History Greatest debate in modern history? Socialism(not Stalinism) vs Capitalism

[Sea Cow]

OK let's just use common definitions. The UK first came into existence in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707" , under what would historically be called the British Empire.

No, the UK and the British Empire are different things. India was part of the British Empire. It was never part of the UK. The UK comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Before Eire seceded, it comprised the whole of Ireland. Before about 1800, it comprised none of Ireland. In 1707, Great Britain came into being with the union of Scotland and England/Wales.

But if you wish to extend that to include the whole of the Empire, that's fine. You won't find me defending the British Empire or anything that took place under it.

 

[mheslep]

War on drugs, certainly, but blaming continued poverty on welfare is bizarre.

Unquestionably the case that welfare (as set up the US) contributed to the continuation of poverty. Chronic poverty trends such as teenage pregnancies collapsed after the reform of welfare in the last decade. Before then people were being paid to have more children with no father in sight, and with no time line for continuing more of the same. I'll provide sources if you like.

The countries with the least inequality, in which the poorest have the highest standard of living in absolute terms anywhere in the world, are the high-tax, high levels of social provision and welfare Scandinavian countries.

Regarding the highest standard of living - I doubt that's true outside of the the oil rich Norway. Even so pointing to countries with less population than a large US city, with homogeneous societies, and little poor immigration does not give us much of a marker for comparison.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The US is a very wealthy country. But it is a very wealthy country with a very large gap between richest and poorest.

True -- and it's very unusual in that respect. Graphing countries by GDP per capita vs. Gini coefficient*, most countries fall into either a band of poor countries (with widely-variable inequalities) or into a band of egalitarian countries (with widely-variable wealth). The US is, as I recall, the only large country to fall outside one of these two bands. It is exceptionally wealthy but noticeably higher in inequality than its fellow wealthy countries.

* Note: The Gini coefficient isn't a very good measure of inequality, but it's widely available.

How is inequality related to the enormous numbers of people that the US locks up? To put that in context, the UK, to its shame, locks up a higher percentage of its citizens than any other EU country. The US locks up about 5 time more people as a percentage than the UK.

This is another hard question, to which the answer is not clear. I suspect that if you measured inequality across only those never imprisoned, re-weighting by age, race, and gender, that US inequality would remain exceptional. Do you think so? Do you know of any study looking at this?

A more equal society is a healthier, happier, more peaceful society.

This is by no means obvious.

 

[Sea Cow]

I would exclude Norway for the reason you give – its oil wealth. But Sweden in particular is a very good example of a country that has achieved higher standards of living for its poorest – one tangible marker of that is that if you take a Swedish teenager at random and give them a physical examination, you will not be able to tell at all what their parents do for a living. That's not true here in the UK or there in the US, and it is an achievement of welfare, first and foremost – universal provision of the basics needed for a healthy life.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Even so pointing to countries with less population than a large US city, with homogeneous societies, and little poor immigration does not give us much of a marker for comparison.

I agree, it's hard to compare countries with widely-differing sizes. If the US was split into geographically contiguous, "non-gerrymandered" districts roughly the population of (say) Norway, I imagine many would be wealthier than Norway. Likewise, if you combine countries near Norway so as to make the combined population similar to that of the US, I would expect the per-capita wealth to drop, putting it closer to (or at least lower than?) the US.

 

[Sea Cow]

The point about scale is a fair one, but I think you'd be hard-pushed to find a place in the US with the population of Sweden (10 million) that has a comparably high standard of living for its poorest inhabitants.

 

[mheslep]

BTW, I don't have a problem per se with providing a social safety net. I think it should be done while keeping in mind that it can have unintended consequences causing more harm than good, and should be done as locally as possible - connecting people helping those in need - while the central government is used only as last resort.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Sweden in particular is a very good example of a country that has achieved higher standards of living for its poorest – one tangible marker of that is that if you take a Swedish teenager at random and give them a physical examination, you will not be able to tell at all what their parents do for a living. That's not true here in the UK or there in the US, and it is an achievement of welfare, first and foremost – universal provision of the basics needed for a healthy life.

