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

[AlexES16]

The Socialism that has never been aplied good, so it remains as an ideal vs the Capitalist system(almost every economy is a mixd one so there is no true capitalist society). Personally i vote for Socialism, i do this for 2 mayor reasons


-First as a human being i like the Stoicism and in some way having ideals of a communism society make me happy.

-Second i live in El Salvador a 3rd wolrd country, gangs, corruption, extreme violence, poverty. I am not poor i am uper middle class, so i have access to internet and some more information. In my country the people is brainwashed by the media and the society is becoming more like dog eat dog. I think everybody should have the oportunity that i have, I am happy with that i have (house, health, transportation, education, fun with real friends and free time) I know if I am not happy with that nothing will make me happy.

So what you say people?

Capitalism or Socialism??

 

[CRGreathouse]

Capitalism for me. I want equality of opportunity, certainly, but not redistribution. I don't like the idea of the government supporting me by taking money from those wealthier than me.

 

[russ_watters]

If I could get everyone to do what I wanted them to do, I'd favor socialism. Since people do what they want, I favor capitalism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I like capitalism with socialist elements, more or less the way many capitalist countries are run currently.

I do not like the idea of a government monopoly on the means of production.

 

[MotoH]

I prefer monarchy.

But if I had to choose I would go with capitalism. I enjoy getting rewarded for my labor.

 

[russ_watters]

I prefer monarchy.

I'm benevolent, so I would prefer socialism - but only if people want to do what I would want them to do, so I wouldn't have to be a dictator and force them to do it!

But if I had to choose I would go with capitalism. I enjoy getting rewarded for my labor.

...on the other hand, if I go with socialism, I can also get rewarded for your labor!

 

[calculusrocks]

-Second i live in El Salvador a 3rd wolrd country, gangs, corruption, extreme violence, poverty. I am not poor i am uper middle class, so i have access to internet and some more information. In my country the people is brainwashed by the media and the society is becoming more like dog eat dog. I think everybody should have the oportunity that i have, I am happy with that i have (house, health, transportation, education, fun with real friends and free time) I know if I am not happy with that nothing will make me happy.

I think capitalism meets this aim better than socialism. Capitalism is the sea that raises all tides. Socialism never accomplishes the objective, and frequently causes great harm in the process.

 

[noblegas]

Defintetly capitalism . I prefer to interact with people and exchange goods and services with people through voluntary means rather than coercive means.

 

[madness]

I'd probably want more socialism than we have now but not extreme communism. I think you need a balance of both positive and negative liberty. Having theoretical opportunities is no good if you don't have the means to access them.

 

[hagopbul]

i live in a S society and i can say to you if that society is run by the government then it won't work only in one case if it is a poor one [income a 2$ a day] so yes
C society is not a good thing either if you have money then you are ok , loved and the country will form its politics to serve you... and eventually will go for war and kill its poor population so you will be able to make more money

if the it is a citizen society then the most important unit of the country is the citizen and the well being of the majority of its citizens so then "some" Socialism won't Hurt and must be a free information society and work under the Guidelines of wilson Principles

 

[AlexES16]

i live in a S society and i can say to you if that society is run by the government then it won't work only in one case if it is a poor one [income a 2$ a day] so yes
C society is not a good thing either if you have money then you are ok , loved and the country will form its politics to serve you... and eventually will go for war and kill its poor population so you will be able to make more money

if the it is a citizen society then the most important unit of the country is the citizen and the well being of the majority of its citizens so then "some" Socialism won't Hurt and must be a free information society and work under the Guidelines of wilson Principles

So its better a mixed economy?

 

[AlexES16]

Looks like mixed economy is the way

 

[czelaya]

The Socialism that has never been aplied good, so it remains as an ideal vs the Capitalist system(almost every economy is a mixd one so there is no true capitalist society). Personally i vote for Socialism, i do this for 2 mayor reasons


-First as a human being i like the Stoicism and in some way having ideals of a communism society make me happy.

