Moneyless Sharing: A Solution to the Problems of Capitalism?

[denverdoc]

They had a collective farm in Los Angeles--and this is what became of it:
http://www.narconews.com/Issue41/article1892.html

 

[X-43D]

Poverty and chronic unemployment are also related. Those who can't find a job find it much harder to survive in the wage system. Marx called these poor and jobless people the Lumpenproletariat because they are at the bottom of the working class, hence the underclass.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/u.htm
www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/dp/DP118.pdf[/URL]
[url]www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/unemployment_and_poverty_may05.pdf[/url]

 

[X-43D]

People are poor not because there isn't enough food. We produce more than we can consume. People are poor because they don't have money to pay for food. And if people don't have money to pay, businesses are not going to sell their products. And today everything costs money, even water. So in essence, human institutitons and procedures determine who will live and who will starve or who will be rich and who will be poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment

 

[Gokul43201]

We all know that the love of money is the root of all evil.

Do we? Does that make Bill Gates and Warren Buffet zillions of times more evil than say, Ted Kaczynski?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Do we? Does that make Bill Gates and Warren Buffet zillions of times more evil than say, Ted Kaczynski?

Note the inclusion of the word love, it is not money itself that makes it the route of all evil, this is often misquoted as "money is the route of all evil", which is not what it says. It is an admonishment of greed.

The love of Money is the route of all evil.

or more correctly:-

'for the love of money is a route to all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.'

Timothy 6:10

 

[denverdoc]

Do we? Does that make Bill Gates and Warren Buffet zillions of times more evil than say, Ted Kaczynski?

Are you kidding? The suffering Gates has visited upon billions will warrant a final place for him that even Dante couldn't conceive, even if he gives away all his $$

 

[Gokul43201]

I think the disdain for self (which is taught by most mainstream religions) and disrespect for the rights of others are more frequented routes that lead to evil.

Are you kidding? The suffering Gates has visited upon billions will warrant a final place for him that even Dante couldn't conceive, even if he gives away all his $$

I had that coming, didn't I?

But think of the number of people that took to praying each time they booted up their computer. Surely, that must count for some brownie points from above.

 

[denverdoc]

I think the disdain for self (which is taught by most mainstream religions) and disrespect for the rights of others are more frequented routes that lead to evil...

Thats an interesting notion--self-disdain. Could you elaborate?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I think the disdain for self (which is taught by most mainstream religions) and disrespect for the rights of others are more frequented routes that lead to evil.

None of these have any place in main stream religion, Jesus does not say anything about being a self righteous asshat, at least not in my copy.

I.e Love the sinner not the sin, judge not lest ye be judged, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the meek.

There is no disdain for self as far as I can tell, disdain for selfishness maybe, a disdain of frivolous or immoral self gratification - whatever that may be - but I'm not sure what your getting at?

I had that coming, didn't I?

But think of the number of people that took to praying each time they booted up their computer. Surely, that must count for some brownie points from above.

Satan/Bill Gates and a team of talented jokers wrote the code for windows, so if it drove people to God it was not the intent. Swap files? Are you having a laugh: DLL's now that's just funny

Many people also sold there souls to get Windows to work properly

 

[X-43D]

I'd be careful about using the c word around here, it's akin to sticking your hand in the Queens undies

I think capitalism is fine as a system but it seems there's just too much greed these days and not so much social responsibility. Communism tried and failed to redress the balance, not because it wasn't a good system but because humanity isn't ready for it.

We're too greedy, too acquisitive and too competitive to work for the greater good, it's often what do I get, what can I do to make my life better, it's their fault they're poor, maybe if they weren't so lazy, why should I feel guilty for the poor, they should get a job, etc, etc, which makes you laugh.

Next time you say this think about scraping by with enough money to buy food and clothes and send your kids to school, relying on handouts. Or think about your education. Think about whether it was tough to make ends meet or to be able to afford to buy books, or to have to work two part time jobs to put yourself through college; if it was good on you, but for those who had an easy ride, think about other people and how difficult it can be to drag yourself up out of poverty, and the next time someone calls and asks you to give to the red cross or whatever, give em a few bucks, it means nothing to you, but it helps.

