Does Capitalism Truly Reduce Poverty and Increase Wealth for All?

[Aquamarine]

Research overwhelmingly shows that the road to long-term reduction of poverty and more wealth for all is more capitalism.

The Fraser study also found that economic freedom is strongly related to poverty reduction and other indicators of progress. The United Nations' Human Poverty Index is negatively correlated with the Fraser index of economic freedom. People living in the top 20 percent of countries in terms of economic freedom, moreover, tend to live about two decades longer than people in the bottom 20 percent. Lower infant mortality, higher literacy rates, lower corruption, and greater access to safe drinking water are also associated with increases in economic liberty. Indeed, the United Nations' Human Development Index, which measures various aspects of standards of living, correlates positively with greater economic freedom.

Nor are those benefits shared unequally. The Fraser study found that there is no correlation between economic freedom and inequality, while a World Bank study has found that the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of the population rise proportionately with the average rise in income.

a recent World Bank study that looked at growth in 65 developing countries during the 1980s and 1990s. The share of people in poverty, defined as those living on less than a dollar per day, almost always declined in countries that experienced growth and increased in countries that experienced economic contractions. The faster the growth, the study found, the faster the poverty reduction, and vice versa. For example, an economic expansion in per capita income of 8.2 percent translated into a 6.1 reduction in the poverty rate. A contraction of 1.9 percent in output led to an increase of 1.5 percent in the poverty rate.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/vas-0109.html
http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html
http://www.hazlitt.org/e-texts/poverty/

Yes, child labor, low pay, long working hours and dangerous working conditions existed in the period following the industrial revolution. But the comparison should be made to period before that, a period when population growth was regulated through starvation and disease. The industrial revolution in agriculture and industry made it possible for almost all people to survive, but in the beginning at price of the above.
The reduction in working hour, the part of life in work and working conditions have been due to capitalism, not from socialistic reductions in capitalism. The primary mechanisms have been increased wealth/capita and competition for the workers among the capitalists.

One criticism is that recently the poor in the US has not seen their income rise or rise much less than those with a higher education. However, increasing international trade and competition means that the group for comparison must include people doing similar and competing work worldwide. And that group as a whole, which includes Chinese and other Asians, have had increasing income. Especially when considering that the size of the group suddenly increased very rapidly after the fall of communism.
And it is not possible to protect workers in the US by making those in other countries poorer, for example by tariffs:
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1429

Further discussion about the apparent rising inequality:
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1229
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1230
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1231

A Malthusian catastrophe as the end of growth has been predicted many times before and always wrongly. Ironically, Malthus formulated his theory exactly when it ceased to work. The industrial revolution (or more correctly capitalistic revolution, since that was primary cause both in agriculture and industry) caused the amount of wealth to increase much faster than population growth. There is no reason that this cannot continue in the future.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46384
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/1998_Draft/World_GDP/Estimating_World_GDP.html

Of course, the capitalistic system must continue for growth to continue. Sadly, capitalism is in retreat in western civilization.
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/intl-spend.htm

 

[Aquamarine]

Capitalism should be understood as what the various indexes of economic freedom try to measure: Rule of law, property rights, low taxes, few regulations, small state, sound money, and free trade. In short, a state that prevents people from gaining from others though the use of violence, but let voluntary cooperation build the rest of society.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What job growth in the past few years has been in government. The private sector has shown very little growth and within it, the manufacturing sector has shrunk. The US is evolving into a state that produces little and buys from abroad on credit. See the recent special section on China and the US in The Economist.

 

[Aquamarine]

What job growth in the past few years has been in government. The private sector has shown very little growth and within it, the manufacturing sector has shrunk. The US is evolving into a state that produces little and buys from abroad on credit. See the recent special section on China and the US in The Economist.

This is true but I am uncertain if you mean that this is the fault of capitalism. That is not the case, it is the decline of capitalism, measured for example by the constantly growing government share of GDP, that is causing real growth to falter. Se the last of the links above. The same author has many more good articles on the current state and future of the US economy.

 

[russ_watters]

Research overwhelmingly shows that the road to long-term reduction of poverty and more wealth for all is more capitalism.

Yeah, as you can probably tell, I'm a big fan.

What job growth in the past few years has been in government. The private sector has shown very little growth and within it, the manufacturing sector has shrunk. The US is evolving into a state that produces little and buys from abroad on credit. See the recent special section on China and the US in The Economist.

