News Moneyless Sharing: A Solution to the Problems of Capitalism?

[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?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Well, ok - I guess if you use that loose of a definition though, you could say the US has a revolution every decade or so.

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

Very interesting paper. Regardless of the nitty gritty, I would agree that the US isn't a model to use if your goal is to decrease "social exclusion". But socialists and capitalists are driven by different starting premises, so to me the question is an irrelevancy.

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'

It is a hyperbolic function, so there is no need to put such limits on it. That's a mathematically flawed way to look at the data (you are reading it upside-down). It is convenient to use a coefficient that is between 0 and 1, but the concept it is describing a difference in income between zero and infinity.

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."

Granted, but such discussions always lead in that direction anyway. If the system is flawed, it is natural to look for a better one.

Russ made the point that even Americans living in poverty in the US are relatively better off than the poor of other countries.

I said that poor in the US fare worse than in Europe (which is true) and Milo said they are better off in the US than in "Socialist utopias". Such a thing doesn't exist, but it is true that those countries on the far left have typically fared badly on that score.

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.

I don't see any good reason for such unrest in a healthy (by capitalist standards) capitalist country.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

i think that the day u will reach social unrest is the day that Mr. Burnankee decides that healthcare is too expensive on the federal reserve..or decides to cut the wages on unemployed ppl...now those things are dangerous, but as long as ppl are eating/sleeping under a roof/ getting paid while staying at home, there's reallly no such thing as civil unrest

 

[russ_watters]

That isn't the way our money system works - Bernake (the Federal reserve) doesn't have such powers.

 

[russ_watters]

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

It is a delicate balance. A certain amount of socialism is necessary in any country (there are some people who are simply unable to take care of themselves), but too much socialism can be quite stifiling for the economy. Sweden is a good example of that. It is not the successful hybrid that some think:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman33.html
http://www.neolibertarian.net/articles/sanandaji_20060414.aspx

Other Scandanavian countries are also not necessarily good examples because their socialism is supported by oil revenue. They are not self-sustaining and are going to be in a lot of trouble when their oil runs out.

I forsee major problems for Europe in general over the next few decades. Socialism (and to a lesser extent, government bureacracy in general) as a political ideal is self-sustaining, meaning that once enacted a socialist policy is virtually impossible to revoke. France's current problems are a good example. Everyone knows there is a real employment crisis there, but if a politician tries to do something about it, they get strung-up. As the public sector grows with government bloat, the private sector will shrink, and with it, the most efficient part of the economy. Europe is already growing significantly slower (economically) than the US, and that momentum will continue to build. The EU will help slow the acceleration, but it won't be able to stop it. They aren't the USSR, but eventually their similar ideals will make the countries of Europe implode for the same reasons if they don't do something about it.

This, from the second article, is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of socialism:

The many years with a large welfare system seems to have reduced the Swedish populations working ethics and made it more acceptable to live on government handouts, which have increasingly become an alternative to work. In a survey conducted in 2002, 62 percent of Swedish employees answered that they viewed it as acceptable to claim the right to sick leave even if one is not restrained by disease to work. This attitude seems to correlate closely with the large increase in Sick Leave which we have experienced in Sweden.

In theory, socialism's largest pro is the ethics on which it is based. But the reality is that socialism breeds mediocrity, laziness, and inethical behavior, contributing heavily to the decline of a civilization.

 

[X-43D]

What i don't like about capitalism is that people have to compete and work hard to make money but they can never reach the top of the social pyramid. Money doesn't come so easy for most people like it did for Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Most people have to work hard for their incomes.

Also about half of all human effort today is wasted on the administration of the capitalist system. Everybody who uses money, counts money, receives money, worries about money, steals money, catches the thieves, gambles for money, handles credit cards, handles other value papers, everybody who works in the banks, half of all the people working in the supermarkets, are working with the administration of the money system. The money system is a centrally controlled system.

So we are already today getting by fairly well, on average globally, with only a small part of the possible workforce actually producing anything useful.

