Socialism vs capitalism

[Biochemist]

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.

You are probably aware this last statement is arithmetically impossible.

The Average is going up because of the few billionaires, but the average person has never been so poor....

This was contradicted by your own statistics. You quote showed that the average wage rose, even during a recission. I am a little confused by your point.

... but 90% of people are poorer.

Did you read your own statistics?

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....

America is hardly going bankrupt. Our national debt (as a fraction of GDP) is lower than most industrialized countires. Debt service is about 2.5%t of GDP, which is low by historical standards. We have an 11 or 12 trillion dollar economy. Debt service is a trivial risk compared to the risk of impending costs for Social Security and Medicare.

[bumab]

I am not sure that the US government is "ignoring" the environment.

 

It's certainly ignored- but not necessarily maliciously. Capitalist systems require the invisible hand to control the regulatory nature of the government. Once people start asking for non-polluting forms of energy, it will come. The government here is hardly set up for the kinds of regulations required to control global warming. They recognize the cost of setting up that regulatory infrastructure, and thus don't do it. It's sort of "outside their jurisdiction."

 

That doesn't get them off the hook, however. Back to the socialist economies- they are more able to regulate emissions, since the control is already in the hands of the state. The science is incredibly strong, it just is. Sorry- the numbers don't lie. Our government attempts to brush it all off with "short term flucuations" and the like, in order to keep both sides happy. To stay within the federal role, they should simply stay out of it. That would NOT solve the problem however- so perhaps it's time to rethink the governments role. Free market capitalism might not be the solution to every problem.

 

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

 

It is untenable as far as the science goes.

[lindagarrette]

It's certainly ignored- but not necessarily maliciously. Capitalist systems require the invisible hand to control the regulatory nature of the government. Once people start asking for non-polluting forms of energy, it will come.

Good point and already evident. In the US, we have some anti-polution regulation because people want to breath clean air. But not in Mexico City. Apparently, the cost is not yet worth the benefit. The Chinese really nead some controls but can't afford any. Maybe after they dump their dollars. (heh, heh). Meanwhile, the entire planet is affected.

[Qfwfq]

Back to the socialist economies- they are more able to regulate emissions, since the control is already in the hands of the state.

Even without this, there is such a thing as laws against pollution and enforcement of them.

[Kriminal99]

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.

 

Incentive of that nature in no way compares to economic incentive. By its very nature it is corrupt. What do I mean? In a system where the government controls something, like the secondary education system, the system isn't run according to what the people need or desire. Instead it is run according to the naive ideas of, not only the people who run the government, but also the people who work in these specific institutions.

 

The truth is no person is capable of comprehending what other people need or want, because there are millions of peopel all with different needs and wants. But the result of allowing the government to control something usually isn't even that any effort at all is made towards satisfying people's needs and wants. If you go to a resturaunt, the customer is always right, they give you whatever you need etc because they know this is what makes people enjoy their experience there and want to come back. If people don't come back they go out of buisness.

 

You go to a food hall run by a public university, even a really good one like I do, and everything is completely different. You go to get food, and they yell at you because their beautiful buffet line is being messed up before it absolutely has to (when 90% of the people get out of class or something like that), Students are blocked off from the majority of the hall whenever the awards evaluators come to look at the place, they regularly throw parties which are centered around the staff and people who work at the place and greatly impose on students eating there etc. This is corruption, and this trivial example (if you consider it trivial) is merely meant to be symbolic of the types of corruption existent across all government run endeavors.

 

In the classroom, it means teachers that couldnt care less about teaching as compared to their research, even though teaching is why they are recieving any money. It means in general a education instituition that makes no effort to refine the teaching process when for all they know the time it takes to teach anything could be cut into fractions of the time when done properly. It means police and government agents that are more likely to take bribes when the world doesn't conform to their naive ideas of morality.

 

The truth is no hairless monkey is capable of coming up with an objective and especially not universal understanding of people's needs and desires, while the free market is in many cases. As for the enviornment, once each problem is addressed it is actually the free market that is used to efficiently allocate the amount of polution the system can handle and recover, and the costs of maintaining the enviornment. Strategies for doing so include things such as pollution permits which are traded for money and in total amount to a small enough amount of pollution that the enviornment increases in quality.

 

The only objective motivation an instuition can have is the money of a free market economy. This means they will run the institution not according to their own naive ideas but rather according to whatever will get them the most money, which means whatever will satisfy the most amount of people.

[bumab]

In a system where the government controls something, like the secondary education system, the system isn't run according to what the people need or desire. Instead it is run according to the naive ideas of, not only the people who run the government, but also the people who work in these specific institutions.