That's socialism and it scares me that we're moving in that direction. The USSR subsisted by selling its natural resources while using massive social welfare to sustain its internal economy. What they did (and we are now doing) is basically financial bloodletting. It needs to stop.

One caveat, I'm not so much concerned about outsourcing low-end job as buying finished-products from other countries. Right now people are outsourcing anything and everything they can. But the pendulum is swinging back: Dell recently stopped outsourcing its support because of the negative respone it got. Of more concern though is the finished-products: buying a Chinese product made in China means both the salaries of the employees and the profits stay in China.

 

[False Prophet]

I don't understand how we are even close to anything but capitalism, or how we could be moving toward socialism. Two and a half minutes three times per half hour on telivision, a 90 page magazine filled with 40 pages of actual content, commercials not only before the movie, but integrated into the movie, wasted trees on the doornob, mailbox, and under the wiper, park benches with some inconsiderate hobo feeding ducks covering up half of State Farm's phone number, telemarketers, collosally commercial corporate collages covering those stock cars that look like puke if you squint your eyes and those sexy beer-drinking babes in bikinis distracting me into smashing into the car in front of me on the expressway; all of these things pretty much tell me we have a free-market economy.

In fact, outsourcing, importing and exporting are all functions of global capitalism. Competition among the international free market for control of capital fits the definition. I do agree that it is worse for the United States and its economy to import everything from China, Taiwan, etc. but the U.S.A. still does plenty of its own stuff, including electricity, recording music, etc. plus plenty of internal trading (stocks, bonds, currency, etc.) commodities, and a wide range of products that say "Made in the U.S.A.", a lot of these things exported for U.S.A. profit.

 

[Aquamarine]

Advertising is only a small part of the economy and not inherently evil:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Advertising.html

The diminishing of capitalism can be seen in such trends as the ever increasing government share of GDP or constantly increasing regulations in all parts of society, making, for example, medical research or energy production constantly more expensive. There is a link for government share of GDP above, here is another for regulation by the same author. (Who has the endorsement of Milton Friedman, one of the most prominent economists of this century).
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/regulation.htm

Free trade is a necessary part of the capitalistic system that has increased wealth for all where applied, including the poorest. However, it should not be denied that capitalism and free trade can temporarily make some groups poorer. One examples would be the very large group of people dependant on horses when the combustion engine appeared. But it would not have been a good idea for society to protect these people by prohibiting the combustion engine. Long term, not even for those states most dependent on the horse industry.
Similarly, certainly some workers in the US can be affected negatively by international competition while competing workers abroad are gaining. But for humanity as a whole, more people are gaining than are losing. And also similarly, a little more long-term, all people in the US will gain from the increased growth from free trade.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1429

 

[russ_watters]

Something else just struck me - it annoys me greatly that one of the biggest complaints people have about capitalism is inequality. Though it is mostly true that the division between rich and poor is bigger in capitalism (unless you compare the peasants to the king...), but so what? Pre-industrial revolution, everyone was pretty much equal -- equally poor. How is that a good thing? In industrialized countries, yes, its true that the rich can be a thousand times richer than the poor, but the poor are a thousand times richer than the poor in non-industrial countries. Do people complaining about the income gap really want us to go back to living in dirt-floor log cabins?

"Equality" is politically-correct B.S. Give me freedom instead.

 

[Burnsys]

Capitalism has not future with our current money suply system...
Fractional reserve banking is a fraud legalized by the government for the private bankers... have Proffs..

Please Read:

Abstract: This paper looks at the history of money and its modern form from a scientific and mathematical point of view. The approach here is to emphasize simplicity. A straightforward model and algebraic formula for a large economy analogous to the ideal gas law of thermodynamics is proposed. It may be something like a new ``F=ma'' rule of the emerging econophysics field. Some implications of the equation are outlined, derived, and proved. The phenomena of counterfeiting, inflation and deflation are analyzed for interrelations. Analogies of the economy to an ecosystem or energy system are advanced. The fundamental legitimacy of ``expansion of the money supply'' in particular is re-examined and challenged. From the hypotheses a major (admittedly radical) conclusion is that the modern international ``fractional reserve banking system'' is actually equivalent to ``legalized economic parasitism by private bankers.'' This is the case because, contrary to conventional wisdom, the proceeds of inflation are not actually spendable by the state. Also possible are forms of ``economic warfare'' based on the principles. Alternative systems are proposed to remediate this catastrophic flaw.