 

[Art]

Well, ok - I guess if you use that loose of a definition though, you could say the US has a revolution every decade or so.

Can you provide examples of the revolutionary socio-economic changes in the US every 10 years you refer to? Even changes in governing parties seem me to have had only minor impacts to the overall system.

Very interesting paper. Regardless of the nitty gritty, I would agree that the US isn't a model to use if your goal is to decrease "social exclusion". But socialists and capitalists are driven by different starting premises, so to me the question is an irrelevancy.

No the question isn't relevant I agree. I provided the title and ref of the full report only because you implied I had cherry picked stats from it and had proclaimed an interest in seeing the source in full. That just happens to be it's title.

It is a hyperbolic function, so there is no need to put such limits on it. That's a mathematically flawed way to look at the data (you are reading it upside-down). It is convenient to use a coefficient that is between 0 and 1, but the concept it is describing a difference in income between zero and infinity.

Not sure what you mean by this. My point is obviously related to a coefficient getting ever nearer the magical 1 which btw is not quite infinity simply all income. Social strife would be an issue long before then. Check out the Gini coefficient world map on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient and tell me how many countries with a Gini over 0.5 you would label as havibg stable governments.

Granted, but such discussions always lead in that direction anyway. If the system is flawed, it is natural to look for a better one.

All I am looking for though at the moment is an admission that the system is flawed.

I said that poor in the US fare worse than in Europe (which is true) and Milo said they are better off in the US than in "Socialist utopias". Such a thing doesn't exist, but it is true that those countries on the far left have typically fared badly on that score.

My apologies I mixed up yours and Milo's posts.

I don't see any good reason for such unrest in a healthy (by capitalist standards) capitalist country.

But isn't that the whole point. The various indicators suggest many countries with severe economic inequality, typified by the US in this instance, are far from healthy.

 

[denverdoc]

It is a delicate balance. <snip>
This, from the second article, is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of socialism: certain amount of socialism is necessary in any country (there In theory, socialism's largest pro is the ethics on which it is based. But the reality is that socialism breeds mediocrity, laziness, and inethical behavior, contributing heavily to the decline of a civilization.

Thats poppycock. Especially the part about unethical behavior--utter nonsense. Must be reading too much Ayn Rand. By far the most violent "civilized" developed country in the world is the US. The highest rate of incarceration, well the US again. The only one that still finds a need for execution, the US. So i agree with the balance--you need to find ways to motivate individuals to do their best. Profit sharing seems like a good way to get around the lord/serf arrangement that capitalism is based on. My thoughts are capitalism can work pretty well, if only the corporation is avoided. This is a relatively recent dev't which many far thinking patriots warned us against. It produces a system where the most sociopathic employee typically rises to the top, and guess then about how ethically they behave.

 

[Astronuc]

What i don't like about capitalism is that people have to compete and work hard to make money but they can never reach the top of the social pyramid. Money doesn't come so easy for most people like it did for Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Most people have to work hard for their incomes.

There's nothing wrong with hard work - that's just the way it is. I am more concerned whether or not the system is fair. The failure in capitalist systems is the failure to rein in the likes of Enron and Worldcom. Laissez faire capitalism just does not work.

Another major failure of capitalism is economic disparity.

Extreme concentrations of wealth hurt not only those far down the economic. Concentrated wealth distorts democracy, by giving a small elite both the motive and the means to buy the policies they want from contribution-hungry politicians. . . . . And concentrated wealth spawns a culture of excessive consumption that subverts all of the nonmaterial values people find difficult enough to sustain in a modern capitalist economy.