 

The system is never run by for what the people need. It's naive to think otherwise. You are saying the average person knows what's best for the country better then the people in charge. Fair enough- but support that premise.

 

If you go to a resturaunt, the customer is always right, they give you whatever you need etc because they know this is what makes people enjoy their experience there and want to come back. If people don't come back they go out of buisness.

 

The customer is NOT always right. The customer wants free pie. To bad- it's bad for overall business. The customer wants to eat naked while smoking a hooka. To bad- it's bad for overall business. Regulation of behaviors is a vital component of any business OR government. The question is how much regulation...

 

You go to a food hall run by a public university, even a really good one like I do, and everything is completely different. You go to get food, and they yell at you because their beautiful buffet line is being messed up before it absolutely has to (when 90% of the people get out of class or something like that), Students are blocked off from the majority of the hall whenever the awards evaluators come to look at the place, they regularly throw parties which are centered around the staff and people who work at the place and greatly impose on students eating there etc. This is corruption, and this trivial example (if you consider it trivial) is merely meant to be symbolic of the types of corruption existent across all government run endeavors.

 

But isn't that 90% getting what they want- which was what you said earlier? also, describing staff appreciation events as corruption is a little selfish.

 

The truth is no hairless monkey is capable of coming up with an objective and especially not universal understanding of people's needs and desires, while the free market is in many cases.

 

There's a faith based response. There's no evidence for this on the long term, since it hasn't been done before. The free market will give you an understanding of people's desires, perhaps- but desire is a far cry from need, and most importantly- I can't stress this enough- the free market will only give you an understanding of the desires of those people wealthy enough to buy into the process. If you have any care for those who have too little to participate in the system, you cannot trust the market to handle it. Which brings me to my next point...

 

As for the enviornment, once each problem is addressed it is actually the free market that is used to efficiently allocate the amount of polution the system can handle and recover, and the costs of maintaining the enviornment.

 

The environment CANNOT buy into the system, and thus CANNOT influence the free market. The "amount of pollution the system can handle and recover [from]" is obviously not decided upon by the free market, it's an ecological issue. The free market tells you the amount of pollution people will tolerate in their backyards. And as long as we can throw pollutants to other parts of the world, people won't even have to worry about that!

 

Strategies for doing so include things such as pollution permits which are traded for money and in total amount to a small enough amount of pollution that the enviornment increases in quality.

 

Treating the symptoms, not the cause, but that's an issue for another thread.

 

The only objective motivation an instuition can have is the money of a free market economy. This means they will run the institution not according to their own naive ideas but rather according to whatever will get them the most money, which means whatever will satisfy the most amount of people.

 

This is rediculous. Since when does "whatever gets people the most amount of money" equate with "making the most amount of people happy"? Balanced belief in the free market system as the best alternative is one thing, naivity is another. The free market system is based on winners and losers- zero sum theory. It's really a tangental benefit that often, people can come to mututal, non-zero sum interactions. But the basic premise in competition is "I win to the exclusion of you." This means happiness is not a priority, people's contentment cannot be commodified.

 

And all this neglects the basic premise that people desire what's best for them. There's huge things wrong with that idea- from the short term thinking most people work in to the long term detrmints of many habits we're into, which most people simply don't understand. Regulation is not the "great red menace."

 

...and this may be my longest post ever...

[Biochemist]

..Regulation is not the "great red menace."

True. The regulation menace comes in several colors.;)

...and this may be my longest post ever...

But it was a great one!

[bartock]

guys i think kriminal is talking about people who r more awear i.e. who r more developed in terms of consciousness.who are fair and will do justice and can controle themselves.

[Skippy]

Show me a historical evidence where there has been an equal possession of wealth among individuals? Comunism doesn't count.

"After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly. All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." Acts 4:31-35

 

THAT is the only time that has worked, and then it didn't last. Golding's "Lord of the Flies" may be a fictional work, but it is a very good depiction of what happens when a void in leadership is sensed. Someone always thinks their ideas are better...someone always arises who is physically stronger...someone always arises who is able to use words to get those who are physically stronger to do their bidding... A good fictional example of that is "Animal Farm" - "All animals are equal" later added the caveat "but some are more equal than others."

 

Sorry, the utopia of socialism or communism will never work - the pure sense of that ideology cannot be reached. Someone always will take advantage of those who are willing to follow the "law," just like anti-gun laws do not work because law abiding citizens will not own them so criminals will use that to take advantage.