http://econpapers.hhs.se/scripts/redir.pl?u=http%3A%2F%2Feconwpa.wustl.edu%3A80%2Feps%2Fmac%2Fpapers%2F0203%2F0203005.pdf;h=repec:wpa:wuwpma:0203005

More simple and short version:
http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html

(If you read this text you will understand where this mises.org came from:

The Mises Institute's coat of arms is that of the Mises family, awarded in 1881 when Ludwig von Mises's great-grandfather Mayer Rachmiel Mises was ennobled by the Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria. In the upper right-hand quadrant is the staff of Mercury, god of commerce and communication (the Mises family was successful in both; they were merchants and bankers). In the lower left-hand quadrant is a representation of the Ten Commandments. Mayer Rachmiel, as well as his father, presided over various Jewish cultural organizations in Lemberg, the city where Ludwig was born.)

 

[Burnsys]

by the way.. you talk about how more capitalism help the poor... i am from a 3rd wrold country.. Argentina.. and i can tell you, here it didn't help much...
In the 90' our ex president "Liberalized" the economy.. what happened?
Us and europeans banks came in, and with them us and european multinational corporations... the banks gave credits to this corporations and with this credits the corporations buyed our bigest and more rentable industries and companies. That simple.. now we depend on them for everything.. including water, Electricity, comunications, fuel, media, etc. and of course they are no more than 3 or 4 corporations by sector and they bribe our corrupted politicians... so they can charge anything they want. they services are deficient, they have no competition (couse they buy them all with credits), and they are monopolics. in 10 years, 50% of the population are poor and can't access any of these elemental services.

Sorry my english i don't speak very well..
Pd: the same happened in every country of latin america, almos synchronized..
Pd2: in 15 years these companys have no care for the enviroment, my father use to swing in a river called "Riachuelo" now if you dive,, you die... it is so polluted it is BLACK, the soure of the pollution, REPSOL from espain, SHELL from usa, and other..
PD3: why do we have to pay for the oil to US corporations at dolar price, if we export half our production and us imports half of its needs in oil?

 

[russ_watters]

by the way.. you talk about how more capitalism help the poor... i am from a 3rd wrold country.. Argentina.. and i can tell you, here it didn't help much...

As already said, it has to be implimented correctly before it can help.

 

[Aquamarine]

by the way.. you talk about how more capitalism help the poor... i am from a 3rd wrold country.. Argentina.. and i can tell you, here it didn't help much...
In the 90' our ex president "Liberalized" the economy.. what happened?
Us and europeans banks came in, and with them us and european multinational corporations... the banks gave credits to this corporations and with this credits the corporations buyed our bigest and more rentable industries and companies. That simple.. now we depend on them for everything.. including water, Electricity, comunications, fuel, media, etc. and of course they are no more than 3 or 4 corporations by sector and they bribe our corrupted politicians... so they can charge anything they want. they services are deficient, they have no competition (couse they buy them all with credits), and they are monopolics. in 10 years, 50% of the population are poor and can't access any of these elemental services.

Sorry my english i don't speak very well..
Pd: the same happened in every country of latin america, almos synchronized..
Pd2: in 15 years these companys have no care for the enviroment, my father use to swing in a river called "Riachuelo" now if you dive,, you die... it is so polluted it is BLACK, the soure of the pollution, REPSOL from espain, SHELL from usa, and other..
PD3: why do we have to pay for the oil to US corporations at dolar price, if we export half our production and us imports half of its needs in oil?

1.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1120
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1472&id=73
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=868

And many more here:
http://www.google.com/u/Mises?hl=en&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&&q=argentina

2.
The environment unfortunately tend to become a secondary issue for most people when a country is poor. When the country get richer, there will be more protection for the environment.

One thing to ponder: Rivers are usually examples of "The tragedy of the commons", meaning that since the river has no owner (except vaguely a mostly inefficient state), there is no one with a strong interest in protecting the river. Yes, private owner(s) would demand payment for getting drinking or agricultural water, fishing, bathing or otherwise using it, but he would also work to protect it so he could continue to get those payments.

3. I am not sure what you are asking. This may be an answer to your question, otherwise ask again.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1518

 

[Ba]

Capitilization might work for a country if it is a closed system but when you open it up to have the inequalities of the countries, then I believe you have a problem. A few people from developed countries bring the development into the less developed countries for themselves, and there they have no real competition. Our economy in the US is unstable because manufacturing is outsourced and then they bring it back to sell it to the people in the US for a highly inflated price, at least most of your giant corporations. If capitilism was introduced equally throughout the world everyone standing on the same footing it might work but then again it might not.

