News Is 90% of Unemployment Really the Fault of the Unemployed?

[alexandra]

Alexandra,
90% of the times, its there own fault anyway that they are not employed.

Where is your proof? I find it difficult to believe that 90% of people who are unemployed are at fault for their own unemployment! Capitalism has something called 'structural unemployment', and even bourgeois (capitalist) economists acknowledge this. Without unemployment, capitalism wouldn't work: how would you depress wages? But back to the point - I disagree with your statistic, but you could convince me if you provided convincing evidence that 90% of people who are unemployed are at fault for being in this situation.

 

[loseyourname]

So I'd go with the theory that this is more than just an isolated incident. People whose lives this neocon agenda of ruthless, untamed capitalism ruins are just not going to take it lying down, it seems. It will be interesting to see where in the world the whole thing spirals completely out of control. France has a good history of popular revolutions, so anything is possible...

Are you sure that capitalism is the problem?

Bavarez laments that all this has contributed to the marginalisation of France in Europe and in the world at large. Therefore he believes that it is high time to take action, to depart from obsolete utopian schemes, to crack the rigidities, corporatism and the many taboos, such as an excessive social protection system, the trade unions and 'progressive' ideas at large.

The introduction of the 35 hours working week by the previous left-wing government -- headed by prime minister Lionel Jospin, a former Marxist of Trotskyite vintage -- offers perhaps the most topi*cal and revealing example, which was qualified by some as a triumph of ideology over reason, of what is wrong with France's economic policy. Some years ago, this leftist political hobby horse entered the stage at the time that it had already been abandoned in other countries. The socialist government argued that a reduction of the number of working hours per week would lead to an increase in the number of jobs. Surprise, surprise ... it did not improve overall unemployment figures. Because of their ideological predisposition French policymakers had preferred to blithely ignore empirical evidence -- it had been tried before in other countries with the same results: on balance destruction of jobs.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/010405D.html

Until recently it was a matter of law. In 1998, powerful unions pressured France's socialist government into mandating a 35-hour work week, under the doctrine of "work less, work all." The first part of that has been a success — people are working "less." The second part has been a miserable failure — "all" are not working. It's gotten so bad that last March France's general assembly voted to, in effect, dismantle the law by allowing up to 13 hours of overtime. It remains to be seen if that will make any difference.

Why has Krugman mounted such an absurd defense of the failing French economy? It's a matter of first principles — he describes himself as an "unabashed defender of the welfare state." So that keeps him both from wanting to admit how bad things are in the French workers' paradise and from understanding why. The root cause is one that Krugman can never acknowledge — France's crushing tax burden. In fact, the differences between France's and the U.S.'s tax burdens are nearly perfectly proportional to the differences in hours worked.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200508020828.asp

Economists argue, nevertheless, that labor market rigidities can have a lasting impact on unemployment by magnifying the effect of adverse shocks. While economies with flexible labor markets are able to adjust quickly, those with rigid labor markets require a long time to revert to their long-run unemployment level (Ljungqvist and Sargent 1998; Blanchard and Landier 2000). The leading explanation for France’s high unemployment holds that like many of its neighbors, the country is still recovering from a series of adverse shocks that included two oil shocks and a sharp productivity slowdown in the 1980s.

The impact of those shocks was compounded by the fact that the wage bargaining process is highly centralized. Nonunion workers and the unemployed are not directly involved in the wage formation process, which limits the influence of rising unemployment on wages.

Meanwhile, many individuals are caught in "inactivity traps." In 1998, a third of those who decided to forgo France’s minimum income by taking a job saw little or no increase in their overall income (Lhommeau and Rioux 2000). It is, in fact, remarkable that most unemployed workers continue looking for jobs despite many financial disincentives.

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2001/swe0105.html

That last part is something brought up often around here. Due to very generous unemployment benefits, some French people actually have a financial disincentive to work, as their total income does not increase. They do seem to still seek work, though. I wonder what Russ and patty will make of that.

This one considers alternative answers, but seems to end up coming to the same conclusion:

More important, the wage discount is a poor measure of wage flexibility; it says little about the ability of wages to adjust to lower demand for certain types of labour. When wages are flexible downwards, as in America, more low-skilled jobs exist. This flexibility is lacking in France. Slower growth may have played a part, but growth rates are themselves affected by labour-market efficiency.

Another recent study† has no doubts about the ill effect on jobs of a high minimum wage. It uses the fact that during the 1980s minimum wages rose much faster than inflation in France, but fell in real terms in America. Using data from household surveys, the study compares the effects of these changes on workers earning wages close to the minimum. In both France and America, a 1% rise in the real minimum wage reduces the probability of a young man on such wages being employed by 2-2.5%.