[Skippy]

Back to the socialist economies- they are more able to regulate emissions, since the control is already in the hands of the state.

You are kidding, right? El Paso, TX is choking in the emissions of SOCIALIST Mexico, not capitalist America. One might make the argument (and it may be a valid one?) that the manufacturers in Juarez are American companies that have outsourced across the border. But the fact reamains that Mexico does not regulate emmisions as strictly as the U.S.

 

The reason The United States has refused to sign the Kyoto climate agreement has little to do with politics and everything to do with communist and socialist countries getting a free ride on their emmisions while the U.S. would be seriously punished for its emmisions.

[bumab]

You are kidding, right? El Paso, TX is choking in the emissions of SOCIALIST Mexico, not capitalist America.

 

A couple points: I said socialist economies could regulate more easily, not that they would. Mexican and Canadian socialism is harely the epitome of the government type. Both countries have been heavily influenced by competition and international dealings between themselves and the US. I never said capitalism wasn't more productive- in which case, Canadian and Mexican economies would be influenced towards the more free market / de-regulation you love so much. Although I can't speak for Mexico directly, I do watch Canadian news regularly, and the economic impact of having the US for a neighbor is plain to see. MORE doesn't mean better, it just means more.

 

Second- TX has it's own air problems, and under Bush as governer they became far, far worse. TX has some of the worst air in the country on it's own, Mexico's just another drop in the bucket.

 

Third-

One might make the argument (and it may be a valid one?) that the manufacturers in Juarez are American companies that have outsourced across the border.

 

you made my third point very well, thanks. It is a valid one- outsourcing is but one way of getting around our environmental regulations. Of course, that may soon no longer be neccessary, since the trend in the current adminisitration is "industry regulation." Outsourcing will still continue, probably, due to cheaper wage markets.

 

But the fact reamains that Mexico does not regulate emmisions as strictly as the U.S.

 

Finally, picking on Mexico is like shooting fish in a barrel. Take on some established countries.

 

The reason The United States has refused to sign the Kyoto climate agreement has little to do with politics and everything to do with communist and socialist countries getting a free ride on their emmisions while the U.S. would be seriously punished for its emmisions.

 

You seem to have a personal bent against other forms of government. while the reasons for not signing are pretty complex, in my understanding the reason given was it would punish the American economy while giving 3rd world countries free time, thus hurting us in the long run. The unspoken reason is it would hurt our economy while the rest of the highly devloped world (Europe) is already pretty close to compliance, thus REALLY hurting us. that's why they signed no problem.

 

It's funny (and very, very sad) that issues related to world health (environmental and personal) get relegated to "it hurts us economically." But- it follows from the capitalist manifesto- everybody for themselves. So I really don't think the American economy, and the government that supports it, has the ABILITY to regulate emissions. It's not in their vocabulary. Make sense?

[Skippy]

A couple points: I said socialist economies could regulate more easily, not that they would.

So we agree that Socialism does not regulate more. Heck, capitalist could regulate more. Communists could regulate more. Anarchists could regulate more...

 

Second- TX has it's own air problems, and under Bush as governer they became far, far worse. TX has some of the worst air in the country on it's own, Mexico's just another drop in the bucket.

Granted, Texas has its problems with its air, but the point was Texas manufacturers are saddled with millions of dollars in expenses to keep from polluting so much and to keep from receiving fines from the TNRCC and the EPA. The manufacturers just across the border do not have to worry about such regulation and therefore they pollute far more than any three combined on the Texas side.

 

Finally, picking on Mexico is like shooting fish in a barrel. Take on some established countries.

Sorry, I thought the point you were making was that Socialist governments regulated more than Capitalist govts. and Mexico was an example that came to mind first. I could have used China I guess, but you probably would have corrected me and said it was a communist govt. (Socialism with an attitude).

 

You seem to have a personal bent against other forms of government. while the reasons for not signing are pretty complex, in my understanding the reason given was it would punish the American economy while giving 3rd world countries free time, thus hurting us in the long run. The unspoken reason is it would hurt our economy while the rest of the highly devloped world (Europe) is already pretty close to compliance, thus REALLY hurting us. that's why they signed no problem.

Sorry, I usually get onto my friends who always pull for the front-runner too. Sorry, but our form of economy has proved itself FAR superior to any other. Socialism, and especially Communism deprives the worker of any need to be competent and thus defeats itself. You say you watch Canadian news? How about the recent ruling from the Canadian Supreme Court which said, in effect, that socialized medicine was a failure? I too prefer a doctor that has earned his/her degree and is getting paid what the service I'm getting deserves...kings, queens, dictators and rulers of other countries have routinely come to America for personal treatment.