That's an interesting assertion (and, I assume, fact). But it does bring up a relevant point. I wouldn't accept that as a goal for a country. It could be achieved, for example, by making better-off children less healthy (intentionally infecting them, etc.). [I'm not suggesting that you were suggesting this! -- just trying to be careful about how we measure different programs.]

In particular, I consider any Pareto improvement to be a good (a societal improvement), even if the improving person is wealthy.

You may support Rawlsianism, in which the goal is to improve the well-being (in this case, the true value of the services received by) the least-well-off person in society. Another person might count the total value of the medical services provided to all people in society, regardless of who gets it. Both seem preferable to literal egalitarianism, which considers *decreasing* the medical services to the well-off to be an improvement, even if medical services are not increased to anyone.

You can easily imagine systems between the two. One example: every doubling in yearly medical services to a person (beyond the first dollar) would increase societal value by a fixed amount. So if A receives $10,000 per year in medical services and B receives $500, this would be considered just as good as if A received $5,000 in medical services and B received $1,000. (This system favors equality, but not as strongly as Rawlsianism.)

 

[Sea Cow]

Any system I would use would include absolute minimums – rights as members of a society to decent health care, housing, clean water, education, heating, enough money to buy food, clothes etc. I see no good reason why all rich countries cannot guarantee these basic needs to all their citizens – paid for out of general taxation.

Above that, equality becomes much less important – there are thresholds, in other words, and what matters is what side of the threshold you stand on. For instance, I, with my relatively (by UK standards) modest income, stand on the same side of most of the important thresholds as Bill Gates compared to anyone living on a dollar a day.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Any system I would use would include absolute minimums – rights as members of a society to decent health care, housing, clean water, education, heating, enough money to buy food, clothes etc.

How do you determine what is an absolute minimum? What if society cannot afford to produce the absolute minimum for all members of society, even using all its resources? Does the absolute minimum change over time?

I see no good reason why all rich countries cannot guarantee these basic needs to all their citizens – paid for out of general taxation.

I agree, although this statement makes it seem simpler than it is. Increasing the well-being of some by $X billion (in aggregate) may require the rest of society to forgo $10X billion.

Above that, equality becomes much less important – there are thresholds, in other words, and what matters is what side of the threshold you stand on. For instance, I, with my relatively (by UK standards) modest income, stand on the same side of most of the important thresholds as Bill Gates compared to anyone living on a dollar a day.

That actually tells me a lot about your preferences, and makes me think that we probably have similar value systems in this regard.

 

[AlexES16]

How do you determine what is an absolute minimum? What if society cannot afford to produce the absolute minimum for all members of society, even using all its resources? Does the absolute minimum change over time?



I agree, although this statement makes it seem simpler than it is. Increasing the well-being of some by $X billion (in aggregate) may require the rest of society to forgo $10X billion.



That actually tells me a lot about your preferences, and makes me think that we probably have similar value systems in this regard.

Production can give the minum to everyone, and those who make more contribution to society should have more

 

[AlexES16]

I was reading an article in the newspaper of my country. It says that if you were good in the universitie, and have doctoral degree , especialization and labor experience, then you are bad, becouse the capitalist of the company will no want to contract you and they are going to contract juniors or less experienced people. Whats the messeage of the system not study hard and be excellent?? wow! i tought capitalism was about giving more to the best.

 

[AlexES16]

Hey some videos to have fun xD :




Venezuela Socialism is taking a lot of people out of poverty. Venezuela HDI has improved a lot.

USA tried to make a coup against Chavez.

USA aided the coup in Honduras.

USA still makes a blockade against Cuba.

I think USA have a great quote of Imperialism, fine if you want to be capitalist but let the other countrys be what they want.

Well only free the poor North Koreans xD

 

[AlexES16]

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim jon iL even the entire USSR and China are not good examples of socialism. The future is Libertarian Socialism. The vital resources should not be used for profit, with rest play monopoly if you want.