No in fact what am I saying if people actually gave a damn about others in general we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Capitalism without responsibility is as bad as communism if not worse, at least with communism the idea was sound if not the means to achieve it, with capitalism the idea is dubious but the means to achieve it is simple, cater to the lowest common denominator.

A sense of social justice should be inherent in a system, if it isn't then it's no system I want any part of. I'm a liberal sort of person. neither left nor right, sort of border line communist to an American and I feel the healthiest balance a country can have is between social welfare and economics, if you can fine tune both then your population is happy, your business is happy and the rest is easier. That's the rub though. How do you do this?

Communism failed because it tried to prohibit man's natural greed and ambition, which is almost impossible. The communists wanted to abolish Capitalism, the State and the money system. However the people who own the means of production are not going to give them up for free. Therefore, Communism is never going to happen anywhere else on Earth except where it already exists OR where the means of production are NOT already owned by people.

http://www.scientificcage.com/doc/free_speech_20020108.html
http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/faq.htm

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

just a world about communism: It can be a good system when its edited a little, take China for example they are a communist country with some liberty in their production market, they are on the right track. another succesfull social country is Sweden,they have a socialist economy but they are doing great. i think whether its communism or democracy a balance had to be found to make them succesfull, the balance in democracy was easier and was established succesfully in many countries. As for poverty i think itself inflicted by ppl of a country. Poor countries are countries that don't have collective thinking or acting. like american or europeans will act as a group, all american work for their country as well as for themselves. the poor countries u see a thinking method of the ppl that hurts their own well being, they think that its ok to hurt the government as long as they get rich, not knowing that by doing that they will hurt themselves eventually. another reason for poverty in 3rd world countries are wars, those guys don';t have money to buy food, but find plenty of money to kill other ppl. I live in a 3rd world country,Lebanon, we are relatively a rich country compared to other 3rd world countries, but years of wars, and now years of thieving governments and idiots who stand next to the thieves in government just because they are getting a small piece of the cake thos ppl create poverty in my country, and soon this poverty will create a civil uprising, cause u can't push ppl above their limits,and again in a civil uprising u get more poverty and depression...but if in Lebanon we have the collective thinking of americans/europeans/jap/chinesse, we would be a very rich country by now. imagine 15years of war, and 40billiong dollars debts, and ppl are still investing here! imagine how strong the economy should be to handle such pressures

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Many reasons for poverty are also to do with past indiscretion and Western exploitation as well, let's not forget the responsibility we have. Not that it's all our fault, but we certainly haven't made poor countries any more stable with our constant acquisitive and greedy natures in history, some of our actions are still going on now, some echoes from the past can still be felt today also.

 

[denverdoc]

just a world about communism: It can be a good system when its edited a little, take China for example they are a communist country with some liberty in their production market, they are on the right track. another succesfull social country is Sweden,they have a socialist economy but they are doing great. i think whether its communism or democracy a balance had to be found to make them succesfull, the balance in democracy was easier and was established succesfully in many countries. As for poverty i think itself inflicted by ppl of a country. Poor countries are countries that don't have collective thinking or acting. like american or europeans will act as a group, all american work for their country as well as for themselves. the poor countries u see a thinking method of the ppl that hurts their own well being, they think that its ok to hurt the government as long as they get rich, not knowing that by doing that they will hurt themselves eventually. another reason for poverty in 3rd world countries are wars, those guys don';t have money to buy food, but find plenty of money to kill other ppl. I live in a 3rd world country,Lebanon, we are relatively a rich country compared to other 3rd world countries, but years of wars, and now years of thieving governments and idiots who stand next to the thieves in government just because they are getting a small piece of the cake thos ppl create poverty in my country, and soon this poverty will create a civil uprising, cause u can't push ppl above their limits,and again in a civil uprising u get more poverty and depression...but if in Lebanon we have the collective thinking of americans/europeans/jap/chinesse, we would be a very rich country by now. imagine 15years of war, and 40billiong dollars debts, and ppl are still investing here! imagine how strong the economy should be to handle such pressures