-Second i live in El Salvador a 3rd wolrd country, gangs, corruption, extreme violence, poverty. I am not poor i am uper middle class, so i have access to internet and some more information. In my country the people is brainwashed by the media and the society is becoming more like dog eat dog. I think everybody should have the oportunity that i have, I am happy with that i have (house, health, transportation, education, fun with real friends and free time) I know if I am not happy with that nothing will make me happy.

So what you say people?

Capitalism or Socialism??

You're making a grave mistake with your assumption that socialism will move the poor and rich to the middle class. I'm sorry, but historically that never has happened.

Once you take the incentives of hard work out of the equation, then you're left with mediocracy.

AlexES16, my father and I were born in Honduras (a country adjacent to yours). We were born in poverty. My father came to the US 30 years ago and now owns three homes, several properties, and has saved considerable money in his bank accounts. He accomplished this feat working only as a carpenter. For the first 20 years in the US, he literally worked 70-100 hours a week and was able to own his first home in less than 10 years. He never once was dependent on government hand outs. His greatest asset was the determination of hard work. Now, I'm more than sure that type of hard work is NOT rewarded in countries like Honduras and El Salvador. Sir that is what capitalism is all about.

In many Central American countries, you have no middle class because of oligopolies that result from corporatism. There exist hardly any free markets in those countries which are one of the main causes for the economies to stagnate. What makes matters worse is the dependency of countries, like Honduras, on organizations like the IMF and World Bank.

All this centralization that you advocate hasn’t helped the people of Central America. I urge you to research how ENEE(which is government subsidized) has wrecked havoc in economic growth of Honduras. The telecommunications has recently become deregulated, and surprisingly access to telephone services has gotten cheaper and more readily available (the free market at work). However, it still uncertain whether this will continue because government intervention in the form of undisclosed private contracts (not a virtue of the free market) will decrease growth in the particular market.

Lastly, I urge you to consider one last observation. All the technology and increases in standards of living in the last century where not brought about by socialist societies but rather by capitalist societies. Capitalism gets a bad name because it's misunderstood as corporatism. No other economic system, including socialism, has been as efficient and has the ability to create wealth like capitalism. The ability to have incentives through hard work has been the greatest driving force for prosperity in the last 150 years. It’s what made America such a great nation.

 

[mgb_phys]

One thing that always confused me about the Us definition of socialism.
Obviously bailing out airlines and car makers with public money isn't socialism because it benefits rich people while subsidized public transport is socialism because it benefits the poor. The same with public universities.

But why is it ok that the fire service that cuts you out of a car wreck can be a free public service but if the paramedics that then treat you are free that's socialism?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Obviously bailing out airlines and car makers with public money isn't socialism because it benefits rich people while subsidized public transport is socialism because it benefits the poor. The same with public universities.

But why is it ok that the fire service that cuts you out of a car wreck can be a free public service but if the paramedics that then treat you are free that's socialism?

All are of course examples of socialism.

Fire service seems to be provided most efficiently by the government. Fires spread easily, so there is benefit to stopping them beyond the value to the property owner; speed is critical, so determining whether the 'fire-fighting fees' had been paid or not is impractical. Similarly with epidemiology: the government funds the CDC.

Medical care is less-well provided by the government. It's not clear whether it is best provided by employers (largely the present situation), individuals via insurance, individuals directly (possibly with catastrophic insurance), the government, or some combination of these. I prefer individuals directly, with the option to purchase insurance against catastrophic situations (or whatever they desire to buy).

Company bailouts are yet worse than the government providing medical care, since the moral hazard is higher. Capitalism requires the ability for companies to fail as well as succeed; without this the reward structure is altered and less value is produced.Public schooling is less clear. It seems evident that basic schooling 'should' be provided, as children cannot otherwise participate in society. But the benefit of public college (possibly even high school?) is less clear to me.* It seems that much, or even most, of the value of higher education is in signalling. That weakens the argument that it should be provided at subsidy. Also, college graduates are well-placed to earn money and therefore pay back educational loans. Further subsidy would tend to increase total costs: while post-subsidy prices would drop, they would not fall by the amount of the subsidy. But there are societal advantages to a well-educated populace beyond earnings potential, so perhaps some amount of subsidy is desirable in light of that externality.* Disclaimer: I graduated from a (well-regarded) public university.