 

[vici10]

AlexES16, great videos, especially second one about statistics. It is correct regarding feeling of people in Russia. And if you take smaller republics of USSR such as Georgia or Ukraine the situation is even worse.

Below are the graphs of what kind of disaster capitalism became for people of former Soviet Union.

[PLAIN]http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/industrialized-transition2-450x314.png

[PLAIN]http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/developing-transition-450x360.png

EDT: The graphs are from http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2010/03/10/transition-reckoning/

 

[CRGreathouse]

Venezuela Socialism is taking a lot of people out of poverty. Venezuela HDI has improved a lot.

USA tried to make a coup against Chavez.

USA aided the coup in Honduras.

USA still makes a blockade against Cuba.

Venezuela is far deeper in poverty than they would have been under capitalism. They support their anti-poverty programs largely through their oil wealth; most countries don't have that option.

To the best of my knowledge, the US has not undertaken or sponsored a coup against Venezuela or Chavez. They even warned him of an attempt that they learned about.

They did/do embargo ("quarantine") Cuba and were responsible for a coup in Honduras, that much is true.

 

[CRGreathouse]

And if you take smaller republics of USSR such as Georgia or Ukraine the situation is even worse.

Yes. Although the cause is not clear. Possible causes include:
1. The USSR's GDP was overestimated, even after historical revision.
2. The USSR destroyed the local environment, increasing the Soviet GDP but decreasing that of its republics afterward (when the resources were depleted).
3. The transition to capitalism was done poorly.
4. The leadership of the member states was poor.
5. There was unrest in light of the large transition.
6. The region fared poorly for unrelated reasons, and the member states bore the brunt of that (either directly or because other nations were unable to trade with them).
7. Capitalism is ill-suited to the former SSRs for cultural/etc. reasons.

I think that #3 is the primary reason, frankly. What do you think?

 

[mheslep]

AlexES16, great videos, especially second one about statistics. It is correct regarding feeling of people in Russia. And if you take smaller republics of USSR such as Georgia or Ukraine the situation is even worse.

Below are the graphs of what kind of disaster capitalism became for people of former Soviet Union.

How do you conclude that? Per capital income is better now than before the Wall came down for most. More importantly, the people in those former Soviet countries are mostly free.

 

[vici10]

CRGreathouse,

I will tell you my personal opinion as someone who lived long enough in Soviet Union and in West.

#1 I do not know if USSR GDP was overestimated, but the author of the article says:

I used Angus Maddison’s historical statistics, CIA figures for 2009 growth except where available the results from national statistical services (Belarus & Russia), and the IMF projections for 2010 (adjusted upwards for non-Baltic nations with sharp recent falls in GDP to account for their stronger-than-expected recoveries) to create GDP (PPP) per capita indices for post-Soviet nations and Poland (generally representative of Visegrad) where the output levels of 1989 – the year of peak Soviet GDP – are set to 100.

Therefore, I assume this is what one can get.

#2 I do not think that destruction of environment was the cause for bad performance of post-Soviet republics. No, there was environmental damage as in many industrialized countries, but this is not the reason. One of the reasons is civil wars and ethnic cleansing that happened in places that people lived peacefully before. People intermarried with each other, no one was bothered about ethnicity much and suddenly people started to kill each other. I suspect foreign influence, propaganda and help to different separatist groups. Especially if one think of all "foreign aid" and foreign experts that came to Armenia during the earthquake in 1988 and first ethnic problems started between Armenia and Azerbajan exactly in that time.
In Georgia, it was fight between different groups, all Georgian for power. Gamsahurdia was supported by West, he was once part of Helsinki group. He proclaimed that only ethnic Georgians can live in Georgia. And shame to intermarriages.He wanted to return Georgia to 12th century.
The other reason for destruction is end of central planning. For some it will sounds strange, but it is what really happened, de-industrialization.