 

[Burnsys]

another thing.. capitalism today is controlled by a little group of very very powerfull corporations and banks worldwide, they are the ones who pushes globalization..

for example in america 90% of the media, newspapers, radios etc. is controlled by 8 corporations..

Acumulation of power is more dangerous than capitalism or comunism.

about the money..

Why are countrys poor??
for example.. argentina we have food to feed 3 times our entire population, but 30% is starving... The food industry is controlled 80% by 5 foreing corporations.

----------------------
"There are four things that must be available for paid work to take place:

-The work to be done.
-The materials to do the work.
-The labor to do the work.
-The money to pay for the work to be done.
If any of those four things are missing, no paid work can take place. It is a naturally self-regulating system. If there is work to be done, and the material is available and the labour willing, all we have to do is create the money. Quite simple."

"Ask yourself why it was that depressions happened. All that went missing from the community was the money to buy goods and services. The labour was still available. The work to be done was still there. The materials had not disappeared, and the goods were readily available in the shops, or could be produced but for the want of money.

-----------------------------
quote:

"The understanding of this issue of money into the community can be best illustrated by equating money in the economy with tickets in a railway system. The tickets are printed by a printer who is paid for his work. The printer never claims the ownership of the tickets … And we can never imagine a railway company refusing to give passengers seats on a train because it is out of tickets. By this same token, a government should never refuse people the access to normal commerce and trade by claiming it is out of money."
---------------------------------------
quote:
Extract from a letter written by Rothschild Bros of London to a New York firm of bankers on 25 June 1863:

"The few who can understand the System (Cheque Money and Credits) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class. While on the other hand, the great body of people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical (hostile, hurtful) to their interests.

The following quotation was reprinted in the Idaho Leader, USA, 26 August 1924, and has been read into Hansard twice: by John Evans MP, in 1926, and by M.D. Cowan M.P., in the Session of 1930-1931.
-----------------------
again:
http://www.mises.org/ is a banker controlled website:
The Mises Institute's coat of arms is that of the Mises family, awarded in 1881 when Ludwig von Mises's great-grandfather Mayer Rachmiel Mises was ennobled by the Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria. In the upper right-hand quadrant is the staff of Mercury, god of commerce and communication (the Mises family was successful in both; they were merchants and bankers). In the lower left-hand quadrant is a representation of the Ten Commandments. Mayer Rachmiel, as well as his father, presided over various Jewish cultural organizations in Lemberg, the city where Ludwig was born.)

The mises is a family of bankers, i don't believe what they say
-------------------------------
Please Please read this: http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html

 

[Aquamarine]

Capitalism has not future with our current money suply system...
Fractional reserve banking is a fraud legalized by the government for the private bankers... have Proffs..

Please Read:

Abstract: This paper looks at the history of money and its modern form from a scientific and mathematical point of view. The approach here is to emphasize simplicity. A straightforward model and algebraic formula for a large economy analogous to the ideal gas law of thermodynamics is proposed. It may be something like a new ``F=ma'' rule of the emerging econophysics field. Some implications of the equation are outlined, derived, and proved. The phenomena of counterfeiting, inflation and deflation are analyzed for interrelations. Analogies of the economy to an ecosystem or energy system are advanced. The fundamental legitimacy of ``expansion of the money supply'' in particular is re-examined and challenged. From the hypotheses a major (admittedly radical) conclusion is that the modern international ``fractional reserve banking system'' is actually equivalent to ``legalized economic parasitism by private bankers.'' This is the case because, contrary to conventional wisdom, the proceeds of inflation are not actually spendable by the state. Also possible are forms of ``economic warfare'' based on the principles. Alternative systems are proposed to remediate this catastrophic flaw.

http://econpapers.hhs.se/scripts/redir.pl?u=http%3A%2F%2Feconwpa.wustl.edu%3A80%2Feps%2Fmac%2Fpapers%2F0203%2F0203005.pdf;h=repec:wpa:wuwpma:0203005

More simple and short version:
http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html

(If you read this text you will understand where this mises.org came from:

The Mises Institute's coat of arms is that of the Mises family, awarded in 1881 when Ludwig von Mises's great-grandfather Mayer Rachmiel Mises was ennobled by the Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria. In the upper right-hand quadrant is the staff of Mercury, god of commerce and communication (the Mises family was successful in both; they were merchants and bankers). In the lower left-hand quadrant is a representation of the Ten Commandments. Mayer Rachmiel, as well as his father, presided over various Jewish cultural organizations in Lemberg, the city where Ludwig was born.)