The Wealth Inequality Reader

Wealth is distributed more unequally in the United States today than at any time since the twenties. Does it matter? The authors of The Wealth Inequality Reader answer this question with a resounding yes. Twenty-five substantive, readable essays explore the hidden vector of wealth inequality: its causes, consequences, and strategies for change. Plus: an illustrated overview offers the latest statistics on wealth inequality in a series of one-page snapshots. The essential reader on wealth inequality, this book is a must-have for both the activist and the scholar.

ibid.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

well its true money did cost us lots of things, but can u imagine a world without it? Currency was a huge and important invention. 2nd for u russ, i know bernanke doesn't control this much , but last time he spoke he was already complaining about healthcare prices. As for the Scandinavian countries, i think you mayb be right that they are pushing extremes on their system and promoting lazyness and decouraging their ppl to be driven like the american ppl. (propably why we see too much suicide cases in Sweden).
As for France i think they have enough jobs for their populace but its their openess to illegal immigrants especially alrgerians is drowning their economy, a pb we see all over the EU, like Germany! ever been to Hamburg? looks more like turkey..i think Europe's major pb is not their system as much as it is related to their aliens. If u ask me what i think, the american system is most succesfull till now, unfortunately not all countries can sustain a system similar to the american one. It's like you develop systems with what you got on your land.

 

[denverdoc]

(propably why we see too much suicide cases in Sweden).
As for Franc.

Thats not so. Suicide rates in alaska are just as high. This is a biological issue that should be excluded--I remember 20 years ago it was that the sexual looseness of the situation was the cause. Suicide rates fairly follow latitude.

 

[denverdoc]

well its true money did cost us lots of things, but can u imagine a world without it? Currency was a huge and important invention. 2nd for u russ, i know bernanke doesn't control this much , but last time he spoke he was already complaining about healthcare prices. As for the Scandinavian countries, i think you mayb be right that they are pushing extremes on their system and promoting lazyness and decouraging their ppl to be driven like the american ppl. (propably why we see too much suicide cases in Sweden).
As for France i think they have enough jobs for their populace but its their openess to illegal immigrants especially alrgerians is drowning their economy, a pb we see all over the EU, like Germany! ever been to Hamburg? looks more like turkey..i think Europe's major pb is not their system as much as it is related to their aliens. If u ask me what i think, the american system is most succesfull till now, unfortunately not all countries can sustain a system similar to the american one. It's like you develop systems with what you got on your land.

I'd like to imagine money out of the eqn, not sure how it could be best implemented. Theres a moneyless exchange system up in Boulder, CO, USA I have thought about belonging to. I see where itmight work small scale, but build a dam or rocket, gets messy.

 

[siddharth]

I want to make a point on the difficulty of measuring poverty, especially in my country.

In India, the "poverty line" is decided based only on a concept of a minimum nutritional level. The official estimates of the poverty line are based on a calorie norm of 2400 per capita per day for rural areas and 2100 per capita per day for urban areas[1]. (This norm was fixed in the 1970's)

The government then fixes the poverty line by the amount of money needed to buy food items at the market price, which correspond to the specified minimum calorie norms. If the total income of an individual is below this value, the person is deemed to be living below the poverty line.

Notice that this definition does not factor in the cost of other essential goods and services, such as clothing, housing, health care or education. Even by this "bare minimum" definition, around 25% of the population (ie, about 275,000,000) lives below the poverty line [2,3].

In comparison to the poverty line measurement of poverty which the government uses to boast about the effectiveness of its policies, the 2006 UN Human Development Index (which seems to be a more realistic measure of poverty) ranks India 126 out of 177 countries[4].

There's nothing wrong with hard work - that's just the way it is. I am more concerned whether or not the system is fair. The failure in capitalist systems is the failure to rein in the likes of Enron and Worldcom. Laissez faire capitalism just does not work.

Another major failure of capitalism is economic disparity.

I agree. I also think that the government has the potential to play an important role in promoting the welfare of developing societies, especially through redistributive policies.