Perhaps buts that's a gift horse whose mouth I'd carefully inspect; not mentioned by SD, but perhaps implied is the role of the world bank/IMF who more often than not insist on privatization and usurious interest rates for capital relief. THis has been a bad deal for the most part.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

but perhaps implied is the role of the world bank/IMF who more often than not insist on privatization and usurious interest rates for capital relief. THis has been a bad deal for the most part.

Sorry may you elaborate more on this idea?

 

[Art]

I wonder where capitalism will eventually lead to? Revolutions in the past have been driven by economic injustices where the many with little resented the few with it all.

As countries first democratise through revolution all the balls are thrown back into the lottery machine and so people are happy for a while whilst they wait to see if they will draw one of the lucky numbers to become one of the new elite. But what happens in the long term when economic inequality reaches the same level that triggered the original unrest?

The USA as a bastion of capitalism makes an interesting case in point. The Gini coefficient is the most common measure of income inequality. This coefficient varies from zero – perfect equality – to one – just one household having all the income. Data for 28 OECD countries over the period 1990 to 2000 showed that the U.S. had the second highest coefficient, at 0.37. Only Mexico, at 0.49, was higher; which explains why Mexico's citizens, as an alternative to revolting, are fleeing to the U.S. but as the US coefficient continues inexorably to rise as it has been doing for the past 40 years what will her citizens do?

Ah but people say "America is the land of opportunity" i.e. the greatest upward economic mobility and this will keep the great unwashed happy as they still think their number will come up but although there are well publicised individual success stories one data point does not a trend make and so unfortunately 'the land of opportunity' is another myth as the facts tell a different story.

Researchers have investigated the degree of correlation between fathers' and sons' incomes at different points in time. Intergenerational income coefficients quantify the economic advantage conferred by parents to their children. The higher the coefficient, the more likely are children born to poor parents remaining poor later in life. One study found the highest degree of economic mobility was in Germany (0.12), followed by Canada (0.18) and the United Kingdom (0.27). In contrast, intergenerational economic mobility was lowest by a large margin in the United States (0.45).

To put this information in context what appear to be small differences in intergenerational income coefficients actually imply substantial differences in economic mobility.

Take for example the case of a family with earnings that are half of the national average i.e. 29% of the American population. Other factors held constant if a country has a correlation coefficient for parent-child earnings of 0.20, we would expect that descendants of the poor family would reach the average national earnings in less than two generations or about 25 to 50 years. In countries with a coefficient of 0.45, a typical level in the estimates for the United States however, descendants of the poor family would not, on average, close the income gap with the average family for more than three generations, or about 75 to 100 years.

Experts believe that a coefficient of 0.5 likely precipitates social unrest.

And so I wonder how much longer the current capitalist system in the US and elsewhere will survive as history suggests it is an unstable system in it's present form in the long term.

source of data

Delusional Democracy: Fixing the Republic
Without Overthrowing the Government
by Joel Hirschhorn

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

well everything you said mayb truly lead to civil unrest, but i think there is a smart way to decrease the possibility of that happening by sharing fortune. i mean that rich ppl get higher taxes than poorer ppl, and the poor ppl are not excluded from health-and basic food needs,and free education for children. And i think all those three are present in the US, so the possibility of unrest is low. As for countries without the redistribution of wealth were the rich are treated like vassal lords, like in Lebanon, civil unrest is very likely to happen especially if the government continues with its thieving corrputionist acts which are denying the poor the access to even the most obvious civil service.

 

[X-43D]

I agree. We need a system in which money will cease being government. I mean today there is great social divide between those who have money and those who have not. Most of the wealth is in the hands of a few billionaires and millionaires while millions of others have nothing (no money).