Both "papers" want a world without interest rates and the first also without growth.
This is the common socialistic idea that the capitalist do no work, and therefore should get no pay. Anyone doing serious investment can tell that it takes enormous work to decide which projects should get resources.

Furthermore, a capitalist is someone who have saved and could consume something enjoyable now, but instead chooses to let someone else use his savings in return for getting more enjoyment in the futures. Without this possibility of getting more in the future, there would be no lending since there is always a risk of losing the investment.

Regarding mises.org, I am unsure of your point. The first paper had them as a good reference and not among a capitalistic conspiracy. They are also very critical of the fractional reserve and fiat system, but from the viewpoint of too little capitalism.

 

[Aquamarine]

Capitilization might work for a country if it is a closed system but when you open it up to have the inequalities of the countries, then I believe you have a problem. A few people from developed countries bring the development into the less developed countries for themselves, and there they have no real competition. Our economy in the US is unstable because manufacturing is outsourced and then they bring it back to sell it to the people in the US for a highly inflated price, at least most of your giant corporations. If capitilism was introduced equally throughout the world everyone standing on the same footing it might work but then again it might not.

Proven wrong by empiric research. More capitalism have made all richer were introduced, including the poorest. This has worked although there are enormous variation in capitalism in the world. See my first links. And there is not more capitalism in the US today, but much less than before.

 

[Aquamarine]

Why are countrys poor??
for example.. argentina we have food to feed 3 times our entire population, but 30% is starving... The food industry is controlled 80% by 5 foreing corporations.

----------------------
"There are four things that must be available for paid work to take place:

-The work to be done.
-The materials to do the work.
-The labor to do the work.
-The money to pay for the work to be done.
If any of those four things are missing, no paid work can take place. It is a naturally self-regulating system. If there is work to be done, and the material is available and the labour willing, all we have to do is create the money. Quite simple."

"Ask yourself why it was that depressions happened. All that went missing from the community was the money to buy goods and services. The labour was still available. The work to be done was still there. The materials had not disappeared, and the goods were readily available in the shops, or could be produced but for the want of money.

Regarding Argentina, read the links given before.

Regarding depressions, they follow a period of malinvestments. If resources have been invested in many pointless projects without use and the bubble suddenly collapses, it will take some time to change society and start new, more productive companies. If a house poorly built collapses, it cannot immediately be replace by a new.

Regarding the developing world, it is certainly not lack of printed money that is missing. Latin America have tried hyperinflation many times, always with a catastrophe as a result.
Third world countries generally have, in no particular order: corruption, bureaucracy, inflation, many regulations, crime, lacking property rights and socialism. In short, to little capitalism.

Both developed and developing countries must realize that it is not someone else who are primarily to blame for their problems. There is no conspiracy, you are not automatically entitled to anything and you should consider that bad results may actually be caused by yourself. Grow up.

 

[russ_watters]

Your points are excellent, as usual (are you an economist?), but let me expand just a touch on this one:

This is the common socialistic idea that the capitalist do no work, and therefore should get no pay. Anyone doing serious investment can tell that it takes enormous work to decide which projects should get resources.

You can expand this to talk about the pay gaps between workers and managers that are a key point of socialists. Why should managers make more money if they don't do any "work?" The answer is that managing requires making decisions that affect a large number of people and have a large influence over the company. Being a manager is a big responsibility and that responsibility is worth a lot of money.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Marxists do not say managers do no work. Managers are employees just like factory workers, and Marxists would advise them to look to see if their own class interests don't in fact match those of the factory workers. Recent white-collars layoffs may encourage them to do so.

The people who do no work and are class enemies to the Marxists are the "owners of the means of production". Rich people who own the corporations, and whose work, if any, is more of a hobby than a productive enterprise. Great example, G.W. Bush before he entered politics.

 

[Burnsys]

I am not a marxist. i am not against Capitalism neither... but yes against The economic model "Neoliberalism" that US and europe are forcing us to adopt using the IMF now and Military dictatorships in the 70's...