[1] - http://mospi.nic.in/compenv2000_appendix%206.htm
[2] - https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/in.html
[3] - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/702850.cms
[4] - http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_IND.html

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

Thats not so. Suicide rates in alaska are just as high. This is a biological issue that should be excluded--I remember 20 years ago it was that the sexual looseness of the situation was the cause. Suicide rates fairly follow latitude.

hmm. interesting i didn't know that. but most things i hear from my friends up in sweden is that they tell me that there's nothing special to do..as if they got bored and had no goals, so i conculded that it might be the governmental policy of just doing everything for the people so they don't even need to try.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

camels for oil

I'd like to imagine money out of the eqn, not sure how it could be best implemented. Theres a moneyless exchange system up in Boulder, CO, USA I have thought about belonging to. I see where itmight work small scale, but build a dam or rocket, gets messy.

well yeah..in the old days in the arabian penninsula desert they used to barter things, especially in Camels. i would like to imagine an american petroleum company renting land for mining and paying in camels :P its like 200 camels/month..wouldn't u just pay a 2billions dollar/month to get out of such a contract :P

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

to siddharth, well for my part i think its hard to get jobs for a densely packed billion human beings !. what can a government do in that case?
basicly where do u think the government can do more?

 

[denverdoc]

well yeah..in the old days in the arabian penninsula desert they used to barter things, especially in Camels. i would like to imagine an american petroleum company renting land for mining and paying in camels :P its like 200 camels/month..wouldn't u just pay a 2billions dollar/month to get out of such a contract :P

I agree, and maybe a topic of a new post, which might bring fresh insights. I tried money, drugs, and sex. Pitifully, I would suggest in at least my case, the feeling of family, intellectual stimulation, freedom frm ethical conflict and comfort are the biggest forces in descending order. But I'm not egotistically driven the same way as many of my peers, who count publications like animal skins. A different kettle of fish,--one very much aware of payback, the other just being the best citizen one can be.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

well i think then u should start that new post !

 

[denverdoc]

well i think then u should start that new post !

OK...

 

[russ_watters]

Can you provide examples of the revolutionary socio-economic changes in the US every 10 years you refer to? Even changes in governing parties seem me to have had only minor impacts to the overall system.

How is that a reasonable criteria for defining a revolution? Typically, a change in governing parties is the definition - they don't have to be very different. Heck, historically most revolutions end up replacing one dictator for another, changing virtually nothing.

My point is obviously related to a coefficient getting ever nearer the magical 1 which btw is not quite infinity simply all income.

Look at the equation and what it means. A Gini coefficient of 1 is A/(A+B)=1/(1+0), which would mean that the one richest person in the country has all of the country's wealth and everyone else has precisely zero. The actual wealth distribution curve is hyperbolic. Besides not being "magical", a gini coeff of 1 is unattainable as a mathematical limit. It is an asymptote.

Check out the Gini coefficient world map on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient and tell me how many countries with a Gini over 0.5 you would label as havibg stable governments.

Not many, but so what? It is not relevant, since you are comparing different political/economic systems with different reasons for stability/instability (not the least of which is the extreme poverty level in many of those countries due to non-functional economies). Heck, it says so right there next to the map!

All I am looking for though at the moment is an admission that the system is flawed.

Of course the system is flawed: all systems are flawed. But it is still by far the best there is (the capitalist/democratic one in general, I mean).

But isn't that the whole point. The various indicators suggest many countries with severe economic inequality, typified by the US in this instance, are far from healthy.

You posted a map implying the countries that are above .5 are good examples, but how many of them are mature capitalist countries? Are you saying the US isn't healthy or just that the US will become like those other countries? Either way, it simply doesn't follow logically.

edit: For example, the Central African Republic is one of the higher ones (.6). It is clearly unstable, but is it because of the .6 Gini or because it has a per capita GDP of $1,100 and somewhere on the order of 60% poverty? I think you will find that the US is unique in its ability to maintain a high per capita GDP and a high Gini coeffiient at the same time (thus relatively low poverty) .

 

[russ_watters]

Thats poppycock. Especially the part about unethical behavior--utter nonsense.

Did you read the article? Have you ever talked to a Russian...? Malaise is a way of life.

 

[russ_watters]

What i don't like about capitalism is that people have to compete and work hard to make money but they can never reach the top of the social pyramid. Money doesn't come so easy for most people like it did for Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Most people have to work hard for their incomes.