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

But don't u think that the USA has found a kind of balance that is unlikely to lead to civil unrest? cause frankly i think the american or swedish method should be used all around the world. Even though they are different methods, 1 is democratic, the swedish is a socialist government, but i think both deal with the effect of wealth distribution in effective methods.

 

[Art]

But don't u think that the USA has found a kind of balance that is unlikely to lead to civil unrest? cause frankly i think the american or swedish method should be used all around the world. Even though they are different methods, 1 is democratic, the swedish is a socialist government, but i think both deal with the effect of wealth distribution in effective methods.

If you read my post above you will see your supposition is patently untrue.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

i read it..but what i said was that even the difference is telling in the riches distribution in the USA, but as long as people are getting fair shares of food, healthcare, and education, i don't think uprisings may occur. But a grinchy few may go to looting and theft or civil disobedience, but i don't think the US is going to civil unrest on a large scale even though the differences in riches are major.

 

[denverdoc]

i read it..but what i said was that even the difference is telling in the riches distribution in the USA, but as long as people are getting fair shares of food, healthcare, and education, i don't think uprisings may occur. But a grinchy few may go to looting and theft or civil disobedience, but i don't think the US is going to civil unrest on a large scale even though the differences in riches are major.

I wonder. Events over the past 6 years have led me to consider ex-patriation and have me on record (police video) publicly protesting the war. I think if it came down to it, I would support a revolt. Its not that I believe in or condone violence. Its only that I see no other realistic options for reform. The wealth is too concentrated, politicians too beholden, the average man too uninformed, and the watchdog of free press, more of a lap dog. The brilliant balance of powers/checks and balances has been trampled to death; and our elections a process only a banana dictator could embrace.

Having said that, americans are for the most part too fat and stuporous with their daily dose of mind numbing TV and facination with distraction to do much. Plus the neocons managed to sneak into law a provision that allows the president to use military force in the event of widespread civil unrest. It is a sorry and sad thing to see this country slide into such a state of decay, and to those who disagree, I cherish your optimism and wish i could call upon the reserves I once had. Once in a while we have a great powder skiing day that allows for some refuge. I build some big rockets that actually perform as expected on occasion. Books and thoughtful discourse sustain me, as well as the notion that I can help a few kids here and there understand physics, a subject that frankly still eludes me, but which is so transcendantally and utterly beautiful, I think if (wo)man can create this, s/he can do anything.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

wow, well put. well suppose reform occured, what do u think you can do better? no matter who the american president is he never calls the shot, but the ppl behind the scenes. The american ppl you described as fat are the ones who elect presidents because of their beauty and not because of their personality. I think a reform in the US should not start by the government or by the rich, but by promoting education to the lazy,fat, and american voters. You got to show them that despite they have some basic advantages in this kind of government, they can get more.the problem is, would they want to get more? :)

 

[denverdoc]

For staters, really "king for a day": Ok I'll bite. Decimate the milatary expenditues by 1/2 every year for 3. The R&D for education is 1 percent of the health budget expenditures. I would funnel 25 percent of that into understanding what makes education work, because it aint here. The other 75 percent of that into a crash diet re energy consumption. I haven't kept up with fusion research, but I'd be putting more $$ into that vs new weapons. Old ones work scarily well. Health care a no brainer--socialize, or quasi-socialize. 20 cents on the buck are still wasted "administratively" Get drug ads off TV. And generics available in the land of the free.

Internet is huge: keep that decenralized as possible by opposing any mergers or tariff proposals. Same with TV/print/radio--expand the prometheus project for FM radio. In fact mandate that internet access be provided to all citizens. Heck many have no phones.

Make a job requirment of elected officials to have "office hours". Curtail lobbying. S/he should be at an auditorium or similar venue two days straight each month.

Cap personal incomes at 5 million/yr. I use to believe Ayn Rand was right, but see nothing in the past 30 years to support the belief. She sought desperately to come up with an economic equivalent of the TOE. Falls flat on its face, because it assumes people (she) are similarly motivated. Not so, and as the stats show, concentration of wealth has been at a great cost. Good luck for a gold watch from MS.