#3 Surely, transition to capitalism was done poorely. But I do not think it could be otherwise in the former Soviet Union. First we should understand the reasons for transition. The article says and I believe it is correct:

First, it cannot be stressed enough that the USSR did not collapse economically because of its inherent internal contradictions. It collapsed because Gorbachev aborted central planning, or more accurately ditched the coercive mechanisms that made central planning work (though granted the observable evidence of worker unrest and economic stagnation may have tipped his hand).[\QUOTE]

It was not done from below by the people's demand but from above. Many party leaders had privileges, but they cannot even slightly to be compared to the privileges of very rich in West. So party elite decided to convert their power into money. And best thing for them to do it is to bring capitalism and steal(privatize) people's property.

People did not defend socialism mainly because they knew nothing about capitalism, except western propaganda which was much more superior than soviet one. People knew that government lies to them often, but they did not know that western propaganda can lie too. Soviests compared themselves to US and wanted to have the same standard of living forgetting that there are many other capitalist countries that are not doing so well, such as Latin American countries for example. And that before revolution Russia was backward third world country with 90% of illiterate peasants. So now Russia is going to the pre-revolution backwardness again.

#4 About leadership I mentioned above. Gorbachev was a fool, but the rest of elite just wanted to grub people's money what they successfully done during privatization.

#5 About unrest I have mentioned above.

#6 No, it is not true. During Soviet times Georgia, Ukraine as well as Baltic republics were the richest republics. They were the best places to live.

#7 As maybe you have noticed before I do not believe in culture stuff. It does not explain anything and anything can be marked as culture.

 

[mheslep]

Yes. Although the cause is not clear. Possible causes include:
[...]
3. The transition to capitalism was done poorly.
[...]
I think that #3 is the primary reason, frankly. What do you think?

Yep, that's what M. Friedman said in admitting his own overconfidence:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172092

"In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, I kept being asked what the Russians should do," Friedman told me in 2002. "I said, 'Privatize, privatize, privatize. I was wrong. Joe [Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate] was right. What we want is privatization, and the rule of law."

The Poles and others in E. Europe got it mostly right; they spent much time nailing down a constitution and a court system, while my read is the Russians started selling things off immediately.

 

[mheslep]

USA tried to make a coup against Chavez.

USA aided the coup in Honduras.

USA still makes a blockade against Cuba.

What makes you believe any of this is so? Do you live in Venezuela or Honduras?

 

[mheslep]

Venezuelan GDP. Chavez took over in 1999 and the GDP went into the toilet for some years, recovered coincident with oil price boom in 2007-8

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=65&c=ve&l=en

Inflation Rate (4th highest in the world):

Population below poverty line. Shows remarkable improvement, but then the poverty line is set by V.
Edit:Deleted. Upon looking more, there's too many sources out there saying the opposite, so for now I think the self-reported poverty figures are unreliable.

Some sources on V. poverty:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2006/01/04/hugo_boss?page=0,2"
Corrales is an associate professor of government at Amherst College.

He also launched one of the most dramatic increases in state spending in the developing world, from 19 percent of gross domestic product in 1999 to more than 30 percent in 2004. And yet, Chávez has failed to improve any meaningful measure of poverty, education, or equity. More damning for the Chávez-as-Robin Hood theory, the poor do not support him en masse.
[...]
Most expropriated lands will likely end up in the hands of party activists and the military, not the very poor. Owning a small plot of land is a common retirement dream among many Venezuelan sergeants, which is one reason that the military is hypnotized by Chávez's land grab.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621659357535821.html"

Mr. Chávez's move comes amid a growing battle between his populist government and private food companies, who are straining under strict price controls aimed at slowing down high inflation set off by Mr. Chávez's non-stop spending. The controls have led to shortages of staples like milk and rice. Mr. Chávez blames the companies; the companies say the prices are set too low to make a profit.

Earlier this week, Mr. Chávez ordered army units to take over other rice mills belonging to Venezuelan companies whom the president accuses of causing shortages of rice. He also imposed new regulations forcing producers to devote at least 70% of their production to price-regulated products, including certain types of sugar, milk and vegetable oil.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Gorbachev was a fool, but the rest of elite just wanted to grub people's money what they successfully done during privatization.