 

[mgb_phys]

All are examples of socialism.

Thats what I would have thought but I don't recall people protesting against fire depts.
Originally in europe they were socialised because fires from one property could quickly spread in a dense city made of wood and thatch, so it was in everyones interest for everyone to have cover.

But in a US suburb or on a highway that's not really an issue, if you want fire cover for your office tower you could pay for it just as you did in C17 London.

 

[Nebula815]

One thing that always confused me about the Us definition of socialism.
Obviously bailing out airlines and car makers with public money isn't socialism because it benefits rich people while subsidized public transport is socialism because it benefits the poor. The same with public universities.

Conservatives were not okay with bailing out any of these. Barack Obama bailed out the auto companies to bail out the unions. The ultra-conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, they're the ones who were against the bailout of the financial system itself.

Public transport is socialism as well. There was actually an article not too long ago about a new minivan transportation business started in a city. The minivans would drive you wherever you wanted to go. It was a business that had been started by immigrants.

Well this hit the city's bus business hard, as the busses followed fixed routes. The bus business was subsidized as it was, so the bus union used it's political clout with the city to shut down this minivan business.

But why is it ok that the fire service that cuts you out of a car wreck can be a free public service but if the paramedics that then treat you are free that's socialism?

Fire services could be privatized probably, but they also work well as a public service. Fire services are local, not national government.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Thats what I would have thought but I don't recall people protesting against fire depts.

Of course fire departments in the US started out private. But they are what economists call natural monopolies: it doesn't make sense to have two private fire companies in the same area. If there's just one, it could raise rates 'too high' (that is, to monopoly level rather than a competitive level). So in traditional economic theory, fire companies should be regulated (like utilities) or run by the government.

Would a libertarian paragon oppose socialized fire coverage? Probably. But even then, there are much more important battles to fight. So it's not surprising that you don't remember hearing people protest against fire departments.

 

[Shackleford]

Those are social safety nets. I wouldn't consider that socialism. It's not the producing and distributing of goods. It's a service (police, fire, etc.) that's conducive to law, order, justice, and so forth. It's something that's essential to why people form governments. If there were no police or fire, we would have to act as policemen and fireman. It's more efficient to delegate that full-time responsibility to people in society. The same logic could be applied to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. They are functions of government. They are applicable to all but non-specific. I hope I've made my subtle distinctions perspicuous as I'm writing this while I'm about to leave. lol.

 

[mheslep]

Those are social safety nets.

Euphemism, anything can be a social safety net.

I wouldn't consider that socialism. It's not the producing and distributing of goods. It's a service (police, fire, etc.) that's conducive to law, order, justice, and so forth. It's something that's essential to why people form governments. If there were no police or fire, we would have to act as policemen and fireman. It's more efficient to delegate that full-time responsibility to people in society. The same logic could be applied to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. They are functions of government. They are applicable to all but non-specific. I hope I've made my subtle distinctions perspicuous as I'm writing this while I'm about to leave. lol.

Of course government run fire service is socialism. So are the schools. The definition of socialism does not depend on the completely qualitative judgement of how necessary you or I might consider the service. These cases are merely a fairly limited form of socialism, something that for fire protection people tend to tolerate because it is difficult for a market response to avoid monopolies, as pointed out above.

Consider that the "it's essential" argument could apply to almost anything - the production and delivery of food, of housing, of communications, of energy, of transportation. Indeed, that's exactly where most of the collective minded would like to go: everything except for the entertainment business run by the government, because for them free market capitalism can only really be trusted to sell t-shirts.