The second day, I might create GOD, just to keep folks in line with my plans

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

interesting facts..

 

[denverdoc]

Hey you want facts? Consult Art above who did a really good job laying out a few. I offer corrections to a good system way out of whack.

Any well meaning hack mechanic can do this to a good ICE--tweaks here and there, til she can barely run, all well intentioned or especially motivated. We need to balance and blueprint this baby of ours.

 

[russ_watters]

Any argument for why this is?:

Experts believe that a coefficient of 0.5 likely precipitates social unrest.

There are a lot of interesting stats there (seriously*), but stats are only good as their analysis. It seems to me that the main assertion (that the US is headed for rebellion) is not supported by an argument there. No attempt, other than the empty quote above, was made to connect the statistics to the original assertion.

And so I wonder how much longer the current capitalist system in the US and elsewhere will survive as history suggests it is an unstable system in it's present form in the long term.

Unless you can provide an example of a capitalist system failing for this reason or, at least, a logical argument connecting your statistics to your assertion, that really doesn't follow at all. Indeed, if your hypothesis were correct, the data would imply that the US should already be seeing the seeds of this predicted unrest. But the reality is that the social unrest you are suggesting just plain isn't there.

"History suggests" that other factors have a bigger impact on such social unrest. For example, the employment situation in France.

*Caveat - it would be nice to see the actual statistics in context instead of the twice culled and paraphrased stats from a heavily offcenter source.

 

[russ_watters]

I think if it came down to it, I would support a revolt...

...the average man too uninformed...

Having said that, americans are for the most part too fat and stuporous with their daily dose of mind numbing TV and facination with distraction to do much.

Isn't that just another way of saying that most Americans don't share your dissatisfaction?

There have always and will always be small groups wanting revolutionary change, but that doesn't mean a populous is headed for rebellion (I'm not implying you meant that, just pointing it out).

My boss is a far right-wing conservative and though I don't think he'd advocate overthrow of the government, he spends an awful lot of time stressing over the sorry state of our country (it may be too conservative to you, but it is too liberal to him). To me, that's wasted energy and unnecessary angst.

Have you seen the movie "American History X"?

 

[russ_watters]

Here's my theory on the subject...

Assuming for now that economic-fueled social unrest is a catalyst for revolution (ironically, in your example of the American revolution it was as much the rich revolting as anyone else), I believe that it is a simple matter of economic hardship that leads to economic-fueled revolution.

People often equate the US's income gap with economic hardship and justify that with poverty statistics that are actually contrived to show a high poverty rate (basing the poverty threshold on a specified percentage of median income instead of specifying a standard of living and seeing where it actually falls). But even with a generous threshold, the US only has on the order of about 13% poverty. Is 13% enough to lead a successful revolution? Set that aside for a moment...

The poverty rate in other developed nations is comparable to that in the US, but as people like Art will be quick to point out, the US's high Gini index means there is a steeper slope on the wrong side of the poverty line in the US than in other countries. Ie, if you are an average poor person in the US, you are probably worse off than the average poor person in a European country. This would supposedly be the source of that social unrest that Art was talking about. But...I'll put this in bold because it is critical:

If the poverty rates in developed countries are roughly equal, EVERYONE above the poverty line in a country with a higher Gini index is better off than the equivalent person in another country with a lower Gini index.

Now if the poverty lines aren't directly comparable, then maybe the income distribution lines don't cross at 15%, but rather cross at 20% - or 25% (very few would be above that). Even still, everyone to the right of that point is better off in the US than in such a country. I'll try to construct the graph, but at the very least we do know for sure that more than half of the US's population is better off than their counterparts in almost every other developed country. That's median income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

This, of course, is contrary to the liberal/socialist mantra that suggests a few wealthy elite are doing well in the US and everyone else is doing poorly. If that were true, that would suggest social unrest, but clearly it is not.

I submit that while inequality may cause a lot of people to complain, it is the actual standard of living that determines whether or not people might be inclined to complain loudly enough to call it "social unrest", leading to revolt.