This economic model only makes richer the richers, and poor the poorest, i am middle class here, and each year we are closer to the poor class.. while the rich, a little 10% who owns 80% of the whealt is getting richer..

60% of our salary goes to pay services (Water, Communications, Oil) who are all oligopolic foreing corporations from us and europe.

50% of the government national budget go to pay "International Creditors" IMF, WB, IDB, while 30% of our population is starving...

I have a text i would like you to read.. it's an interview to the winner of the nobel prize in economics. Ex director of the World bank, He was fired for telling the trut:

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=78&row=1

 

[Aquamarine]

Communism have killed more than 100 million people since 1917.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

There have also been "experiments" where people with a similar culture and prosperity have been divided into capitalistic and communistic parts: North and South Korea, East and West Germany, China and Taiwan/Hong Kong.

One big problem with socialism it that there must be a small group of people making the decisions for all. It is not possible to vote on all small details and the capitalistic price system leads to inequality and should be abolished. But this small group of people have much less computational ability than when all people participate in the capitalistic price system. Socialism is inherently more stupid than capitalism.

One other problem is that people will not work as well when paid regardless of results or efforts. Trying to reward only effort, even if possible to measure, will mean that much work is wasted without result.

 

[Aquamarine]

I am not a marxist. i am not against Capitalism neither... but yes against The economic model "Neoliberalism" that US and europe are forcing us to adopt using the IMF now and Military dictatorships in the 70's...

This economic model only makes richer the richers, and poor the poorest, i am middle class here, and each year we are closer to the poor class.. while the rich, a little 10% who owns 80% of the whealt is getting richer..

60% of our salary goes to pay services (Water, Communications, Oil) who are all oligopolic foreing corporations from us and europe.

50% of the government national budget go to pay "International Creditors" IMF, WB, IDB, while 30% of our population is starving...

I have a text i would like you to read.. it's an interview to the winner of the nobel prize in economics. Ex director of the World bank, He was fired for telling the trut:

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=78&row=1

The IMF, WB and so on should be abolished. They have created a very wealthy aristocracy of people living on the poverty in the thirld world. They transfer money paid by tax to themselves and to the ruling elite in the thirld world. The worse result they produce, the more money they get. They have become an institution for creating poverty. Opposite to what would happen in a free market and a typical example of why the state should interfere as little as possible.

Argentina have been in default to IMF and others since 2001, so those numbers are incorrect. The default is good and you should certainly not seek new loans from the mentioned state agencies. Hopefully, this will mean that after a while, foreign investment will be from people with a real interest in building society: capitalists.

Argentina is not a capitalistic society, in fact one of the least. Here are some of the problems that should be fixed by yourself, not by others:
http://cf.heritage.org/index2004test/country2.cfm?id=Argentina

I am well aware of the tragedy of Argentina. Not long ago having a living standard least equal to that of Europe, it's recent economic history is the opposite of more capitalistic countries like Hong Kong.

 

[Aquamarine]

How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html

And in my opinion, many other empires in history. For example, this gives an excellent explanation of the cyclical collapses of the various Chinese empires.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

Capitalism can’t function by it self. It has to much tendency to monopolize the power of a view. The tragic experiment of the UDSSR doesn’t mean that communise don’t functions ore has to be Stalinism. What defeated the communise was dictatorship and not the economical system. Ever seen a repressive system witch worked better because of capitalism?

Only one element of Capitalise is good: responsibility and competition. Deadly competition with damage worse then any real war ever fought. 100 Million casualties.. Peanuts.

 

[Aquamarine]

Capitalism can’t function by it self. It has to much tendency to monopolize the power of a view. The tragic experiment of the UDSSR doesn’t mean that communise don’t functions ore has to be Stalinism. What defeated the communise was dictatorship and not the economical system. Ever seen a repressive system witch worked better because of capitalism?

Only one element of Capitalise is good: responsibility and competition. Deadly competition with damage worse then any real war ever fought. 100 Million casualties.. Peanuts.

The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Kampuchea and Vietnam tried somewhat different variants of communism. And they continuously tried to vary the system to make it work, seen for examples in the various catastrophic experiments by Mao. All attempts failed.

And communism cannot work even theoretically, see posts above.

Furthermore you are ignoring the massive empirical evidence that supports the capitalistic system.

Vietnam and China is examples of repressive systems that have worked better since abandoning communism in favor of capitalism.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

Oh the Post above must be written by absolute geniuses. In a view sentence they proved that communism don’t work.I’m so impressed.