Do you know what fraction of our billionaires are self-made? Do you know that Bill Gate's ealy years at Microsoft were spent using a motel as an office and doing marathon programming sessions?

Sure, luck had something to do with it. It always does - ask the winner of any NASCAR race. But skill and hard work is important as well.

Also about half of all human effort today is wasted on the administration of the capitalist system. Everybody who uses money, counts money, receives money, worries about money, steals money, catches the thieves, gambles for money, handles credit cards, handles other value papers, everybody who works in the banks, half of all the people working in the supermarkets, are working with the administration of the money system. The money system is a centrally controlled system.

So we are already today getting by fairly well, on average globally, with only a small part of the possible workforce actually producing anything useful.

Wasted? Useless? Part of the beauty of the capitalist system is that money does work too!

Heck, the opposite is the basic problem for socialism/capitalism: it doesn't value humans. Humans do the work and provide the economic value, but the system does not reward them with value equal to their work but instead sees them as expendable burdens to be supported. It does not take much for a slightly sociopathic despot to sieze upon the idea and create horrible misery in the name of economic progress. Stalin murdered millions not because of racism (ie, Hitler), but because of the economic implications of their existence.

 

[Art]

How is that a reasonable criteria for defining a revolution? Heck, historically most revolutions end up replacing one dictator for another, changing virtually nothing. Typically, a change in governing parties is the definition - they don't have to be very different.

Revolution \rev`o*lu"tion\, n. [F. révolution, L. revolutio.]

A drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving. http://artcode.org/lexicon/definitions/revolution.php?size=384

Now show me what you base your definition on.

Look at the equation and what it means. A Gini coefficient of 1 is A/(A+B)=1/(1+0), which would mean that the one richest person in the country has all of the country's wealth and everyone else has precisely zero. The actual wealth distribution curve is hyperbolic. Besides not being "magical", a gini coeff of 1 is unattainable as a mathematical limit. It is an asymptote.

I meant what was your point not what were the maths; though I see you now agree it is not infinite.

Not many, but so what? It is not relevant, since you are comparing different political/economic systems with different reasons for stability/instability (not the least of which is the extreme poverty level in many of those countries due to non-functional economies). Heck, it says so right there next to the map! Of course the system is flawed: all systems are flawed. But it is still by far the best there is (the capitalist/democratic one in general, I mean). You posted a map implying the countries that are above .5 are good examples, but how many of them are mature capitalist countries? Are you saying the US isn't healthy or just that the US will become like those other countries? Either way, it simply doesn't follow logically

edit: For example, the Central African Republic is one of the higher ones (.6). It is clearly unstable, but is it because of the .6 Gini or because it has a per capita GDP of $1,100 and somewhere on the order of 60% poverty? I think you will find that the US is unique in its ability to maintain a high per capita GDP and a high Gini coeffiient at the same time (thus relatively low poverty) .

You asked for evidence that countries with a Gini index >0.5 were susceptible to anti-government unrest and I provided it. You can dismiss the correlation as mere coincidence if you like but I think you are deluding yourself. As for the US being a special case and thus immune - I already addressed that in the analogy I supplied earlier; which incidentally you appeared to agree with.

I think what you will find is that like other countries with high income inequality the government will become more and more repressive to quell dissent from an ever increasing % of the population who believe the American dream is their personal nightmare. Sooner rather than later you will see legislation such as the Patriot Act (an oxymoron if ever there was one) being used to suppress any organised protest as is already happening with 'free speech' zones being designated far away from the object of their protest and of course the TV cameras when the president comes to town.

Despite your protestations of the effects I see you do concede that capitalism in it's current form is flawed, which seems to me to be a somewhat paradoxical position to hold, never-the-less what changes do you think need to be made for it to survive as the socio-economic system of choice for the long term?

Interestingly it seems Forbes,which I don't think anyone could ever accuse of being left wing, agrees with my assessment as to the effect of income inequality without economic mobility.