 

[Milo Hobgoblin]

This, of course, is contrary to the liberal/socialist mantra that suggests a few wealthy elite are doing well in the US and everyone else is doing poorly. If that were true, that would suggest social unrest, but clearly it is not.

the ironly of the liberal/socialist mantra is their schemes for improving things generally worsen them.. leading to greater numbers of people having less and an even smaller number of wealthy elite at the top.


They tax the rich. leading to drastic reductions in capital investment.. leading to fewer jobs for the lower classes.. they offer more subsidies to the poor who spend the majority of their disposable income on consumption.. further indebting them to the wealthy elite...

The average liberal/socialist has as much long term economic vision as my 9 year old.

its real easy for people to tak about the success of socialism in countries with small populations of well educated citizens.. but they quickly forget the US has 300+ millions citizens many of whom are unskilled, low skilled or minimally educated.. i.e. providing little to a tax base. Whats even more ironic is all these Euro (and even Canadian) socialist *****ing abut immigration now that its affecting the abiltiy to fund their welfare states with ever increasing numbers of illiterate and inskilled immigrants (i.e. NO tax contribution) .

Hell, we have more people on welfare than the ENTIRE population of many of these socialist countries.

The "poor" in America live VERY well.. Most owning at least one automobile, cable TV, cel phones etc.. head into ANY inner city ghetto and see how many peole have televisions, cel phones and at least a couple of meals every day.

would any of you dare to compare that to the poor in your socialist Utopias? I highly doubt many of them can even afford to register a car in these socialist countries.


America .. is not responsible for the worlds poor... I the American taxpayer am not responsible for the worlds poor.. these are soveriegn issues that the respective governments of these countries must deal with.. but how many times have we seen that ANY subsidization provided simply goes into the pockets of these corrupt regimes?

What then? Invade them to force your liberal/socialist ideologies down their throats? So its NOT ok to invade them to protect our interest.. but its ok to invade them to turn them into collectivist hellholes?

Should we send them money, food? Who is going to pay for it? You? Or does it just magically fall out of the sky? I have kids to feed, a morgtage to pay.. why must I be burdened with the social responsibitlies of someone 12k miles away while their own government officials live lifestyles that would make the entire GOP jealous...



and why is it you liberal and socialist NEVER point the finger at their governments.. why is it always the fault of the first world countries for not "fixing" the problem? We didnt create it (an no I don't want to hear your post colonial garbage.. its bullsh-t and you know it)

This is the result of some dumbass mudfarmers rising through the ranks.. using genocide to rally his followers and creating mass starvation through corruption and oppresion... but you collectivist drones just can't see the elephant in the living room.. dancing on your god damn coffee table..
this is the result of YOUR collectivist ideologies of "nationalizing" precious resources instead of investing them and feeding the profits beck into your national economies... beause you are SOOO worried someone might get ahead in the process.

Blame the first world.. they arent "giving enough".

I have an idea.. why don't all you socialist pick up a rifle.. get on a plane and go take down these oppresive regimes.. and for those of you too weak to do so because of your strict vegetarian diets and too many years in acadaemia can send 50% of YOUR disposable incomes directly to the poor starving citizens of these countries..

until then STFU and stop expecting others to do so.. and STOP expecting the first world to cleanup the mess of some retarded dirt farmer and his "regime".

 

[russ_watters]

the ironly of the liberal/socialist mantra is their schemes for improving things generally worsen them.. leading to greater numbers of people having less and an even smaller number of wealthy elite at the top.

I see it in slightly different terms. Socialism tends to pull the ends of the spectrum together by pulling a small minority up and a large majority down (because of what I discussed in my previous post).

This doesn't make sense to socialists because the socialist's mind, a guy like Bill Gates could afford to bring a thousand people up from the bottom to middle-class. What they miss is that a socialist system prevents guys like Bill Gates from existing by keeping a leash on his success every step of the way.

