt he used his own money to put a man on the moon. The Space Race was conducted much as a war. Some got rich, but the risk and funding was the responsibility of the state. If you want to see a purely capitalist space breakthrough, look to Europe and Copenhagen Suborbitals. Probably the freest (in an Ricardian sense) space venture out there. It is not American.

Originally posted by: svachon

OK, we were one of two superpowers in the world for quite some time and in less than 250 yrs.  Where are GB and Europe, already well established countries,  where are they??quote>

Some crumbling, like the US is right now. Others are specialising; impressively, after barely holding on after reunification. Wondering where China is now, for example? Right in front of you, in your pocket, all around the modern world. Including making sure that the US Constitution is as dead as possible so it doesn't rot away...

And that is just one of the ways China is in the forefront. A few years ago, IBM sold its ThinkPad line to Lenovo. And it would be naïve to believe that Huawei, a private, Chinese company that spent way over 2bn USD on R&D last year, won't grow even stronger.

[svachon 3]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: svachon

Where have all the great inventions (medical breakthroughs, sciencific breakthroughs, space breakthru's) occured in the last century--Europe????quote>

Look up where the funding to all this have come from. It is not through purely capitalist mechanisms. In the medical and scientific field, they often depend upon basic university research, funded through taxes (public "socialist" approach) or private / corporate donations (philantropy, not capitalist investment), while further research often will be conducted in independent companies in cooperation with research enviornments. Then, for the invention to go mainstream, one of the larger medical / pharmaceutical companies will often buy the independent company to capitalise on the innovations. I used to work for a medical company -- you get used to all the different divisions, inventions, company mergers, etc., etc. pretty quickly.

And although John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a rich man, I doubt he used his own money to put a man on the moon. The Space Race was conducted much as a war. Some got rich, but the risk and funding was the responsibility of the state. If you want to see a purely capitalist space breakthrough, look to Europe and Copenhagen Suborbitals. Probably the freest (in an Ricardian sense) space venture out there. It is not American.

Originally posted by: svachon

OK, we were one of two superpowers in the world for quite some time and in less than 250 yrs.  Where are GB and Europe, already well established countries,  where are they??quote>

Some crumbling, like the US is right now. Others are specialising; impressively, after barely holding on after reunification. Wondering where China is now, for example? Right in front of you, in your pocket, all around the modern world. Including making sure that the US Constitution is as dead as possible so it doesn't rot away...

And that is just one of the ways China is in the forefront. A few years ago, IBM sold its ThinkPad line to Lenovo. And it would be naïve to believe that Huawei, a private, Chinese company that spent way over 2bn USD on R&D last year, won't grow even stronger.

quote>

First of all I reject your premise that most great innovations came from public funding to school.  But even if we accept this, where does the funding come from....... taxes from a thiving capitalist society.    Where are all your great invetnions coming out of your socialist/communist countries.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: svachon

First of all I reject your premise that most great innovations came from public funding to school.quote>

Oh dear, please read the text before you infer anything from it. You reject a premise that doesn't exist. I said nothing about great innovations, I mentioned basic research, where all great innovations stem from. I am "lucky" enough to study in Denmark, run by a government with a view that seems to conform with yours when it comes to capitalism and innovations.

Yet, consider Hans Christian Ørsted and his contributions to electromagnetism. A professor at Copenhagen University, with a salary paid by the government, making his initial discoveries in this field at a lecture, reckognising its importance because of a scholarship awarded to him years earlier that enabled him to travel Europe and research and network – not because neither him or the Danish state were out to make a lot of money off him, but because he was a scientist. Hardly the hallmark of capitalist innovation, yet his discoveries are absolutely indispensable to our world today.

If "capitalism" is so essential to driving the world forward, how would we have treated him? If the same capitalist principles that governs the appropriation of money to Copenhagen University today were at work in the 1800s he would have been charged with making a better parafine lamp or refining the compass. Hardly something that would give us refridgerators, aeroplanes, photocopiers, streetlights, smart bombs, loudspeakers or satelite imagery.