One lesson of all this is that societies where the spoils are more unevenly divided, such as the U.S., had better be mobile--or else. If a large enough number of people believe they have a fair shot at success, then they will put up with the megarich. But if large numbers feel stuck at the bottom, sooner or later they will explode

Do you know what fraction of our billionaires are self-made? Do you know that Bill Gate's ealy years at Microsoft were spent using a motel as an office and doing marathon programming sessions?

There are only 371 billionaires in the US in total, many of which inherited the bulk of their wealth and so they are hardly a representative sample for the economic aspirations of the general populace.

 

[denverdoc]

Did you read the article? Have you ever talked to a Russian...? Malaise is a way of life.

As a matter of fact I have. I was incredulous to find re the women there:
1) better educated than US counterparts
2) less prone to obesity
3) far less materialistic
4)far more committed to family

No one complained of malaise. Hope for a better life, yes, but i doubt that would be different anywhere.

 

[siddharth]

to siddharth, well for my part i think its hard to get jobs for a densely packed billion human beings !. what can a government do in that case?
basicly where do u think the government can do more?

Here's some of the issues which I think the government should seriously look at

- Agriculture sector:

60% of the working population in India is employed in agriculture, while it's contribution to the GDP is 19.9%[1]. My last post highlighted the problem with the existing poverty line in India. If one uses a "better" poverty line, which includes other basic commodities, the rural poverty will be at 85%[2].

What the government could do:

(i) Phase out the land ceiling act! Small land holdings are going to affect productivity.
(ii) Provide opportunities for education and training so that farmers can move to the manufacturing and service sectors.
(iii) Invest in infrastructure. For example, invest in improving irrigation. Half the farmers still depend on the monsoons for irrigation[3]

- Education:
The literacy rate in India 59.5% [1]. I think that the government needs to completely rethink it's policies here. Currently, the state of government funded schools are absolutely terrible, especially in rural areas.

There's a interesting view how the government could improve education by deregulating some of it's criteria for low-budget private schools.

http://indianeconomy.org/2007/03/09/the-unknown-education-revolution-in-india/" ,

in a 2005 Delhi study[11], James Tooley found that children in low-budget unrecognized private schools did 246% better than government school children on a standardized English test, with around 80% higher average marks in mathematics and Hindi.

There are important lessons here for education policymakers in India. Education entrepreneurs need to be encouraged by removing rules that hinder the establishment and operation of schools in the primary, secondary and higher secondary areas of education. Competing schools will create choices for parents, improving access and quality for all. The government can then focus its limited education budget on the neediest sections of society.

This is a http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N60/knesmith.60c.html" , which offers the same idea.

As I have mentioned before in a previous post, I strongly feel that reservation in educational institutions on the basis of caste has got to go.

- Labor laws

Some of the Labor laws in India are rigid, inflexible and completely stupid. I honestly feel that the policy makers who made them had no clue about economics or the way markets work (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4103554.stm" ). As a result, the distorted market for labor is going to hurt employment, especially in the manufacturing sector.

IMO, the government needs to do much more in many other fields as well, such as improving transport links between rural areas and providing adequate health facilities. Most of the popular media coverage seems to be focusing only on the GDP growth (mainly due to the IT sector). I think it's time they look beyond the rosy picture at the actual inequality present, and ways to alleviate poverty.

[1] - CIA fact sheet on India
[2] - http://www.epw.org.in/articles/2006/06/10238.pdf
[3] - http://www.fao.org/ag/Agl/AGLW/aquastat/regions/asia/index5.stm

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

u know since u mentioned it, India can't be far away from being able to become like China, you have everything it takes, + higher education levels. we have the same trouble with our government, it just kills us to see all our resources thrown away in theft and corruption. well best of luck for both of our countries :).

 

[russ_watters]

Now show me what you base your definition on.

Oh, c'mon. That isn't the applicable definition and you know it.

I meant what was your point not what were the maths; though I see you now agree it is not infinite.

? Uh, no...

The point was two-fold:
-A gini coeff of 1 is unattainable.
-There is nothing "magical" about a gini coeff of 1.