Europeans may prefer their high unemployment and “decent” wages to America’s low unemployment and low pay. That is a valid choice for politicians to make. But to try to argue that high unemployment has nothing to do with wage inflexibility is wishful thinking.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/Emu/fn6955.html

France has a generous system of social security which is supported by high taxation. In addition, there are mandated holidays and minimum wage constraints. In many enterprises, in particular public and ex-public sector organisations, there is an adversarial employer/employee relationship which can make change difficult, especially when workforce numbers are reduced.

http://www.justlanded.com/english/france/tools/just_landed_guide/jobs/the_job_market

The above piece is interesting, from a guide on how to find employment in France. It suggests that socialistic policies have actually created, or at least exacerbated, animosity between the labor and capitalist classes. Does this suggest that Marxism might be a little self-fulfilling for any country that pursues some limited form?

François Mitterrand's election as President in 1981 was a first for French socialism (TIME, May 18, 1981). His victory marked its most significant achievement for 30 years; an apt reward for the man credited with the revival of the French Socialist Party. Over the previous decade, Mitterrand had transformed this once-insignificant organization into the majority party of the left — and the Socialists matched their leader's success with a clear win in the parliamentary elections that followed. In 1981, Mitterrand had the political support needed to push through a radical agenda. But over the next 14 years he would face another first in French political history: the problems of power sharing, or "cohabitation", with an opposing political majority.

Chirac's victory ended 14 years of Socialist presidency, but the Socialists unexpectedly won a snap parliamentary election and were back in government by June, 1997. Defeated presidential candidate Lionel Jospin became Prime Minister of the Socialist-led coalition (TIME, June 16, 1997). Under Jospin's premiership, the government endorsed a series of progressive policies, including a treaty ensuring France's participation in the single currency, a 35-hour working week and a youth unemployment program. But his is not the state-heavy socialism of the past, for his government has also privatized far more than its conservative predecessors. Unemployment has plunged, economic growth has surged, but challenges remain in the overall tax burden and size of the public sector. And the economy is changing, as the euro, single market and elimination of frontiers encourage regional development and the Internet expands. France is becoming a multicultural society, in which Islam is the second-largest religion.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/france/

The above piece from Time suggests that maybe France has learned its lesson, though it doesn't seem to be the case that unemployment has plunged or growth has surged, not given what I've read elsewhere and the riots currently taking place. This piece might be a little outdated. Perhaps France did not, in fact, learn its lesson.

Here is a very detailed analysis from the Journal of Applied Economics (lest we should take the bloggers too seriously). The abstract:

Unemployment in France rose steadily from the early-seventies to the mid-eighties. Since the mid-eighties it has continued to experience fluctuations around a very high average level. Equilibrium unemployment theories are a useful framework within which to account for these developments. A multivariate estimation of the WS-PS model on macroeconomic quarterly data, which includes a larger number of potential unemployment determinants than earlier work, allows an enriched reading of the rise in French unemployment and of its persistence at a high level. We estimated it using a conditional VAR-ECM model, which is based upon the weak exogeneity properties of variables over the 1970-1/1996-4 period. The rise in equilibrium unemployment by 10 points in 25 years can essentially be explained by the rise in tax and social wedge, the slowdown in labour productivity and the deterioration of job security. Terms of exchange and skill mismatch account for only a slim part of the rise in equilibrium unemployment.

http://www.cema.edu.ar/publicaciones/download/volume6/lhorty.pdf

 

[Art]

Are you sure that capitalism is the problem?

I don't believe France's problems can be easily tied to any particular economic model. France abandoned her (disastrous) experiment with socialism in 1983 under Finance Minister Delors and Prime Minister Mauroy so for 22 years they have been following largely monetarist policies and yet their problems remain. Also in contrast to comments made in one of your quotes above, economic growth actually rose whilst unemployment fell following the reduction in the working week from 39 to 35 hours in 2000. Also the 13 hours permissable overtime is a result of EU legislation not national legislation as falsely stated in the same article.
It seems that the 'spirit of the revolution' is still alive and well in France and so if their government adopts policies or passes legislation they do not like they forcibally resist it by striking or through violent protest. Perhaps it is this 'culture' that is at the root of their economic woes??

Here's a mainline source for Smurf reporting on the current riots; http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13457760,00.html

It doesn't mention the source of the current unrest but it seems to have started in high immigrant areas following the deaths of two youngsters.

 

[alexandra]

Are you sure that capitalism is the problem?

Well, yes, LYN, I’m sure capitalism is the problem. I have been worrying about this particular problem for many years now, and reading about its causes, and reading about its effects, and witnessing the changes that have happened over the years. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that capitalism is the problem. Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, which has certainly picked up phenomenally over the past ten years or so, I still trust my own analysis. I won’t let the media do my thinking for me – nor the post-modernists, nor anyone else.

And I guess you’re convinced capitalism isn’t the problem – that, indeed, capitalism is the ‘cure’ for all society’s ills.