 

It's funny (and very, very sad) that issues related to world health (environmental and personal) get relegated to "it hurts us economically." But- it follows from the capitalist manifesto- everybody for themselves. So I really don't think the American economy, and the government that supports it, has the ABILITY to regulate emissions. It's not in their vocabulary. Make sense?

No. You must be unfamiliar with the regulatory efforts of America. I live in the Houston area and work there. Our industry's emmisions are regulated by the City of Houston, Harris County, the TNRCC, OSHA, the NRC and the EPA. All of that is self-regulation, as we have so far defeated all efforts to bow to those in the rest of the world who would bring us down to their levels.

[bumab]

So we agree that Socialism does not regulate more. Heck, capitalist could regulate more. Communists could regulate more. Anarchists could regulate more.

 

Not necessarily. I was saying capitalism could not regulate much more, and still be capitalism.

 

Granted, Texas has its problems with its air, but the point was Texas manufacturers are saddled with millions of dollars in expenses to keep from polluting so much and to keep from receiving fines from the TNRCC and the EPA.

 

Boy, you'd think they'd clean up their act to avoid the fines then, wouldn't you? But since the fines are small enough, they can just be written off as a cost of doing business (some even get tax breaks for those things [as a cost of doing business], I've heard, although that's unverified)

 

Sorry, but our form of economy has proved itself FAR superior to any other. Socialism, and especially Communism deprives the worker of any need to be competent.

 

Depends on your definition of supiror. More productive? Yes. Better? That's a different question. Sustainable? Jury's still out.

 

You say you watch Canadian news? How about the recent ruling from the Canadian Supreme Court which said, in effect, that socialized medicine was a failure?

 

True, that was the ruling, but if you watched the general populaces reaction, the vast majority still prefer socialized medicine.

 

I too prefer a doctor that has earned his/her degree and is getting paid what the service I'm getting deserves...kings, queens, dictators and rulers of other countries have routinely come to America for personal treatment.

 

Who determines "what they deserve?" The highest bidder in the US, regulatory bodies in other countries. Neither has much of a supremacy claim. I broke my neck 2 years ago, at the time I was uninsured- because I couldn't afford it. I was working, thank God, so I was covered on L&I. The doc's got their money, but they wouldn't have if it wasn't for that form of institutionalized health care coverage.

 

No. You must be unfamiliar with the regulatory efforts of America. I live in the Houston area and work there. Our industry's emmisions are regulated by the City of Houston, Harris County, the TNRCC, OSHA, the NRC and the EPA. All of that is self-regulation, as we have so far defeated all efforts to bow to those in the rest of the world who would bring us down to their levels.

 

I was refering to self-regulation inside the industry. The US governmental regulations are currently being reduced (or at least attempted to). This leaves the industry to pick up the slack, but given your statement earlier- they seem to prefer to pay fines then fix the problem- I doubt they will.

[Southtown]

I read an interesting essay on the errant economics of socialism. It was a free pdf that came with a book I bought. It's public domain, btw.

 

http://www.mostuff.net/pdfs/WhySocialismCantWork.pdf

[Beelzebub]

Most hospitals in the US are not governmental

who said anything about the US

Many folks think that government businesses (the post office, schools) are grossly inefficient, and should not be governmental because of it.

But that doesn't mean they're right. Can you back this up?

It is nearly impossible to fire anyone in government service.

This problem is in no way caused by socialism and is therefore one that can be solved in order to eliminate a disadvantage to socialism.

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

Again, are they right? Prove it.

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.

Look at it this way: Think of the americans as the richest people in the world. (which they are) What you just said was: The median standard of living of the rich is rising compared to the poor.

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?

What do you mean by improved? Did air and water pollution actually decrease. Or is the environment simply deteriorating more slowly than it was before.

[Beelzebub]

You have less than nothing.

This less than nothing is becoming even more less than nothing.

People give to you but you don't give it back.

And you have the nerve to say:

America is hardly going bankrupt.

[Biochemist]

...Did air and water pollution actually decrease.

Yes it did. In the US by all objective measures, air and water pollution decreased in the last 30 years. The US is far cleaner than it was in 1972.

 

B- I can't tell where you are coming from on the rest of your posts. It is true that Amerca is doing better economically than most of the world, even the western world. It is also probably true that the reason is that the markets are freer and the taxes are lower. It is certainly true that other poorer countries are often poorer because they either 1) mismanage business through the goveernment, or 2) are socialistic.

 

Were you disagreeing with this?