You asked for evidence that countries with a Gini index >0.5 were susceptible to anti-government unrest and I provided it. You can dismiss the correlation as mere coincidence if you like but I think you are deluding yourself.

Well, fine. You've made your point with spurious logic and you're ok with it. Ok, then...

As for the US being a special case and thus immune - I already addressed that in the analogy I supplied earlier; which incidentally you appeared to agree with.

? You do realize other people can read this thread, right? You can't just put words in my mouth and expect people not to see through you.

I think what you will find is that like other countries with high income inequality the government will become more and more repressive to quell dissent from an ever increasing % of the population who believe the American dream is their personal nightmare. Sooner rather than later you will see legislation such as the Patriot Act (an oxymoron if ever there was one) being used to suppress any organised protest as is already happening with 'free speech' zones being designated far away from the object of their protest and of course the TV cameras when the president comes to town.

A bold prediction. And ultimately meaningless since we can't test it. But we can use logic and similar examples to show whether or not it makes sense. And clearly, the US simply does not fit with other countries with high gini coefficients. The gini coeff is about the only thing that is similar between the US and countries with stability issues.

Despite your protestations of the effects I see you do concede that capitalism in it's current form is flawed, which seems to me to be a somewhat paradoxical position to hold

Of course capitalism is flawed - but why is that paradoxical?

You're using that statement like Creationists use "it's only a theory..." Saying capitalism is flawed is not the same as saying capitalism is a bad system. You're trying to fire a gun that isn't loaded.

Capitalism is flawed and it is also the best system we have and are likely to have.

never-the-less what changes do you think need to be made for it to survive as the socio-economic system of choice for the long term?

It's survival is not at stake. It is perfectly stable as is. But clearly, the US could do a better job with government waste, helping the truly needy, and avoiding helping those who are scamming the government.

Interestingly it seems Forbes,which I don't think anyone could ever accuse of being left wing, agrees with my assessment as to the effect of income inequality without economic mobility.

Do you have a link to that? A quick google implies you are wrong: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmfor/is_199704/ai_n15360096
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/098_print.html

There are only 371 billionaires in the US in total, many of which inherited the bulk of their wealth and so they are hardly a representative sample for the economic aspirations of the general populace.

So...you're saying you don't know what fraction of our billionaires are self-made?

 

[Art]

Oh, c'mon. That isn't the applicable definition and you know it.?

It's the dictionary definition. If you can find a source to support your personal definition please provide it otherwise concede the point and move on.

The point was two-fold:
-A gini coeff of 1 is unattainable.
-There is nothing "magical" about a gini coeff of 1. ?

How is this relevant to the discussion? It is the movement towards 1 that matters.

Well, fine. You've made your point with spurious logic and you're ok with it. Ok, then...

Yes I've made my point using logic supported by authoritative sources isn't that how one is supposed to debate on this forum??

? You do realize other people can read this thread, right? You can't just put words in my mouth and expect people not to see through you.

lol Pot-kettle springs to mind. Maybe I'm confused because your argument is somewhat confused and contradictory.

A bold prediction. And ultimately meaningless since we can't test it. But we can use logic and similar examples to show whether or not it makes sense. And clearly, the US simply does not fit with other countries with high gini coefficients. The gini coeff is about the only thing that is similar between the US and countries with stability issues.

Yet strangely Forbes whilst very supportive of wealth inequality in principal, agrees with the thrust of my argument http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/free_forbes/2003/0317/098_2.html

Of course capitalism is flawed - but why is that paradoxical?

Because whilst conceding capitalism is broken you argue it doesn't need fixing.

You're using that statement like Creationists use "it's only a theory..." Saying capitalism is flawed is not the same as saying capitalism is a bad system. You're trying to fire a gun that isn't loaded.

As I was saying.

Capitalism is flawed and it is also the best system we have and are likely to have. It's survival is not at stake. It is perfectly stable as is. But clearly, the US could do a better job with government waste, helping the truly needy, and avoiding helping those who are scamming the government.