But it doesn’t really matter what either you or I think about it – what matters is how people experience capitalism in their lives and how they react to it. We can argue forever on these boards, and it won’t make the slightest bit of difference to whether or not people will put up with the kind of life capitalism has to offer ‘the masses’, or how they will decide to react to their constantly eroding living conditions. I suspect that many people writing on these boards come from a relatively (perhaps even extremely) privileged sector of the population whose lives are not being completely rubbished by the present system. I believe that the Paris unrest is going to be quelled by the police/military, very quickly – well, this round of it will. But people will learn from their experiences and they will organise themselves, and it won’t be possible to control them forever.

In any case, because we like our discussions, let’s talk about this some more…
First point: Jospin is in no way ‘left wing’, whatever he may call himself. As the article you quoted (http://www.techcentralstation.com/010405D.html) states, Jospin was “a former Marxist of Trotskyite vintage”. By the way, this article is totally biased in my opinion: it takes the usual opportunity to denigrate one of the greatest humanitarians of all time, Leon Trotsky. Trotsky was the uncompromising leader of the Left Opposition to Josef Stalin’s totalitarianism and was assassinated by the KGB on Stalin’s orders, but he’s habitually presented by right-wingers as a ‘loony’ and ‘evil’. If he was so ‘mad’ and so ‘bad’, then how come he stood up against the dictator, Stalin (at great personal cost not only to himself but to his entire family)?

The next article you quote denigrates Paul Krugman for mounting an “absurd defence of the failing French economy”. Prior to the coup of the neo-cons, Krugman was a much-respected American economist (and he is currently a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, which I always thought was one of the ‘better’ US universities – but I may be wrong?). Since daring to critique the neo-con agenda, his economic analysis becomes ‘absurd’… hmmm… This makes one think, doesn’t it?

It is, in fact, remarkable that most unemployed workers continue looking for jobs despite many financial disincentives. http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2001/swe0105.html

Due to very generous unemployment benefits, some French people actually have a financial disincentive to work, as their total income does not increase. They do seem to still seek work, though. I wonder what Russ and patty will make of that.

I know what I make of that – as I’ve always stated on these boards, people don’t just work for financial reward. Work is what defines human beings; they need to feel like they’re doing something useful. This links to the many arguments we have had over the months about whether or not people would just be ‘lazy’ and do nothing and live off the state in a socialist society. It seems not.

Now this quote I found very, very interesting:

When wages are flexible downwards, as in America, more low-skilled jobs exist. This flexibility is lacking in France. Slower growth may have played a part, but growth rates are themselves affected by labour-market efficiency.
Another recent study† has no doubts about the ill effect on jobs of a high minimum wage. It uses the fact that during the 1980s minimum wages rose much faster than inflation in France, but fell in real terms in America. Using data from household surveys, the study compares the effects of these changes on workers earning wages close to the minimum. In both France and America, a 1% rise in the real minimum wage reduces the probability of a young man on such wages being employed by 2-2.5%.
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/Emu/fn6955.html

This is how workers experience capitalism: they can either starve on low minimum wages or they can starve on unemployment. This is precisely what is wrong with capitalism (capitalists must, after all, make their obscene profits) and this is what I predict people will not accept in the long term. And so what we have seen in Paris over the past nine days is just the beginning…

A question (just because I’m curious) – so neo-cons believe that the minimum wage should get to as low as the ‘free market’ can get it, then? So how low should it get? Should workers be paid $5 an hour? $1? $0.50? And no social security? Should there be none at all? And should there be no taxation? No schools, hospitals, universities, etc? Tax the poor only, of course, to support the military adventures, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, etc… Those who cannot afford medical cover or an education should simply… what? Die? And do you really think people will not stand up for themselves when they are cornered like that? Perhaps not – but if they don’t, then they deserve their fate. In the end, it does not matter what we think and say – what matters is how people experience capitalism and what they decide to do about it.

 

[Art]