 

[calculusrocks]

I don't have any problem with government being in charge of the courts, the police, the fire departments, and military. This helps create the conditions necessary for a society to function freely. The results of public education in my country, America, is negative. Although I agree with the statement that everyone should have a basic education along with the vast majority of people, I think that the people would handle this function on their own better through charity than through the IRS. I also think gun ownership by a participating population would assist in limiting the role of police and military.

I don't think every country should be the same. If government were limited, we'd have a fairly stark contrast from socialist Europe. That would mean that people who seek security can move to Europe, and those who seek opportunity can live in America. I'm not sure how much longer people seeking opportunity will come to America though, as it seems we are in decline.

 

[mheslep]

I don't have any problem with government being in charge of the courts, the police, the fire departments, and military. This helps create the conditions necessary for a society to function freely. The results of public education in my country, America, is negative. Although I agree with the statement that everyone should have a basic education along with the vast majority of people, ...

Important distinction here: there is a valid argument that the government should fund education, even if that argument is unpersuasive to some. There is no valid argument that the government should actually provide, that is run, education.

 

[calculusrocks]

Important distinction here: there is a valid argument that the government should fund education, even if that argument is unpersuasive to some. There is no valid argument that the government should actually provide, that is run, education.

Yes, I see what you're saying. I would support government funding education through a voucher system, or something similar along the lines of tax credits. I think that education is a necessary element in the American dream, and I see the current publicly state-run school system as a boundary between people and that American dream.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Important distinction here: there is a valid argument that the government should fund education, even if that argument is unpersuasive to some. There is no valid argument that the government should actually provide, that is run, education.

Agreed. I have little trouble with government funding for this important function, but I do think that it does a poor job at it.

 

[AlexES16]

Well looks like liberalisim is the way?? And yeah socialism have failed in history... Looks like capitalism is the way to. Europe and USA are examples of success.

 

[calculusrocks]

Well looks like liberalisim is the way?? And yeah socialism have failed in history... Looks like capitalism is the way to. Europe and USA are examples of success.

I'm afraid this question is very difficult to answer adequately. It's like trying to write an entire book in a few sentences, yet I don't want to do your question an injustice as it's an important one.

The premise of the USA's constitution was to limit government. Given that, the USA's Constitution as it stands is a failure as it has failed to limit government effectively.

USA's is in trouble right now. We have been propping up a false economy ever since the creation of the housing bubble. This is bad news for the rest of the world, since much of the world owns USA's treasury paper.

This video is dry and 76 minutes long, but instructional.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

 

[jgens]

Well looks like liberalisim is the way?? And yeah socialism have failed in history... Looks like capitalism is the way to. Europe and USA are examples of success.

Depends on what you mean failed. Although the USSR did collapse, Soviet style communism allowed the USSR to industrialize faster than the USA and Germany. Moreover, the USSR went from being a comparitively backward nation to one that beat the USA into space (though the US eventually won the space race). European nations and the USA aren't really examples of model capitalist societies anyway (and they really haven't been model free market societies for a very long time) so it might be best to draw your conclusions carefully. I think that both systems have aspects that are admirable and both systems have aspects that are detestable and neither system is necessarily perfect.

 

[mheslep]

...

This video is dry and 76 minutes long, but instructional.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

Schiffer around 32:19, paraphasing:

Wall Street got drunk.
So was Main Street.
The whole country was drunk
what doesn't get asked is,
where did they get the alcohol?
Obviously, Greenspan poured the alcohol.
The Fed got everybody drunk.
And the government helped out with their moral hazards,
with the tax code and the incentives and disincentives.

Amazingly apropos.

 

[mheslep]

Depends on what you mean failed. Although the USSR did collapse, Soviet style communism allowed the USSR to industrialize faster than the USA and Germany. Moreover, the USSR went from being a comparitively backward nation to one that beat the USA into space (though the US eventually won the space race). .

It's not that difficult to focus an enslaved population on building some great works, for awhile. Egyptian pyramids, a Roman coliseum, a USSR space program. Eventually the thing rots.