 

[Art]

It seems a couple of clarifications are needed here -

I prefaced my earlier post with this statement

I wonder where capitalism will eventually lead to? Revolutions in the past have been driven by economic injustices where the many with little resented the few with it all.

Revolution means rapid social change and although it can include coup d'etats or armed rebellion more often than not is achieved through peaceful protest and I doubt anyone would seriously disagree that economic injustice has triggered many such revolutions.

I then listed some data which I personally found to be quite intriguing and surprising.

The full data set is available here in a report which sets out to answer the question 'Is the U.S. a Good Model for Reducing Social Exclusion in Europe?'
http://www.cepr.net/publications/social_exclusion_2006_08.pdf

Given the current data and trends it seems to me that in the long term such a system has to be unsustainable not only in the US but in all countries which are on the same curve as unchecked eventually the Gina coefficient reaches 1 whilst the intergenerational income coefficients also reaches 1 which clearly cannot happen. A bit like the Highlander series - 'In the end there can be only one'

I am not advocating socialism as a superior socio-economic model, which I get the impression some here think I am, or promoting any other socio-economic model for that matter. In fact my opinion of capitalism mirrors Churchill's quote re democracy "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Russ made the point that even Americans living in poverty in the US are relatively better off than the poor of other countries. However as Irish mothers who used to admonish their children (correctly) 'Finish your dinner there are children starving in Africa who would love to eat that' found, it failed to achieve their desired goal as the wants and desires of a citizen from another continent seemed (also correctly) totally irrelevant to the child. Equally irrelevant I suspect is the relative poverty of a poverty stricken citizen of a 3rd world country to the average 'poor' American or 'poor' European who rightly or wrongly measure their economic status against their peers.

I am interested to see if others agree that at some point things will have to change or popular social unrest will inevitably occur in highly capitalist countries and what they think of the idea that the longer the current system continues without voluntary modification the greater the forced eventual modifications will be.

 

[Milo Hobgoblin]

It seems a couple of clarifications are needed here -

I prefaced my earlier post with this statement Revolution means rapid social change and although it can include coup d'etats or armed rebellion more often than not is achieved through peaceful protest and I doubt anyone would seriously disagree that economic injustice has triggered many such revolutions.

I then listed some data which I personally found to be quite intriguing and surprising.

The full data set is available here in a report which sets out to answer the question 'Is the U.S. a Good Model for Reducing Social Exclusion in Europe?'
http://www.cepr.net/publications/social_exclusion_2006_08.pdf

Given the current data and trends it seems to me that in the long term such a system has to be unsustainable not only in the US but in all countries which are on the same curve as unchecked eventually the Gina coefficient reaches 1 whilst the intergenerational income coefficients also reaches 1 which clearly cannot happen. A bit like the Highlander series - 'In the end there can be only one'

I am not advocating socialism as a superior socio-economic model, which I get the impression some here think I am, or promoting any other socio-economic model for that matter. In fact my opinion of capitalism mirrors Churchill's quote re democracy "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Russ made the point that even Americans living in poverty in the US are relatively better off than the poor of other countries. However as Irish mothers who used to admonish their children (correctly) 'Finish your dinner there are children starving in Africa who would love to eat that' found, it failed to achieve their desired goal as the wants and desires of a citizen from another continent seemed (also correctly) totally irrelevant to the child. Equally irrelevant I suspect is the relative poverty of a poverty stricken citizen of a 3rd world country to the average 'poor' American or 'poor' European who rightly or wrongly measure their economic status against their peers.

I am interested to see if others agree that at some point things will have to change or popular social unrest will inevitably occur in highly capitalist countries and what they think of the idea that the longer the current system continues without voluntary modification the greater the forced eventual modifications will be.

First off the only "highly capitalist" country in that report is the United States.. the income tax base of the majority of the other countries listed make them .. at best capitalist-socialist hybrids.. where the 90% percentile are paying enormous taxes. At best this may bring up a certain percentage of the extremely impoverished... but the cost is MUCH greater.. your entire middle class is brought down a few notches and their standard of living is nowhere near that of someone in the same socio-economic class as their US counterpart.