Well, yes, LYN, I’m sure capitalism is the problem. I have been worrying about this particular problem for many years now, and reading about its causes, and reading about its effects, and witnessing the changes that have happened over the years. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that capitalism is the problem. Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, which has certainly picked up phenomenally over the past ten years or so, I still trust my own analysis. I won’t let the media do my thinking for me – nor the post-modernists, nor anyone else.
And I guess you’re convinced capitalism isn’t the problem – that, indeed, capitalism is the ‘cure’ for all society’s ills.
But it doesn’t really matter what either you or I think about it – what matters is how people experience capitalism in their lives and how they react to it. We can argue forever on these boards, and it won’t make the slightest bit of difference to whether or not people will put up with the kind of life capitalism has to offer ‘the masses’, or how they will decide to react to their constantly eroding living conditions. I suspect that many people writing on these boards come from a relatively (perhaps even extremely) privileged sector of the population whose lives are not being completely rubbished by the present system. I believe that the Paris unrest is going to be quelled by the police/military, very quickly – well, this round of it will. But people will learn from their experiences and they will organise themselves, and it won’t be possible to control them forever.
In any case, because we like our discussions, let’s talk about this some more…
First point: Jospin is in no way ‘left wing’, whatever he may call himself. As the article you quoted (http://www.techcentralstation.com/010405D.html) states, Jospin was “a former Marxist of Trotskyite vintage”. By the way, this article is totally biased in my opinion: it takes the usual opportunity to denigrate one of the greatest humanitarians of all time, Leon Trotsky. Trotsky was the uncompromising leader of the Left Opposition to Josef Stalin’s totalitarianism and was assassinated by the KGB on Stalin’s orders, but he’s habitually presented by right-wingers as a ‘loony’ and ‘evil’. If he was so ‘mad’ and so ‘bad’, then how come he stood up against the dictator, Stalin (at great personal cost not only to himself but to his entire family)?
The next article you quote denigrates Paul Krugman for mounting an “absurd defence of the failing French economy”. Prior to the coup of the neo-cons, Krugman was a much-respected American economist (and he is currently a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, which I always thought was one of the ‘better’ US universities – but I may be wrong?). Since daring to critique the neo-con agenda, his economic analysis becomes ‘absurd’… hmmm… This makes one think, doesn’t it?
I know what I make of that – as I’ve always stated on these boards, people don’t just work for financial reward. Work is what defines human beings; they need to feel like they’re doing something useful. This links to the many arguments we have had over the months about whether or not people would just be ‘lazy’ and do nothing and live off the state in a socialist society. It seems not.
Now this quote I found very, very interesting: This is how workers experience capitalism: they can either starve on low minimum wages or they can starve on unemployment. This is precisely what is wrong with capitalism (capitalists must, after all, make their obscene profits) and this is what I predict people will not accept in the long term. And so what we have seen in Paris over the past nine days is just the beginning…
A question (just because I’m curious) – so neo-cons believe that the minimum wage should get to as low as the ‘free market’ can get it, then? So how low should it get? Should workers be paid $5 an hour? $1? $0.50? And no social security? Should there be none at all? And should there be no taxation? No schools, hospitals, universities, etc? Tax the poor only, of course, to support the military adventures, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, etc… Those who cannot afford medical cover or an education should simply… what? Die? And do you really think people will not stand up for themselves when they are cornered like that? Perhaps not – but if they don’t, then they deserve their fate. In the end, it does not matter what we think and say – what matters is how people experience capitalism and what they decide to do about it.

Good post Alex. Although not a left wing socialist like you I agree there is an 'unacceptable face of capitalism' which if left unchecked will lead to disillusionment and eventually civil disorder and so I agree with your analysis of where unchecked capitalism will take us.

 

[Zlex]

Good post Alex. Although not a left wing socialist like you I agree there is an 'unacceptable face of capitalism' which if left unchecked will lead to disillusionment and eventually civil disorder and so I agree with your analysis of where unchecked capitalism will take us.

I'd have to agree with both Art, and Alex on the long running perversion of capitilism.

Cozy little arrangements between the guns of government and 'capitalists' is anything but 'capitalism.' The concept of corporations exists because of only one reason; the tax code and the guns behind it, and efforts to mingle economic incentives/controls/social engineering with capitalism.

A total bastardization. One just needs to look at the unsightly free-for-all, the CronyFest on the Potomac, to see how this cozy little arrangement has created an out of control, graceless mess.

A million yearly tradeoffs, a little freedom for a little power, a little sell-out for a little short term advantage. Naked sweaty apes to the hilt.

"C" Corp... "S" Corp..."Partnership" ..."Sole Proprietorship" ... "Employee"... and juggling itself in the middle of all of those games are the glad handing plumbers with the guns, endlessly trading off favors/penalties for one group against another.

How a business -- a voluntary association of one or more individuals cooperatively doing what they legally may in freedom to offer goods and services, create jobs, and make livings-- choose to organize for the purposes of avoiding the looters and moochers and favor givers and favor takers -- has nothing to do with capitalism, other than when it is folks voluntarily trying to react to the constructivist game built by others. But, too often, it is folks embracing the guns of the game for advantage that has nothing to do with their creative effort in delivering wants and needs to folks who want and need things, like goods, jobs, and services.

And yet, that game of organization, and the abuse thereof, is what dominates our perception of 'capitalism,' not the key foundational idea of capitalism, which is;

Each of us was born with exactly one skin, one mote of heat and light and time and talent, and it is ours to dispose of, not our neighbors, or their neighbors, or any hundred of their neighbors, each of which was born with their one skin. You own disposition of the crass residue that results from the exertion of that finite mote of heat and light and time and talent, as you choose, as you see fit, and to benefit whom you see fit-- to value.

To negate that basic human right(ie, to self direct the results of the exertion of your own mote of skin, heat, light, talent, and time), you must introduce coercion; some skins are more deserving than others, 'voluntary' self direction by the occupiers of these individual skins cannot be tolerated 'by some', to be determined by force 'by some,' for the benefit of those that 'some' determine are worthy. ie, slavery to the individual worldview of the 'some.'