 

[edpell]

I favor a free market with the one constraint no person may own or control more than 10 million dollars worth of the economy. 100% tax on wealth over 10 million dollars.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Greenspan masterminded derivatives? The problem was a lack of regulation - too little government. Also, as Greenspan himself now admits, his fundamental belief and economic philosophy that markets are self-regulating, failed miserably. This leaves neoconservatives, and even proper conservatives, with no one to shoot at but themselves.

 

[jgens]

It's not that difficult to focus an enslaved population on building some great works, for awhile. Egyptian pyramids, a Roman coliseum, a USSR space program. Eventually the thing rots.

Many historians argue that the USSR failed not because of socialism itself, but rather because of the oppressiveness of stalinism (note: stalinism != socialism). Moreover, even Soviet leaders like Kruschev (although he did very little to reverse stalinist policies*) believed that stalinism was not necessarily a natural outgrowth of Bolshevism. Why the USSR collapsed exactly and what factors triggered the collapse are still a topic of historical debate and the answer that you get really depends on whether you're talking to orthodox, revisionist, or post-revisionist historians.

*Krushev was often opposed by party leadership whenever he tried to be reformist.

 

[mheslep]

Many historians argue that the USSR failed not because of socialism itself, but rather because of the oppressiveness of stalinism (note: stalinism != socialism).

Could you name one such historian?

 

[mheslep]

I favor a free market with the one constraint no person may own or control more than 10 million dollars worth of the economy. 100% tax on wealth over 10 million dollars.

How then does one, say, get a building constructed
that costs $20 million? How does one grow any company to over $10 million?

 

[edpell]

Greenspan masterminded derivatives? The problem was a lack of regulation - too little government. Also, as Greenspan himself now admits, his fundamental belief and economic philosophy that markets are self-regulating, failed miserably. This leaves neoconservatives, and even proper conservatives, with no one to shoot at but themselves.

The market would have worked fine if the government had allowed the dumb or criminal speculators to go bankrupt.

If you buy insurance on your deal from AGI at premium rates that you and AGI know are fraudulently low (so low AGI can never cover if the market turns). You deserve to go bankrupt and your investors have a good criminal case against you. [I am not saying anyone did this this is just a hypothetical converstaion].

 

[calculusrocks]

Greenspan masterminded derivatives? The problem was a lack of regulation - too little government. Also, as Greenspan himself now admits, his fundamental belief and economic philosophy that markets are self-regulating, failed miserably. This leaves neoconservatives, and even proper conservatives, with no one to shoot at but themselves.

Nobody is apologizing for Greenspan. Nobody is saying Greenspan 'masterminded derivatives'. Greenspan kept interest rates too low, and Bush made gov't too big. That being said, the Bernanke/Obama team isn't changing any of that. We're trying to spend our way out of this, which is digging us deeper.

The regulators underlined the mortgages with triple AAA ratings aiding the moral hazard. As Schiff puts it "The government was co-signing the mortgages." Why wouldn't you invest in a security of gov't backed loans? Even in the "remote" possibility of a housing collapse, you know the gov't is going to back them like they are T-Bills. That's what the investment banks were thinking. Heads I win, tails the taxpayer loses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Hazard" . It's what caused the housing boom, and what caused the subsequent housing bust.

 

[edpell]

How then does one, say, get a building constructed
that costs $20 million? How does one grow any company to over $10 million?

100 million dollar building at least 10 owners. 4 billion dollar chip making factory at least 400 owners.

 

[calculusrocks]

Schiffer around 32:19, paraphasing:

Wall Street got drunk.
So was Main Street.
The whole country was drunk
what doesn't get asked is,
where did they get the alcohol?
Obviously, Greenspan poured the alcohol.
The Fed got everybody drunk.
And the government helped out with their moral hazards,
with the tax code and the incentives and disincentives.

Amazingly apropos.

It really is, and it applies equally well to the tech bubble.

This may not be entirely relevant to the original discussion, but I think people need to take a look at one of these boom-bust cycles and how it all happens. Historians will rewrite it to apologize for their own predispositions, but recent events still remain within the American psyche.