This of course leads to much smaller disposable income (or desire) to put that money into capital investments.. fueling the economy and providing jobs for your "impoverished"

and while the US may have higher numbers of peopel living at your magical 40% rate.. would you like to compare the relative luxuries enjoyed by those people in the US vs many of these other countries with lower poverty rates.

and AGAIN.. would you like to compare the POPULATIONS? we have 300+ million people.. many of the countries with lower rates of poverty (again an AMBIGUOUS number at best.. having nothing to do with quality of life) have AT BEST 1/20 the population of the US.


Considering we have 300 million people to take care of.. ALONG with the rest of the world with the ridiculous amount of foreign aid we unconstitutionally send.. we manage VERY well..




Do you honestly think.. taking quality of life and more importantly POPULATION into consideration.. that socialism is in ANY WAY preferable?

as far as education goes.. table 5 if anything proves that no matter how much money you throw at the problem.. you are not going to get thatoorly prforming 10% up.. some people simply can't compete.. whether is be sloth, low intelligence, culture or a combination.

We have 12 million illegal immigranst who simply refuse to assimilate.. they don't even belong here and most speak little if ANY English.. how much do you think the bring down the averages on ALL your charts and graphs..

and the funniest part is there are more illegal aliens inthe US the the ENTIRE populations of some of your fantasy socialist Utopias. Guess WHo is paying to keep them educated, fed, medically cared for? WE ARE.

Would you also like to take into consideration teh cost of RX drugs and how many of our seniors drain the system paying for these with medicare... would you like to take into consderation we pay 2-3 times as much for these drugs (even though they are dveloped and marketed HERE) than those Euro countries you have listed.


EVERY one of those charts leaves out HUGE dependencies that affect every factor.. things countries like Norway, Ireland, Sweden take for granted..

You want a comparison..


Why don't we compare how the average family making 25k, 50k, 75k and 100k per year live in the US compared to most of those countries on your charts.

I can promise you.. those in the 3 higher income brackets not only have much mroe disposable income but MANY more daily luxuries than their Euro counterparts.



and has it ocurred to you that maybe, just maybe the people in the lwoest bracket simply don't deserve mobility.. they are unambituous, of low intelligence, excessively hedonistic and materialistic (spending ANY disposable income on comsumption)??

Why make everyone else pay to elevate those who do not deserve..??

 

[Art]

Milo your response to my post made no attempt to respond to the questions I posed.

It seems instead to first accuse the authors of partisan reporting in an attempt to discredit the information they supplied. Anyone with any knowledge of CEPR's work would realize this is blatant nonsense. Please check out their home site and review their charter and who funds them http://www.cepr.org/Home/ceprdoes.htm

Having justified to yourself totally ignoring their data and analysis you then substitute their facts with your own totally contrary personal opinions without a single reference to support your position.

You follow this up by then attacking my motivations in posting the data suggesting yet again that I am pushing a socialist model despite me stating unequivocally I am not e.g.

your fantasy socialist Utopias etc..

.

Finally you try to make it into a nationalistic issue by portraying it as a US vs the rest whilst once again I stated plainly my question re the long term durability of capitalism applied equally to all countries.

In conclusion I believe you either seriously missed the point or are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue for the benefit of other readers perhaps because you have no answer for the questions I posed?

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

btw, what's wrong with a Capitalist-socialist hybrid like in Europe? i'll put again the example of scandinavian countries?!

 

[denverdoc]

I'll second that. Some business arenas require a lot of oversight/involvement to make sure the right thing is done. This is like really basic. Others are better off with less oversight. You can't argue that if left on its own a purely profit driven enterprise will act in the best interests of anything but the owners.

This has been seen time and time again where a fix is needed and the decision is that since it would cost more to correct than pay out claims, nothing is done. Usually no one goes to jail, a fine is paid and its biz at usual. Enron was a minor exception, but so egregious that if sentences weren't dealt, who knows?