Interesting; I've always thought rather well of him. I managed to go to one of Mikhail's speeches, and he certainly didn't come off that way. But I've never lived under his rule; I imagine that gives a different perspective.

 

[vici10]

Yes, many in former Soviet Union considered him as a traitor. Considering what happened after and how many people have died or became refuges because of his polices not only in Soviet Union but also world wide one cannot blame them.
But I do not think he was a traitor. He was very naive and idealistic, he thought that if he will come with a good will to West (US), West will do the same. It was very irresponsible of him.

Below there is population growth of Russia. Gorbachev came to power in 1985. After that one can see a sharp decline in births and increase in death rates. Death rates increased significantly with disintegration of Soviet Union. Welcome to new free Russia!

Source is from wikipedia

 

[vici10]

According to Elizabeth Brainerd, and David M. Cutler, "Autopsy On An Empire: Understanding Mortality in Russia and the Former Soviet Union." Journal Of Economic Perspectives 2005 19(1): 107-130.

The 1990s were a decade of turmoil for the formerly socialist countries. Besides the
political, economic and social upheavals endured by these populations, many of these countries
also experienced a demographic disaster in the form of sharply rising death rates. In Russia,
male life expectancy at birth fell from 64.2 years in 1989 to 57.6 years in 1994, a decline of 6.6
years in just half a decade. Female life expectancy at birth fell by 3.3 years over the same time
period. To put this in perspective, it took the past 30 years for the United States to increase life
expectancy by this much. Russia’s life expectancy today ranks 122nd in the world, at the same
level as North Korea and Guyana.
The mortality crisis is not limited to Russia. Across the western countries of the former
Soviet Union – the countries which we term ‘the mortality belt’ and which range from Estonia in
the north to Ukraine in the south – there have been significant declines in male life expectancy at
birth, ranging from 3.3 years (Belarus) to nearly 5 years in Estonia and Latvia (see Figure 1).
Life expectancy for women fell substantially as well.

In this statistics we see an advantage of capitalism over socialism!

 

[AlexES16]

Yes, many in former Soviet Union considered him as a traitor. Considering what happened after and how many people have died or became refuges because of his polices not only in Soviet Union but also world wide one cannot blame them.
But I do not think he was a traitor. He was very naive and idealistic, he thought that if he will come with a good will to West (US), West will do the same. It was very irresponsible of him.

Below there is population growth of Russia. Gorbachev came to power in 1985. After that one can see a sharp decline in births and increase in death rates. Death rates increased significantly with disintegration of Soviet Union. Welcome to new free Russia!

Source is from wikipedia

Hey i found this documental



Its very interesting, sad how Russia is.

maybe the CPRF will do?

 

[AlexES16]

I found this documental on how Russia is withouth communism.
Actaully very sad.

 

[AlexES16]

Well history says Socialism doesn't work, and looks like just an ideal nothing practical.

So maybe the way is Social Market Economy(i think the europeans have this) with strong regulation on environment protection?

 

[CRGreathouse]

strong regulation on environment protection?

Even capitalist countries need regulations on the environment. More generally, externalities need to be internalized for capitalism to function properly, and government intervention is the usual way.

 

[AlexES16]

The only thing and still can get in my mind, is; ¿how capitalism would work in time of a global crisis(a massive catastrophere like a metiorit)?

 

[D H]

First off, basing the type of economic system we should have in place based on ability to handle a very low probability event such as a large meteorite impact (do learn to spell) is, to be blunt, stupid. There is a saying in law which applies here: "Hard cases make bad law".

Secondly, would any economic system handle such a crisis? Just because capitalism *might* flounder does not invalidate it. Would socialism fare better, or would it too flounder, and flounder worse than would capitalism?

Thirdly, capitalism is not a form of governance. It is an economic system. Capitalism is employed, to varying degrees, in very distinct styles of governance.

 

[AlexES16]

First off, basing the type of economic system we should have in place based on ability to handle a very low probability event such as a large meteorite impact (do learn to spell) is, to be blunt, stupid. There is a saying in law which applies here: "Hard cases make bad law".