 

[jgens]

Could you name one such historian?

R R Palmer discusses this thesis at length in his text concerning modern world history and also notes that several historians subscribe to this thesis. Ronald E Powaski text The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917-1991 addresses this argument at length and (once again) notes that this interpretation does draw support from some scholars.

 

[russ_watters]

100 million dollar building at least 10 owners. 4 billion dollar chip making factory at least 400 owners.

mheslep gets a foul-tip for that one, not quite connecting with the point. As a potential $10 million investor, how would you convince me to buy into your real estate deal or chip company? Since I already have $10 million, I stand to gain nothing as any gains will be taken from me by the government and since this is a speculative real-estate deal, there exists a possibility of me losing everything. So what is the incentive to invest? Anyone who approaches the $10 million ceiling will take their money out of real investments and put it into savings accounts and CDs, reducing the risk to zero, but also minimizing the secondary effects on the economy (the money will no longer stimulate economic growth).

Moreover, what happens if it is 1980 and you are a computer nerd named "Steve" and the computer company you founded is about to become worth a whole lot of money? Because of this law, as soon as the company goes public, you lose control of it (to whom, I'm not sure: does the government sieze control of it or re-distribute the stock to the general public?). Imagine where Apple would be today if Steve Jobs had permanently lost control of it in 1980? Or, I hear Ireland has a pretty good IT sector - maybe he would have just moved it there in 1977?

Such a law would have an absolutely paralyzing effect on entrepreneurship, which is The unique driver of the American economy. With such a law, Silicon Valley wouldn't exist.

And, of course, this is in addition to such a law being immoral and unConstitutional. And by unConstitutional, I mean not in fitting with the intent of the founders - you can, of course, make anything Constitutional by amending the Constitution.

 

[edpell]

Since I already have $10 million, I stand to gain nothing as any gains will be taken from me by the government and since this is a speculative real-estate deal, there exists a possibility of me losing everything. So what is the incentive to invest?

You are correct as people reached the 10 million dollar mark they would retire. They have zero incentive to work, risk, etc. That will make room for others to work, risk, etc.

As you say anything can become constitutional as long as the defined procedure is followed. The founders would be quite surprised to find 28% tax on income if they were here now.

 

[AlexES16]

Well i was reading a book and now it give me this tougths. Maybe USA, and Europe, Japan and the other central capitalist nations are good, but their devolpment depends on the undevelpment of countries in Latin America and Africa and the other periferic capitalist countries. An example is my country El Salvador, we don't produce anything, not even food and we are capitalist, things are going worse, we only produce thousands of migrants each year to USA and the other central capitalist countries.

Now which is the argument of explaining the poverty in the 3rd world and don't come with fallacies that 3rd world countries are socialist or non-sense like that.

 

[jgens]

Well i was reading a book and now it give me this tougths. Maybe USA, and Europe, Japan and the other central capitalist nations are good, but their devolpment depends on the undevelpment of countries in Latin America and Africa and the other periferic capitalist countries.

A couple of things. The USA's early economic development did not depend on the exploitation of Latin/South American and African nations; moreover, historians like Robert Fogel and Eugene Genovese argue that the USA's exploitation of other people (Africans) stagnated the growth of the American economy. The USA didn't really begin exploiting the poor economic conditions in Latin/South America until the beginning of the 20th century, at which point, the US economy was already reasonably strong.

I'm not terribly well versed in European history so I shouldn't comment on them.

 

[czelaya]

Well i was reading a book and now it give me this tougths. Maybe USA, and Europe, Japan and the other central capitalist nations are good, but their devolpment depends on the undevelpment of countries in Latin America and Africa and the other periferic capitalist countries. An example is my country El Salvador, we don't produce anything, not even food and we are capitalist, things are going worse, we only produce thousands of migrants each year to USA and the other central capitalist countries.

Now which is the argument of explaining the poverty in the 3rd world and don't come with fallacies that 3rd world countries are socialist or non-sense like that.

Considering the natural disasters your country has recently faced it's no wonder that your economy is still recovering.

