Socialism vs capitalism

[bumab]

Air quality:

 

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/econ-emissions.html

 

Water Quality in BC (basically next door to me):

 

http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/trendsWQS/trend.html

 

You were right as far as major indicies go. I was wrong about that one, I'll admit it ;) .

 

My origional point did not related to the US specifically, however. Our standard of living relies on increasingly forign made products and services, and no doubt does contribute to environmental degredation overseas we never see, as well as degredation of working conditions in the various sweat shops and low wage camps around the world (got to keep that Nike production cheap, after all).

 

Anyway, I'm going to go look for stats on worldwide pollution trends, although the data is notoriously difficult to get complete...

[bumab]

I knew there were point problems....

 

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, however an increasing problem is non-point source polution, which can be directly linked to increases in population size. Point source pollution is relativally easy to control through regulations- stop the smokestacks. It's a lot harder to control non-point source, and point source from other countries.

[Biochemist]

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, however an increasing problem is non-point source polution, which can be directly linked to increases in population size. ...

I was talking about specific locales where pollution is bad. I thik you answered this.

 

I understand your point about population growth being generally tough on the environment. But the contrasting metric is that economic growth invariably (I think there are no counterexamples) leads to reductions in population growth. Ergo, even though US consumption drives environmental damage overseas (certainly true), continued growth in those economies will tend to self-correct as their standard of living rises.

 

Thoughts?

[Qfwfq]

Ergo, even though US consumption drives environmental damage overseas (certainly true), continued growth in those economies will tend to self-correct as their standard of living rises.

 

Thoughts?

I might hope so, but instead we see them going through the same mistakes that Europe and North America went through. I also find it highly unethical to dump the problem on them, to our benefit and comodity even if only initially, more than to theirs.

[Beelzebub]

We vote on lots of things now, and some of those certainly are perceived as unfair to many. Do you think income taxes are fair? Do you think property taxes are fair? Do you think our drug laws are fair? How about divorce law? Do you think Social Security is fair? Do you think your chances at trial are fair? In a democracy, a 51% majority decides things. If you are one of the 49% who did not vote for Bush, do you think his behavors are fair?

majority rules and its too bad for the rest. that's the way democracy works and there isn't a better system.

Further, income is an opinion. That is the reason we have auditors, who publish an audit opinion that states that the books of the company fairly reflect reality.

only in a world with competition between companies.

It might be a surprise to you to find out that income in an opinion, but it is certainly true.

I don't really understand what you mean.

Do you think income taxes are fair? Do you think property taxes are fair? Do you think our drug laws are fair? How about divorce law? Do you think Social Security is fair? Do you think your chances at trial are fair?

Most people do and that's what matters.

market share, revenue, low employee turnover, consumer image, litigation avoidance

I don't know what most of those are but the rest (market share and consumer image) don't exist in a socialist world.

 

BTW I think capitalism is best for the developping countries and socialism is best for the developped ones.

 

I was talking about specific locales where pollution is bad. I thik you answered this.

 

I understand your point about population growth being generally tough on the environment. But the contrasting metric is that economic growth invariably (I think there are no counterexamples) leads to reductions in population growth. Ergo, even though US consumption drives environmental damage overseas (certainly true), continued growth in those economies will tend to self-correct as their standard of living rises.

 

Thoughts?

But the economy doesn't correct environmental damage.

 

 

There is a huge advantage in socialism that I see that has not been discussed:

Capitalism leads to the creation of enormous competition-based industries that are completely parasitcal and useless because they produce nothing. advertising is one example. it is a billion dollar industry yet contributes nothing. it survives not because it produces but because it allows companies to -through an advantage over their competition- receive more capital for less product or service. thus raising the cost of living. the more jobs there are that don't create actual productivity, the fewer people there are to do the same amount of work in the producing industries. hence people get less money for more work. if it were possible the best situation would be if the only industries there were, were the ones that directly created commodities or services that were perfectly useful to the people.

we live in a world where the fruit of the labour of a small number of people is distributed to a large number of people who do this by means of parasitical industries, the stock market and owning huge amounts of property.

However this parasitical group of people are not any better off because they still do work for a living. It's just that when it comes down to it, their work is unhelpful.

[Biochemist]

I might hope so, but instead we see them going through the same mistakes that Europe and North America went through. I also find it highly unethical to dump the problem on them, to our benefit and comodity even if only initially, more than to theirs.

You have a point, Q, but I am not sure it is "dumping a problem " on them. These countries are sovereign jurisdictions. We have somewhat less influence on their behaviors than we do in our own countries. It might be reasonable to expect that they would make mistakes similar to the ones made in Europe and the US. In the end, if they come out as good as Europe and the US, that is a positive ourcome. In the interim, we can only suggest less deleterious solutions.