The fundamental idea of capitalism is, self ownership of your own mote of skin, heat, light, talent, and time, along with the crass aftermath of the finite exertions thereof. Every other aspect of capitalism follows from that fundamental idea. Every perversion of capitalism and humanity in general abuses that fundamental idea, and it usually starts with, "Yes, but, for a really, really good cause(mine), we should do this with our skins..."

There lies the perversion of capitalism; the unsightly clawing of the 'some' along the Potomac--with the guns, alternately handing out penalties and favors by the few for the few, paid for by the many, for the 'really, really good idea' visions of the few.

A guaranteed occurrence of imperfect human beings. We have our share of cheaters, short cut takers, free ride takers, slackers. In "C" Corps...in unions...as employees...and in government, wielding guns. And, ultimately, the biggest drooling beast in the Jungle(the mob/tribe)exerts itself, no matter what ideals exist.

So, whether we embrace totalitarian nightmare constructivist folly, or pay lip service to freedom, we will implement that which we embrace using imperfect naked apes, no matter what, guaranteed. But, on it spurely theoretical basis, and not on the basis of its inevitable abuses which its enemies inevitably concentrate on, its foundation is what distinguishes it from its alternatives.

Does your skin belong to you, or to the tribe and the high priests that speak for the tribe? That is the fundamental political question in which capitalism is a key and never purely realized ingredient, because the answer is forever and inevitably "partly," due to one and only one reason: the drooling brute force of numbers.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, yes, LYN, I’m sure capitalism is the problem. I have been worrying about this particular problem for many years now, and reading about its causes, and reading about its effects, and witnessing the changes that have happened over the years. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that capitalism is the problem. Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, which has certainly picked up phenomenally over the past ten years or so, I still trust my own analysis. I won’t let the media do my thinking for me – nor the post-modernists, nor anyone else.
And I guess you’re convinced capitalism isn’t the problem – that, indeed, capitalism is the ‘cure’ for all society’s ills.
But it doesn’t really matter what either you or I think about it – what matters is how people experience capitalism in their lives and how they react to it. We can argue forever on these boards, and it won’t make the slightest bit of difference to whether or not people will put up with the kind of life capitalism has to offer ‘the masses’, or how they will decide to react to their constantly eroding living conditions. I suspect that many people writing on these boards come from a relatively (perhaps even extremely) privileged sector of the population whose lives are not being completely rubbished by the present system. I believe that the Paris unrest is going to be quelled by the police/military, very quickly – well, this round of it will. But people will learn from their experiences and they will organise themselves, and it won’t be possible to control them forever.
In any case, because we like our discussions, let’s talk about this some more…
First point: Jospin is in no way ‘left wing’, whatever he may call himself. As the article you quoted (http://www.techcentralstation.com/010405D.html) states, Jospin was “a former Marxist of Trotskyite vintage”. By the way, this article is totally biased in my opinion: it takes the usual opportunity to denigrate one of the greatest humanitarians of all time, Leon Trotsky. Trotsky was the uncompromising leader of the Left Opposition to Josef Stalin’s totalitarianism and was assassinated by the KGB on Stalin’s orders, but he’s habitually presented by right-wingers as a ‘loony’ and ‘evil’. If he was so ‘mad’ and so ‘bad’, then how come he stood up against the dictator, Stalin (at great personal cost not only to himself but to his entire family)?
The next article you quote denigrates Paul Krugman for mounting an “absurd defence of the failing French economy”. Prior to the coup of the neo-cons, Krugman was a much-respected American economist (and he is currently a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, which I always thought was one of the ‘better’ US universities – but I may be wrong?). Since daring to critique the neo-con agenda, his economic analysis becomes ‘absurd’… hmmm… This makes one think, doesn’t it?
I know what I make of that – as I’ve always stated on these boards, people don’t just work for financial reward. Work is what defines human beings; they need to feel like they’re doing something useful. This links to the many arguments we have had over the months about whether or not people would just be ‘lazy’ and do nothing and live off the state in a socialist society. It seems not.
Now this quote I found very, very interesting: This is how workers experience capitalism: they can either starve on low minimum wages or they can starve on unemployment. This is precisely what is wrong with capitalism (capitalists must, after all, make their obscene profits) and this is what I predict people will not accept in the long term. And so what we have seen in Paris over the past nine days is just the beginning…
A question (just because I’m curious) – so neo-cons believe that the minimum wage should get to as low as the ‘free market’ can get it, then? So how low should it get? Should workers be paid $5 an hour? $1? $0.50? And no social security? Should there be none at all? And should there be no taxation? No schools, hospitals, universities, etc? Tax the poor only, of course, to support the military adventures, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, etc… Those who cannot afford medical cover or an education should simply… what? Die? And do you really think people will not stand up for themselves when they are cornered like that? Perhaps not – but if they don’t, then they deserve their fate. In the end, it does not matter what we think and say – what matters is how people experience capitalism and what they decide to do about it.