Secondly, would any economic system handle such a crisis? Just because capitalism *might* flounder does not invalidate it. Would socialism fare better, or would it too flounder, and flounder worse than would capitalism?

Thirdly, capitalism is not a form of governance. It is an economic system. Capitalism is employed, to varying degrees, in very distinct styles of governance.

I don't think it was necessary to say "stupid" and yeah i have isues with the spelling, English is not my born lenguage

 

[AlexES16]

Some tips on how to defend the free market could be very useful.
And how to bash socialism to

There is going to be a debate in my school Capitalism vs Socialism.

Ill suport the free market and europe capitalism against the comunists.

 

[mheslep]

Some tips on how to defend the free market could be very useful.
And how to bash socialism to

There is going to be a debate in my school Capitalism vs Socialism.

Ill suport the free market and europe capitalism against the comunists.

Suggest spending some time up front in your debate defining what the two terms mean when you use them. Otherwise much time will be wasted in discussions that amount to little more than personal notions of good stuff vs bad stuff, or country X vs country Y. Note that while Adam Smith did the intellectual ground work for what we now call Capitalism, Karl Marx was the first to use the term mainly for bashing it.

 

[mheslep]

I found this documental on how Russia is withouth communism.
Actaully very sad.

There have been some lessons learned by first rank economists on the Russian story. See post 220 for the importance of a working legal system in place before trying free markets.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2657093&postcount=220

 

[AlexES16]

Suggest spending some time up front in your debate defining what the two terms mean when you use them. Otherwise much time will be wasted in discussions that amount to little more than personal notions of good stuff vs bad stuff, or country X vs country Y. Note that while Adam Smith did the intellectual ground work for what we now call Capitalism, Karl Marx was the first to use the term mainly for bashing it.

Thank you for the tip bro.

 

[AlexES16]

There have been some lessons learned by first rank economists on the Russian story. See post 220 for the importance of a working legal system in place before trying free markets.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2657093&postcount=220

Ok. In my country El Salvador we have a problem with the legal system and with criminal gangs. And a lot of corruption to.

Maybe i can use to explain how the free market is not in reality so free in my country becouse of the legal system and corruption.

 

[AlexES16]

Should healthcare, medicine and education be private? Are these really keys of capitalism or are not such necesary? Should a poor country make private universal healthcare? and education? What about water? Some lights about these.

 

[mheslep]

Should healthcare, medicine and education be private? Are these really keys of capitalism or are not such necesary? Should a poor country make private universal healthcare? and education? What about water? Some lights about these.

Try these Friedman (Economics Nobel laureate) clips back when he was at the top of his game.
Healthcare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F092cdUYec0&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdcaLReCG3Y&NR=1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw&feature=related"
Socialised Medicine (economics and examples)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHFIbfUi5rw&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pl_FXt0eM&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKxC...p=5B6A339E48C34585&playnext_from=PL&index=13"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_gU50mfehI&feature=related"

 

[AlexES16]

Try these Friedman (Economics Nobel laureate) clips back when he was at the top of his game.
Healthcare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F092cdUYec0&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdcaLReCG3Y&NR=1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw&feature=related"
Socialised Medicine (economics and examples)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHFIbfUi5rw&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pl_FXt0eM&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKxC...p=5B6A339E48C34585&playnext_from=PL&index=13"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_gU50mfehI&feature=related"

Thanks a lot men

 

[Vanadium 50]

vici10, what are we supposed to take away from that plot? I see that birth rates took a dive before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I see death rate rising since 1960 - indeed, from 1960 to 1989 it looks like it's gone up by about 50% and from 1989 to today, maybe 20 or 30%.

Finally, birth rates and death rates are anticorrelated. Birth rates go down, and the average population age goes up. Average population age goes up, and so does the death rate.

 

[AlexES16]

Free Market Enviromentalism? Role of Goverment in Capitalism?

Did you know that Chile is the most free market oriented country in Latin America and is the most succesfull and with the best living standars and quality of life?