It’s easier to prove that capitalism don’t work at least in theory. Ore only for the stronger this will be less and less people.


Witch different kind of communism where there? All the same no new elements, of no deadly competition, responsibility and freedom.

All systems where repressive and isolated. Even China from the Soviet union.

 

[Aquamarine]

Feel free to publish your empirical evidence that capitalism doesn't work. Or you arguments against these studies:
http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

I believe what the authors had written (the first 1/3). But you have to consider that we life in a globalise world and in this world is the economy Capitalism. This Capitalism loves to be on places in witch it can make what it wants. Therefore its no surprise that countries witch builds the best habitats for capitalism benefits most. So what is proven with all this books?

 

[armrecon123]

George Soros says ...

Might does not make right and therefore the United States of America has made a tremendous mistake in using its military supremacy to force democracy on Iraq .

 

[selfAdjoint]

The book, The Market System by Charles E. Lindblom is an excellent discussion of issues surrounding captialism and the market system. Some of his points:

- The government is not just a regulator but is one of the biggest players in the market, buying and selling to the tune of billions of dollars for road construction, armed forces materiel and support, park needs and much else. If Bush's plan to provatize social secuiruty goes through the government will be even bigger in the market.

- Free markets have done much better under strong governments than under weak ones. Where has capitalism floourshed more than in the United States? But the Us government is anti-big business in several ways. Even under Republican administations the trust busting spirit lives on, witness Microsoft's troubles. And the requirement that companies that want to acquire entertainment organizations have to shed other enterprises in the public information sector to get approved. And until the recent Bush elimination the capital gains tax, it and the income tax hit the capitalists twice. None of this prevented enormous investments from flourishing in the US market.

 

[Aquamarine]

The book, The Market System by Charles E. Lindblom is an excellent discussion of issues surrounding captialism and the market system. Some of his points:

- The government is not just a regulator but is one of the biggest players in the market, buying and selling to the tune of billions of dollars for road construction, armed forces materiel and support, park needs and much else. If Bush's plan to provatize social secuiruty goes through the government will be even bigger in the market.

- Free markets have done much better under strong governments than under weak ones. Where has capitalism floourshed more than in the United States? But the Us government is anti-big business in several ways. Even under Republican administations the trust busting spirit lives on, witness Microsoft's troubles. And the requirement that companies that want to acquire entertainment organizations have to shed other enterprises in the public information sector to get approved. And until the recent Bush elimination the capital gains tax, it and the income tax hit the capitalists twice. None of this prevented enormous investments from flourishing in the US market.

I am unsure of your points. Certainly the government has socialized and regulated a large part of the economy in the western world during the last century. However, other parts of capitalism are still relatively strong in the western world: Rule of law, property rights, low corruption and free trade. So the western world is still more capitalistic than most of the rest of the world.

The US was during the nineteenth century the most capitalistic state the world has ever seen. That this started to decline at the end of the century and continue to this day, as in other western countries, has not affected that the US is still one of the most capitalistic countries.

 

[Ludwig]

(jumping in the middle of the discussion...)

I find it strange to see people promoting/debating capitalism, as if there were still an ideological battle in the world. Now that communism has failed, capitalism is not the best system, it's the only system. So why all the discussion?

All the same, I find it funny when I see people promote capitalism as the way to end poverty in the world, when most of that poverty was caused by capitalism itself. It's like a rich man who says everyone could get rich the way he did, without realizing his wealth comes from the people who work for him. That is a fact neither rich man nor rich capitalist societies like to admit.

Suppose every country were as rich as the United States. Where would we find enough oil to fuel 6 billion gas-guzzling vehicles? How many more forests would we have to destroy to make arable land, so we can plant more corn to make enough Doritos for the 5 billion people who currently don't know what Doritos is? And where would we put all the garbage? How about a world with 10 times more weapons of mass destruction than we currently have? (remember, most rich countries have WMDs in large quantities). How about a world with 3 billion air-conditioners? (those people in warm climates, where most of the poverty is, would buy ACs as soon as they can afford it)

The more you think about it, the more we have to thank God that most of the world is not "capitalist" (read: "rich"). At least we have one billion people who can have some fun in their lives; otherwise we'd all be miserable as we have always been throughout history.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I am unsure of your points. Certainly the government has socialized and regulated a large part of the economy in the western world during the last century. However, other parts of capitalism are still relatively strong in the western world: Rule of law, property rights, low corruption and free trade. So the western world is still more capitalistic than most of the rest of the world.