Alex, can you point out to me why these problems lay at the feet of capitalism? When ever I have seen you argue against capitalism you have always pointed out those things that are the twisted byproduct of greedy humans influencing and perverting the system. Capitalism in the raw does not support the majority of those elements you ascribe to the system just as communism/socialism in the raw does not support the elements that have manifested in it's wake.
There are greedy people out there. They take advantage of their wealth power and influence to get what they want which generally speaking is more wealth power and influence. The Capitalist system does not perscribe this any more than Socialism or Communism does. These greedy people build loopholes and special rules into the capitalist system to benefit themselves while no one is looking or sometimes right in front of every one assuring us all that it's for the common good. If you change the system those people will still exist and they will still do everything within their power to get what they want. They will create loopholes and special rules in a communist system that will benefit them and help them to retain their wealth and power. If they can't manipulate the system legally they will do so illegally.
It's not the system that is flawed, they are the people who participate in it that are flawed.

 

[Smurf]

It's not the system that is flawed, they are the people who participate in it that are flawed.

I see no difference between asserting that the system is flawed, and asserting that a system is corrupted by flawed people.

If a system, after being established, allows it's self to be exploited and changed by flawed people, it is, as far as I can see, as flawed as the people exploiting it.

 

[Smasherman]

When a body uses physical force to gain something from another body, they must either kill or subvert. Killing is the most guaranteed because a subverted body can rise up and strike back. Whatever body has the most power at the beginning is most likely to win. If a body initiates the gain attempt by surprise, it gains some advantage.

When a body uses economic force to gain something from another body, they must either impoverish or subvert. Impoverishing is the most guaranteed because a subverted body can rise up and strike back. Whatever body has the most power at the beginning is most likely to win. If a body initiates the gain attempt by surprise, it gains some advantage.

Does Might make Right?

 

[russ_watters]

I'll let the statistic go because I don't know how close it is, but...

Capitalism has something called 'structural unemployment', and even bourgeois (capitalist) economists acknowledge this. Without unemployment, capitalism wouldn't work: how would you depress wages?

As I say every time you mention capitalism, capitalism's greatest strength is that it feeds on human nature, it doesn't fight it like other systems. Yes, capitalism requires some unemployment. But that's ok because a certain percentage of the population is unemployable, anyway. And I'm sure you've noticed - if you've ever been to a McDonalds - just because someone has a job, doesn't mean they aren't still unemployable. Some utterly useless people still manage to find jobs - but regardless, unemployment helps motivate the workforce to be more employable.

Also, you may not have considered it before, but there is more than one reason for unemployment, and not all reasons are "bad". Job flux is a good reason for unemployment: it means that people are free to quit their jobs (and become unemployed by choice) and find a better one. That job flux is high (and it is high by historical standards) increases unemployment, but it is also a sign of a health labor market.

 

[Astronuc]

capitalism's greatest strength is that it feeds on human nature, . . .

and perhaps, also its greatest weakness.

 

[russ_watters]

That last part is something brought up often around here. Due to very generous unemployment benefits, some French people actually have a financial disincentive to work, as their total income does not increase. [snip] I wonder what Russ and patty will make of that.

Well, I'm sure you already know what I think of that. I will say, though, that this is a thin-spot in my knowledge. My opinions are based on the basics of market economics, and while it is easy to see what market economics would predict for a given set of conditions, I hadn't actually read an article confirming it before. Thanks, though.

[snop]They do seem to still seek work, though.

Well, it said "most" - but was that what you were really looking for a comment on? Well... In a system designed to have personal gain as the primary motivation for working, we can't forget that A: you can't get a promotion unless you have a job, so taking a job that doesn't pay more than unemployment still provides a potential for personal gain and B: money isn't the only thing you gain by working.

After my first post, there, I was reminded of a point that, iirc, selfAdjoint has made: artificial intelligence and automation may radically change the job-pool distribution. A whole class of workers could be made obsolete by the next Roomba. Not to mention, the low-end manufacturing jobs we lose to automation and outsourcing. So far, that hasn't been a problem because the workforce has improved as the job market has changed. But it could become a problem. The only way around it that I see is to ensure that the workforce continues to become more skillful.

 

[Smurf]

As I say every time you mention capitalism, capitalism's greatest strength is that it feeds on human nature, it doesn't fight it like other systems.

I have never actually heard a good argument to support this statement.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, yes, LYN, I’m sure capitalism is the problem...

But it doesn’t really matter what either you or I think about it – what matters is how people experience capitalism in their lives and how they react to it. We can argue forever on these boards, and it won’t make the slightest bit of difference to whether or not people will put up with the kind of life capitalism has to offer ‘the masses’, or how they will decide to react to their constantly eroding living conditions.

You will, no doubt, keep saying that conditions continue to deteriorate, and I will, no doubt, keep pointing out that you are factually wrong about that. Whether you look at the US or the world, over the past 10 years, or 50, conditions are not deteriorating, they are improving.