 

[Sea Cow]

Free Market Enviromentalism? Role of Goverment in Capitalism?

Did you know that Chile is the most free market oriented country in Latin America and is the most succesfull and with the best living standars and quality of life?

Did you know that this so-called 'free market' was imposed by a dictator who overthrew a democracy and murdered thousands of his political opponents in a reign of terror?

I presume you also know that said dictator's coup was supported by the US.

 

[vici10]

Vanadium50,

what I try to say is that transition to capitalism was a disaster for many Russians, with sharp increase of deaths and reduction of life expectancy during 1991-1996.
It is true that death rates were rising from 1964, but it cannot compare to what happen in 1991-1996. Decline in life expectancy of 6.6 years for male just in 5 Years,
in peace time! And the most striking thing that they were not old or very young but middle aged males.Death rate for Russian men aged 35– 44 rose by 74 percent in 1989-1994!
Men just drunk themselves to death in the face of capitalism that brings "freedom".
For more comprehensive study about population growth and life expectancy in Soviet Union vs new Russia you can have a look at
"Autopsy On An Empire: Understanding Mortality in Russia and the Former Soviet Union" Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 1—Winter 2005—Pages 107–130
www.williams.edu/Economics/brainerd/papers/jep05.pdf
It is interesting that people in West have difficult time imagining any system different from their own.
They also have difficult time to understand that economic enslavement (such as high debt, "market" that forces one to choose a profession, to choose a job etc) can be perceived
by many people as loose of freedom, rather than occurring freedom. In this sense "totalitarism" of Soviet Union was much more free. I assume people just could not live with the new for them psychology of capitalism.

 

[AlexES16]

Free Market in Russia? not really. Russia is in the rank 143 of economic freedom.

 

[AlexES16]

Did you know that this so-called 'free market' was imposed by a dictator who overthrew a democracy and murdered thousands of his political opponents in a reign of terror?

I presume you also know that said dictator's coup was supported by the US.

Actually Free Market helped to build a democratic society and in the 90s with a democratic government more market oriented reforms were implemented.

 

[Sea Cow]

Actually Free Market helped to build a democratic society and in the 90s with a democratic government more market oriented reforms were implemented.

Chile had a democratic society in 1973 before Pinochet's coup. The 'democracy' that was slowly rebuilt in the 1990s was of an extremely limited kind, with the old dictator still in the background with the effective power of veto. The country is still, now, deeply divided over the general's legacy and the thousands of torturers and murderers who walk freely in the streets.

 

[brainstorm]

Socialism should really refer to any form of social control exercised within a capitalist free market. The idea that socialism is oriented toward equality simply isn't true. Equality is used as an impetus to garner support for various forms of economic control, and then relatively rigid hierarchies and organizational constraints develop for regulating access to work and income. The income gap between rich and poor may shrink some because the rich no longer have to worry as much about losing their position, but the fixing of social distances more than makes up for increased income equality.

 

[Kajahtava]

Obviously both have failed, both rationality and empirically this is easy to see.

Socialism obviously fails because people are evil, they will not help their fellow man and they will not work if they have no incentive to work.

Capitalism obviously fails because people are stupid, capitalism relies on the assumption of competition and a pressure to companies to offer the best for the lowest price. Consumers are completely unable to determine what is the best, and are even dumb enough to buy more expensive products because they believe that once it's expensive it's automatically better, even though there is no indication of that. The existence of crippleware shows that companies often have an oeconomic gain from putting time and effort into reducing the capabilities of their products.

However indices such as the Human Development Index clearly favour countries that lean towards socialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Also, capitalism is often based on the assumption that hard work rewards, I wouldn't say that, the statistics are pretty clear that the American dream is indeed mostly... a dream... I'd personally say on gut feeling that success is 4 parts birthright, 5 parts damned dumb luck, and maybe 1 part hard work or having a good idea. For some reason, a lot of models in this rule out the 'dumb luck' factor, would Bill Gates be synonym for obscene wealth if IBM just didn't need an OS back then and were willing to take on every-thing so desperate they were? Would Apple and Adobe be huge companies if they just didn't find each other to use postscript? What if the first KFC was just seated at the wrong place and went bankrupt? I'm sure that for every person that became obscenely rich with things like this there are a hundred other people that went bankrupt while they had the same adequacy of business practice, you also need luck.