[Biochemist]

Bee- You are wandering a bit off of topic. I was not making any particular philosophical points. I was responding to your suggestions.

majority rules and its too bad for the rest. that's the way democracy works and there isn't a better system.

You wanted to know why some folks thought their pay would be unfair. This is the reason. I have no problem with majority rule (usually) but it is reasonable to expect that many participants will regard their lot as "unfair". It sounds like you are agreeing.

only in a world with competition between companies.

Again, Bee, I was not making a phiolosophical point. Income IS an opinion. (Cash flow is a fact). If an executive is paid exclisively based on income (as some are) they drive business activity and reporting to derive immediate term profits. There would be little incentive for long term investment, to everyone's disbenefit. Some companies have incented their execs based on income, and have learned the hard way that is is not a particularly good idea. Most companies use more of a "balanced scorcard" to evaluate execs. Those were the elements I described earlier.

... I don't know what most of those are but the rest (market share and consumer image) don't exist in a socialist world.

So, you are not advocating paying execs based on income, you are advocating socialism. This is a different argument.

BTW I think capitalism is best for the developping countries and socialism is best for the developped ones.

Best for whom? The majority? If the majority does not vote for socialism (by your own argument), doesn't that mean it was not "best"?

[Kriminal99]

IMO Socialism is the limit of Capitolism as all sources of market failure approach 0. Unfortunately, we are not working towards that goal and I think that is wrong. We need to privatize secondary education so that there will finally be motivation to refine the learning process.

[Beelzebub]

it is easily possible to have things run by the government

if this is not true then how is it that we have police, an army, hospitals, public schools, firemen, government hired lawyers, tax collectors, streets, parks, etc.

The fact is, if you don't do your job well you get fired. That's enough incentive. And people don't do everything for money. Society is important and a gain for society is a personal gain. Socialism cannot exist in a country of individualists.

Also we are at the point where economical gain means a lower standard of living for all but the richest people.

Economical gain means environmental loss which means a lower standard of living for those who are not rich enough to evade it. We are the point where houses are falling into the sea, wildlife is dying and the weather is becoming brutal. Not to mention natural resources are disappearing. Which means the loss of vital industries.

[Biochemist]

it is easily possible to have things run by the government

if this is not true then how is it that we have police, an army, hospitals, public schools, firemen, government hired lawyers, tax collectors, streets, parks, etc.

Most hospitals in the US are not governmental (although the VA and county facilities are). The army is governmental because it is for the common defense. Many folks think that government businesses (the post office, schools) are grossly inefficient, and should not be governmental because of it.

The fact is, if you don't do your job well you get fired.

Not in US government service. It is nearly impossible to fire anyone in government service.

...And people don't do everything for money. Society is important and a gain for society is a personal gain. Socialism cannot exist in a country of individualists.

Some would argue that individuals cannot exist in a country of socialists. So?

Also we are at the point where economical gain means a lower standard of living for all but the richest people.

This is absiolutely untrue. The median standard of living is rising in the US (were you talking about the US?) compared to other (even socialist) economies. I agree it is a problem that the distance between the richest 1% and the poorest 1% in the US is increasing, but the median is still rising faster here than almost anywhere else.

Economical gain means environmental loss which means a lower standard of living for those who are not rich enough to evade it. We are the point where houses are falling into the sea, wildlife is dying and the weather is becoming brutal. Not to mention natural resources are disappearing. Which means the loss of vital industries.

Are you talking here about the US or other countries? In the US, most (all?) macro environmental indicators have improved in the last 30 years (air,water pollution, etc). Weather is weather. Natural resource-based industries are always at risk unless the resource is renewable. What was your point?

[Harzburgite]

Weather is weather.

True, though the pertinent question (presented in an impertinent way) is whether the weather is being detrimentally influenced by man. The opinion amongst most experts outside the US is that it is. So, a capitalist US ignores the environment, a socialist USSR violated the environment, and arguably only a mixed economy Europe strikes any sort of balance.

[Biochemist]

True, though the pertinent question (presented in an impertinent way) is whether the weather is being detrimentally influenced by man. The opinion amongst most experts outside the US is that it is. So, a capitalist US ignores the environment, a socialist USSR violated the environment, and arguably only a mixed economy Europe strikes any sort of balance.

Sorry, H. I did not understand B's question.

 

I am not sure that the US government is "ignoring" the environment. I do think they question the science (I do). I also think they question the validity of a multi-trillion dollar price tag on a potential decrease of 1 degree in outcome (which I think is the consensus estimate of the achievable improvement).

 

You may not agree with the position of the US government, but it is a little extreme to suggest their position is untenable.