This is how workers experience capitalism: they can either starve on low minimum wages or they can starve on unemployment. This is precisely what is wrong with capitalism (capitalists must, after all, make their obscene profits) and this is what I predict people will not accept in the long term.

Well, you probably don't literally mean "starve", but let's take it literally (or close to it) anyway. In the US, the number of people who starve to death each year due to poverty can usually be counted on the fingers of one hand. Centrally controlled economies, on the other hand, typically have anywhere from bad (USSR) to catastrophic (North Korea) problems with feeding their populaces.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but as the saying goes, it's the worst system except for all the others. And it does keep getting better.

A question (just because I’m curious) – so neo-cons believe that the minimum wage should get to as low as the ‘free market’ can get it, then? So how low should it get? Should workers be paid $5 an hour? $1? $0.50?

I'm not a neocon, but people have asked this question of me before, so I'll answer it: no, a pragmatic capitalist does not think there should be no minimum wage. And what we discussed above should make it clear why: if the minimum typical wage is below what welfare provides, it removes the incentive to work. I say "typical" because I don't want people to get the impression that I think the minimum wage is meant to be a "living" wage. It's just the floor, and it pushes up the wages for *real* jobs.

And no social security? Should there be none at all?

Tricky question. It's well established that a prudent person can get more from a 401k or IRA than from Socal Security, so for me personally - I don't want Social Security. But what about the people who are not prudent and don't save? Part of me says screw -em: if they aren't going to be responsible, why should I have to fix their mistakes? But I realize that that isn't practical - I'm going to have to fix their mistakes either way.

So I think we need to reform social security to enable responsible people to profit more from it, while protecting the irresponsible from themselves.

And should there be no taxation? No schools, hospitals, universities, etc? Tax the poor only, of course, to support the military adventures, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, etc… Those who cannot afford medical cover or an education should simply… what? Die?

I don't know where you'd get the idea that that is part of anyone's ideology, except, perhaps, an capito-anarchists (I made that up, but that's what it sounds like). You are way, way off in your understanding of what you are arguing against.

In the end, it does not matter what we think and say – what matters is how people experience capitalism and what they decide to do about it.

Yes. And in the end [of the year], the people...are going Christmas shopping, and capitalism will prove it's worth once again.

Although not a left wing socialist like you I agree there is an 'unacceptable face of capitalism' which if left unchecked will lead to disillusionment and eventually civil disorder and so I agree with your analysis of where unchecked capitalism will take us. [emphasis added]

The problem is that (from the quote two quotes up) that "unchecked capitalism" is a strawman argument. It makes capitalism sound like anarchy and that simply isn't what capitalism is or what capitalists want it to be.

One small example - no capitalist in their right mind would ever want to do away with the Sherman Act.

 

[russ_watters]

I have never actually heard a good argument to support this statement.

Well, tell me what it is about my argument that you don't consider "good".

 

[russ_watters]

Capitalism in the raw does not support the majority of those elements you ascribe to the system just as communism/socialism in the raw does not support the elements that have manifested in it's wake.

I agree with one caveat: communism/socialism in practice may not have matched Marx's vision, but what has happened is all that has been proven can happen. Without even a successful test, it can't even be called a theory, just a failed hypothesis.

And while alexandra, Smurf, et al. argue against their vision of what capitalism is, that vision isn't a reality. At the same time, they argue for their vision of what communism/socialism/anarchism, etc. is, that vision isn't a reality either. They are arguing against one fantasy in order to argue for another fantasy. It just isn't the real world that they are talking about.

 

[Entropy]

If you don't like capitalism then what do you want, communism? Look there is no agruing that communism, in the real world, works better than capitalism. It just doesn't, period. If you don't believe me, then let's run another test in Russia and see if the government doesn't deteriorate into a corrupt oligarchy that causes the deaths of millions of people.

 

[Smurf]

Well, tell me what it is about my argument that you don't consider "good".

Well for starts it's not an argument. You made a statement "capitalism's greatest strength is that it feeds on human nature, it doesn't fight it like other systems."

As far as I'm aware the rest of your post didn't address that, it was an off-hand remark.

I'm asking you to support that statement with evidence.

 

[Smurf]

I agree with one caveat: communism/socialism in practice may not have matched Marx's vision, but what has happened is all that has been proven can happen. Without even a successful test, it can't even be called a theory, just a failed hypothesis.

What on Earth is that? If I start a dictatorship in Zimbabwe and call it democracy and then slowly watch it get overthrown over 4 decades that does not mean that democracy doesn't work.

Soviet Russia was not communist. It never was. The fact that they called it that for a few decades is completely irrelevant to the point that no one is advocating a system even remotely like it.*

*I admit ignorance to what exactly everyone is advocating. Some might actually have a few similarities.