Of course, fairness set aside, is it better from utilitarian principles? Does it increase the overall wealth to just let the oeconomy be free and let the market evolve as it does on its own. Empirically it seems that this is not the case by a slight margin, rationally, I think the chance of a complex system evolving where you want it to go to is pretty slim, it's like blowing up a block of granite and hoping it turns into a statue. Evolution selects upon the fittest, where 'fittest' in oeconomy is for a great deal determined by 'willingness to exploit the consumer and enrich by leeching from others, not to mention bribing officials.'

 

[brainstorm]

Obviously both have failed, both rationality and empirically this is easy to see.

Socialism obviously fails because people are evil, they will not help their fellow man and they will not work if they have no incentive to work.

Capitalism obviously fails because people are stupid, capitalism relies on the assumption of competition and a pressure to companies to offer the best for the lowest price. Consumers are completely unable to determine what is the best, and are even dumb enough to buy more expensive products because they believe that once it's expensive it's automatically better, even though there is no indication of that. The existence of crippleware shows that companies often have an oeconomic gain from putting time and effort into reducing the capabilities of their products.

However indices such as the Human Development Index clearly favour countries that lean towards socialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Also, capitalism is often based on the assumption that hard work rewards, I wouldn't say that, the statistics are pretty clear that the American dream is indeed mostly... a dream... I'd personally say on gut feeling that success is 4 parts birthright, 5 parts damned dumb luck, and maybe 1 part hard work or having a good idea. For some reason, a lot of models in this rule out the 'dumb luck' factor, would Bill Gates be synonym for obscene wealth if IBM just didn't need an OS back then and were willing to take on every-thing so desperate they were? Would Apple and Adobe be huge companies if they just didn't find each other to use postscript? What if the first KFC was just seated at the wrong place and went bankrupt? I'm sure that for every person that became obscenely rich with things like this there are a hundred other people that went bankrupt while they had the same adequacy of business practice, you also need luck.

Of course, fairness set aside, is it better from utilitarian principles? Does it increase the overall wealth to just let the oeconomy be free and let the market evolve as it does on its own. Empirically it seems that this is not the case by a slight margin, rationally, I think the chance of a complex system evolving where you want it to go to is pretty slim, it's like blowing up a block of granite and hoping it turns into a statue. Evolution selects upon the fittest, where 'fittest' in oeconomy is for a great deal determined by 'willingness to exploit the consumer and enrich by leeching from others, not to mention bribing officials.'

This was a good post. I don't think people realize that true free market capitalism would very decentralized, with easy entry and exit of markets. What that means is that business formulas would not evolve as patented corporate plans but as market trends. KFC would only evolve from a local culture of publicly frying chicken and selling it at local farmers markets or out of one's house. In fact, KFC as a corporation wouldn't evolve out of such a chicken-frying culture, because that would be a form of market control. The culture of frying chicken publicly would simply spread through migration from town to town, where it would rise or fall in popularity based on local supply and demand and not on marketing or business quid-pro-quo's or some other form of manipulative control.

True free market capitalism would work wonderfully imo if people could accept the freedom and simplicity of it, but they can't seem to let go of the vast possibilities for establishing contractual obligations and other forms of market control at various scales to protect themselves from the whims of market shifts. So fear of the free market leads to relative forms of social-economic control, which eventually evolves into a widespread belief that government should guarantee a national-scale socialist economy and ensure everyone's participation in it as both right and responsibility.

Freedom is slowly swapped out with social-control, while money and trade remains the economic basis, which allows socialism to continue to appear as a slightly modified version of free-market capitalism, when in fact there are numerous layers of institutional constraints designed to restrict freedom and guide decision-making according to various cultures of governance.