[Fishteacher73]

I think anyone here can understand how man alters the weather. Pavement and concrete are huge heat sinks that tend to be warmer than the surounding areas, and temp fluctuations and aberrations WILL alter the local weather (and reasonably extrapolated, if enough local systems are altered then there will some shift on the macro scale).

[Harzburgite]

I don't want to hijack the thread for a global warming discussion. I'll just briefly note that I subscribe to the view that global warming is a reality; its consequences are dire; it is substantially man-made; and that it is the largest threat facing humanity. Those who question the science are in a minority (but since when was science a democracy? I agree) and, it seems, concentrated on the west side of the pond.

The price tag is nothing compared with the price that my children and grandchildren will pay if it is reality. On a risk-reward basis we need to act and act now.

You are clearly entitled to your opinion, but in this case I believe that opinion and the inaction it spawns is a threat to our existence. I don't think the reverse is true. As such I view the position of the US and other governments as hostile acts.

It is on that basis I used the word untenable. Given my position, which I accept is not middle of the road, you may appreciate I was being quite constrained. :xx:

[lindagarrette]

I don't want to hijack the thread for a global warming discussion. I'll just briefly note that I subscribe to the view that global warming is a reality; its consequences are dire; it is substantially man-made; and that it is the largest threat facing humanity. Those who question the science are in a minority (but since when was science a democracy? I agree) and, it seems, concentrated on the west side of the pond.

The price tag is nothing compared with the price that my children and grandchildren will pay if it is reality. On a risk-reward basis we need to act and act now.

You are clearly entitled to your opinion, but in this case I believe that opinion and the inaction it spawns is a threat to our existence. I don't think the reverse is true. As such I view the position of the US and other governments as hostile acts.

It is on that basis I used the word untenable. Given my position, which I accept is not middle of the road, you may appreciate I was being quite constrained. :xx:

Speaking as a US citicizen, I agree. Our paranoid govenment (by the people) focuses on very short term and irrelevant issues -- perceived threat of neuclear attack from small middle eastern countries, pro-choice abortion, gay marriage, and sustaining a huge military defense department (half the budget). Bush himself has refuted scientific evidence of environmental problems, even though he has no knowledge of the subject whatsoever.

 

We are already borrowing from our decendants to pay for the enormous budget deficit, and what do we leave them in return? more mess to clean up, if they can afford to.

 

A large part of our foreign policy should be directed toward helping other nations reduce polution. Instead, we are encouraging cheap and careless industrialzation (China) and wiping out the natural resources of developing nations. It's very clear our priorities are backward. I attribute much of that orientation to the biblical "end times" notion. Our administration is replete with fundamentalists, as you know, and it drives their politics.

[Biochemist]

I don't want to hijack the thread for a global warming discussion. I'll just briefly note that I subscribe to the view that global warming is a reality; its consequences are dire; it is substantially man-made; and that it is the largest threat facing humanity....

I do understand your position, and I appreciate the tenor of your response. I remain unconvinced that CO2 is the causal factor in our current phase of global climate change. The temperature detail just maps so poorly to a greenhouse mechanism., But that is the topic for another thread.

 

However, I concur that global energy policy has to shift from am emphasis on fossil fuels in any case. I have my fingers crossed that China's experience with pebble bed nuclear reactors is successful, so the the US and other industrialized nations can shift back to a non-fossil-fuel energy economy. Then perhaps everyone would win.

[nkt]

This is absiolutely untrue. The median standard of living is rising in the US (were you talking about the US?) compared to other (even socialist) economies. I agree it is a problem that the distance between the richest 1% and the poorest 1% in the US is increasing, but the median is still rising faster here than almost anywhere else.

You might want to check on that point. I think you will find that the gap is getting much wider, and that there are now more people sliding down into the lower half than ever before. The Average is going up because of the few billionaires, but the average person has never been so poor.

 

It will cause a lot of issues fairly quickly. Millions of people on minimum wage won't ever offset the huge billions made by the few oil barons, and the "average" wage goes up, but 90% of people are poorer.

U.S. cumulative real private sector wage increase during Bush administration: 2.73%

U.S. cumulative real manufacturing wage increase during Bush administration: 4.4%

However

Since 1973, wages adjusted for inflation have declined by about a quarter for high school dropouts, by a sixth for high

school graduates, and by about 7% for those with some college education. Only the wages of college graduates are up.

And, to my knowledge, the situation has gotten worse since 1995.

 

America is going rapidly bankrupt. The deficit is unimaginably big. $321,684,000,000 and that has increased by a few tens of millions while I typed this response. The deficit might be excusable if it was going to the majority of people, but it assuredly is not!