You're country is receiving monetary aide from the IMF, US, and other central banks. Like most monetary aide this will continue to keep El Salvador in serious debt. In some cases, the debt is paid by allowing foriegn markets to take control over domestic industries and services. El Salvador needs more domestic manufacturing (especially for exporting). In addition, the funding El Salvador receives from abroad stays in closed circulation to the very rich in your country (just like most Central American countries).

Another way of asking this question is to ask why a country, like Africa, is poor. Africa has an incredible array of natural resources and the potential to become a global power house. What keeps if from further development? It lacks crucial ingredients for capital growth:
-hardly no protection of property rights
-ability to create capital
-equal protection of liberty
-laws that are not enforced at state or federal levels
-infrastructure for the transfer of goods and services that is easily accesible to the general populace

 

[AlexES16]

How does capitalism protect your 8 hours of working? How does protect enviroment? What about the excessive consumersim? What about your rigths to vacation?

 

[russ_watters]

You are correct as people reached the 10 million dollar mark they would retire. They have zero incentive to work, risk, etc. That will make room for others to work, risk, etc.

That doesn't make sense. Money doesn't grow on trees. If you remove a large fraction of the entrepreneurs from the economy, the wealth of everyone else won't magically expand to fill the gap they leave. Quite the contrary: without those entrpreneurs to provide jobs and captial, the wealth of everyone else will decrease.

In any case, you didn't really address the example at all, you just brushed it aside with a hand-wave. If people who today would do a speculative real estate deal wouldn't under your plan, how would that make those with less money able to do it? It hasn't changed the equation for someone with a couple million in the bank: a large businss deal is too risky for someone who doesn't have money to burn. In order your hand-waving remark to be true, people with middle-class incomes would have to magically decide it is a good idea to take huge risks with their money, to fill the void left by the rich that no longer exist.

As you say anything can become constitutional as long as the defined procedure is followed. The founders would be quite surprised to find 28% tax on income if they were here now.

Indeed. But that doesn't make it right. I'd think they'd be pretty upset to find that the principles of freedom and equality of opportunity (ie, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness), the most important principles on which our country was founded, are being ground down to a bloody stump.

 

[edpell]

I do not think that there are a limited number of uber-mench that are the only people with abilities in society.

I agree with you on your closing line. But I do not see anything to do to improve things. :(

 

[calculusrocks]

How does capitalism protect your 8 hours of working? How does protect enviroment? What about the excessive consumersim? What about your rigths to vacation?

It doesn't. Capitalism provides you with opportunities, not guarantees. You have a right to create and store property. You have the right to voluntary exchange. You have the opportunity to create wealth. But, if guarantees are what you're after then Capitalism probably isn't what you're looking for, which is fine by me. I just don't want you to see these things as failures of Capitalism, because those aren't the aims of Capitalism.

Those are the aims of Statism, and it'd be equally fallacious for me to say that it is the failure of Statism that it can't create a strong economy for its people. That's not the goal of Statism to begin with.

To each his own.

 

[russ_watters]

I do not think that there are a limited number of uber-mench that are the only people with abilities in society.

Nor do I, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the topic of discussion.

I agree with you on your closing line. But I do not see anything to do to improve things. :(

How about staying out of the way and letting things improve on their own, as they have virtually non-stop since this country was founded?

 

[Max Faust]

This debate makes no sense.

Both "capitalism" and "socialism" require the existence of a much more fundamental social structure. If, say, you had the choice between utter lawlessness under a condition of sustained civil war (such as is the case in some countries of this world) and either of those two choices of decadent ignorance, you'd be only too happy to embrace your "opponent" of this artificial dichotomy.

I presume that nobody is arguing for the dissolution of all social structures.

You cannot actually have "capitalism" - understood as a modern transactional system of fiat currency - unless you have a strong sovreign (state) who holds the monopoly of violence (see Max Weber). Socialism, however, requires no money system (although this is more practical) as it is based in a more "tribal" approach.