The US was during the nineteenth century the most capitalistic state the world has ever seen. That this started to decline at the end of the century and continue to this day, as in other western countries, has not affected that the US is still one of the most capitalistic countries.

Your first paragraph illustrates my points (actually Lindblom's points). Capitalism is not opposed to government, as the libertarians believe, the two of them have historically done better together than either has done by itself. Where "itself" in the case of the market means with a weak government, since there is no case of capitalism without any government.

Lindblom cites the case of post-soviet Russia, where there was a rush to establish capitalism and the market, while the "rule of law and property rights" (and contract enforcement) were neglected, with disasterous results.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

@Ludwig (Are you from Germany?): You said we have only one system on the world. I say we haven’t even one. Just think about how Capitalism was Invented... You are right it wasn’t invented because it was more or less an accidental development founded on the good old exchange of goods in Stone time-villages… If you think of the developments which mankind has made in the meantime you can see on which primitive level capitalism is.
Only if Marx hadn’t had access on psychological facts which were explored mainly after his time (Motivation was unaccounted) his theory mustn’t be wrong in its core. But there are more then only this two extremes of an economical system imaginable… You have to see the execution of the Communism as a natural reaction of the early industrial age and therefore as to extreme.

What’s wrong whit end the poverty in the world? If there where everywhere enough money there where less or negative growth in World-population. The main problem we will face soon. Also you would have more people to develop new technologies to solve the energy problem you mentioned. Because since is depended on richness, they would be only part of the problem like today they would also be a part of the solution.

But I have to say It too: The USA has to change its course of energy consuming. It was a clever strategy in the past but the more time passes the less it works anymore and will do damage to the countrys competition-ability .

 

[Ludwig]

@Ludwig (Are you from Germany?):

No, but I have a profound admiration for German culture.

You said we have only one system on the world. I say we haven’t even one.

That's true. Capitalism is not a system, it's just a primitive way of organizing society, as you correctly pointed out.

Just think about how Capitalism was Invented... You are right it wasn’t invented because it was more or less an accidental development founded on the good old exchange of goods in Stone time-villages… If you think of the developments which mankind has made in the meantime you can see on which primitive level capitalism is.

To me capitalism is the law-of-the-jungle applied to economics. Capitalism in its pure form is a failed system, as the depression of 29 made very clear. Capitalism only survives to this day thanks to heavy government intervention in the lives of citizens and corporations. Left to its own devices, "laissez-faire", capitalism succumbs to speculation and fraud.

Only if Marx hadn’t had access on psychological facts which were explored mainly after his time (Motivation was unaccounted) his theory mustn’t be wrong in its core.

Marxism is a flawed idea. Marx correctly saw that every system harbors within itself the seeds of its own destruction, but he failed to see that communism, being a system, would also one day destruct itself.

The only system that works is no-system. Some form of anarchy, in the good sense of the word. Get rid of governments, police, armies, lawyers, judges, all the ilk of useless people whose main purpose is to guarantee whatever social order privileges the dominant elite. Power is and always will be associated with corruption; getting rid of powerful people is the only way to get rid of corruption.

But there are more then only this two extremes of an economical system imaginable… You have to see the execution of the Communism as a natural reaction of the early industrial age and therefore as to extreme.

I don't think it happened that way. Communism started in a mostly agrarian society. Marxism arrived in Russia way before factories and machines. The Russian revolution was against their corrupt government, not against rich industrialists.

What’s wrong whit end the poverty in the world? If there where everywhere enough money there where less or negative growth in World-population. The main problem we will face soon. Also you would have more people to develop new technologies to solve the energy problem you mentioned. Because since is depended on richness, they would be only part of the problem like today they would also be a part of the solution.

You are probably right about that. I doubt we can all have as much wealth as the Americans, but I think it's perfectly possible for the whole world to have the standard of living of, say, Spain.

But I have to say It too: The USA has to change its course of energy consuming. It was a clever strategy in the past but the more time passes the less it works anymore and will do damage to the countrys competition-ability .

They already know that, that's why they have so much interest on everything that happens in the Middle East. It would be interesting to see what will happen 200, 300 years from now, after all the oil wells have dried up. If they find an alternative cheap source of energy to drive vehicles, no problem, but I suspect there will be a major transportation crisis in the future. Good thing we won't be around to see it.