Come now Russ, even you must concede that the current trend of growing wealth inequality must reach a point where it becomes intolerable to society as a whole (by current trends the USA will be on a par with Mexico by 2043). In your statement above you begin by stating that the current system is stable (in fact you claim perfectly stable) as it is and yet then go on to suggest 'socialist ' fixes that are needed which seems to show a lack of conviction in your initial assertion.

Do you have a link to that? A quick google implies you are wrong: [/QUOTE] Link provided above and ...ters and I'll be able to answer the question.

 

[X-43D]

There is the payment system which forces people to pay money for goods and services. Poor people simply don't have the money to pay for goods and services and become dependent on others. We need a share system, not an exchange system. A system with exchange and accumulation is a capitalist system, with all the disadvantages it brings with it. Dependency and a lack of individual freedom, economic inequality, a centralized control system with a gigantic bureaucracy, the money system and value papers, banks, people who make prices, people who demand money payments, receive and count the payments, people who steal money, people who chase, stop and arrest the thiefs, people building cashiers machines, pay interest, mortgages, robbery, murder for financial gain, gambling, etc. So much effort is wasted on the administration of the money system, so that only a small amount of people actually produce anything useful.

 

[Astronuc]

There is the payment system which forces people to pay money for goods and services. Poor people simply don't have the money to pay for goods and services and become dependent on others. We need a share system, not an exchange system. A system with exchange and accumulation is a capitalist system, with all the disadvantages it brings with it. Dependency and a lack of individual freedom, economic inequality, a centralized control system with a gigantic bureaucracy, the money system and value papers, banks, people who make prices, people who demand money payments, receive and count the payments, people who steal money, people who chase, stop and arrest the thiefs, people building cashiers machines, pay interest, mortgages, robbery, murder for financial gain, gambling, etc. So much effort is wasted on the administration of the money system, so that only a small amount of people actually produce anything useful.

Modern industrialized/developed societies are built upon a commercial economy, which is far different from economies of 3000-5000 years ago, which were either hunter/gatherer or agrarian. In addition, the population is much more dense.

In parts of the ancient world, tribes fought over hunting grounds or agricultural areas. Slavery (human trade) was common 2000-3000 years ago, and in some societies women and children more no more than property, which is still unfortunately the case even today.

One has to ask - is there any socio-economic system that it is immune from the problems stated above. One could steal food, clothing, livestock, . . . as much as one could steal money. Most, if not all, human societies experience/suffer from thievery, violence, murder, gambling.

Can a human community exist in which resources are shared - as in a commons? This was theoretically the goal in socialism or communism, but just as in capitalism, there are always individuals or small groups who seek to take or control a disproportionate share of the resources.

 

[Astronuc]

Looking closer to home - in the US.

In Turnabout, Infant Deaths Climb in South
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/health/22infant.html

HOLLANDALE, Miss. — For decades, Mississippi and neighboring states with large black populations and expanses of enduring poverty made steady progress in reducing infant death. But, in what health experts call an ominous portent, progress has stalled and in recent years the death rate has risen in Mississippi and several other states.

The setbacks have raised questions about the impact of cuts in welfare and Medicaid and of poor access to doctors, and, many doctors say, the growing epidemics of obesity, diabetes and hypertension among potential mothers, some of whom tip the scales here at 300 to 400 pounds.

“I don’t think the rise is a fluke, and it’s a disturbing trend, not only in Mississippi but throughout the Southeast,” said Dr. Christina Glick, a neonatologist in Jackson, Miss., and past president of the National Perinatal Association.

To the shock of Mississippi officials, who in 2004 had seen the infant mortality rate — defined as deaths by the age of 1 year per thousand live births — fall to 9.7, the rate jumped sharply in 2005, to 11.4. The national average in 2003, the last year for which data have been compiled, was 6.9. Smaller rises also occurred in 2005 in Alabama, North Carolina and Tennessee. Louisiana and South Carolina saw rises in 2004 and have not yet reported on 2005. . . . . continued

This is disturbing!