And while alexandra, Smurf, et al. argue against their vision of what capitalism is, that vision isn't a reality. At the same time, they argue for their vision of what communism/socialism/anarchism, etc. is, that vision isn't a reality either. They are arguing against one fantasy in order to argue for another fantasy. It just isn't the real world that they are talking about.

Alexandra and I constantly cite examples of systems similar to our so-called "visions". You're choice to ignore them or pretend they "won't work on a large scale" or "arn't really anarchist" (ho! ho! the irony!) is only your own ignorance and little more.


As an off-hand remark I'm getting really sick of these conservative's massive over-simplifications to try to make it seem like Capitalism is not only the best choice, but the only one that's possible. Which is just stupid.

 

[pi-r8]

One small example - no capitalist in their right mind would ever want to do away with the Sherman Act.

I would. I say get rid of that along with taxes, welfare, social security, and all the other socialist BS that we put up with.

 

[russ_watters]

Well for starts it's not an argument. You made a statement "capitalism's greatest strength is that it feeds on human nature, it doesn't fight it like other systems."
As far as I'm aware the rest of your post didn't address that, it was an off-hand remark.
I'm asking you to support that statement with evidence.

The reason I didn't go into that further is it has been argued to death here, most people agree that it is true (the question is whether or not it is good), and so isn't really at issue. Even you seem to agree that it is true, so I'm not sure what your issue is with it. Ie, you have acknowledged that your idea requries human nature to change in order for it to work. So why are you trying to argue this now?

 

[russ_watters]

and perhaps, also its greatest weakness.

Indeed, it is.

 

[russ_watters]

What on Earth is that? If I start a dictatorship in Zimbabwe and call it democracy and then slowly watch it get overthrown over 4 decades that does not mean that democracy doesn't work.

This isn't an "in-name-only" situation, Smurf, like calling a dictatorship a democracy. Your example is quite simply a leader lying about what he's doing. Mine was a leader trying to do something and being up-front about it, and failing. Stalin and Lenin (among others) tried to implement Marx's vision or their version of Marx's vision. All failed, to one extent or another. The closest thing to success was probably Cuba, and it is still a dictatorship and has a natural resource (beaches) that allows it to be horribly inefficient and still survive.

Soviet Russia was not communist. It never was. The fact that they called it that for a few decades is completely irrelevant to the point that no one is advocating a system even remotely like it.*

That's true (that they didn't succeed), but you cannot claim that they didn't try to realize Marx's vision (or at least a part of it), because they did.

Alexandra and I constantly cite examples of systems similar to our so-called "visions". You're choice to ignore them or pretend they "won't work on a large scale" or "arn't really anarchist" (ho! ho! the irony!) is only your own ignorance and little more.

Newton vs. Einstein, Smurf. Both had theories of gravity. Both work for a certain domain of applicability. Only one works for a larger domain of applicability, and the other has shown itself to not work in that domain. You are advocating the system that works in a limited domain of applicability and has actually proven itself to not work for the more general case.

So while you have provided examples, they are like providing an example that supports Newton's gravity without addressing the examples that only support Einstein's. In short, your examples don't apply to the case you want them to apply to, so they are irrelevant. Logically flawed.

My ignorance? Your refusal to admit your idea doesn't work the way you want it to...

...Heck, it isn't even that simple: you have admitted that your system doesn't work for humans as they exist today. And alexandra has admitted in the past that capitalism does work, contrary to Marx's vision. I don't understand why acceptance of those facts doesn't deter you two from pursuing your ideas. That's why I will continue to call this fantasy:

5. An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need.
6. An unrealistic or improbable supposition.

As an off-hand remark I'm getting really sick of these conservative's massive over-simplifications to try to make it seem like Capitalism is not only the best choice, but the only one that's possible. Which is just stupid.

The first, I have stated explicitly and I will repeat: capitalism is the best choice (with the criteria being economic prosperity). That's not up for debate, it is simply factually true. It's data.

The second part, that it's the only one possible, is a matter of practical reality. Today, it is the only one that has proven itself to work. That is also a simple factual reality. But that doesn't mean it is the only one that is possible. Heck, Smurf, even you have acknowledged that your idea is not possible today. Will it be possible at some point in the future (I've said this before): no one knows. Maybe, maybe not. But it is irresponsible to pursue the overthrow of a system that works in order to experiment with a system that currently does not. Moreover, far from being, even, a testable theory, both you and Marx only have vague notions of what your system would look like when implimented. They are nowhere near ready for prime-time yet.

 

[russ_watters]

I would. I say get rid of that along with taxes, welfare, social security, and all the other socialist BS that we put up with.

See, this is how conservatives get a bad name - how in the world would government function if we get rid of taxes altogether? Be reasonable.

 

[pi-r8]

See, this is how conservatives get a bad name - how in the world would government function if we get rid of taxes altogether? Be reasonable.

Well, the obvious way for a government to function without taxes would be to ask people to voluntarily donate money. Sure, lots of people wouldn't donate, but some would, and if the government wasn't supporting a welfare state it would require much less money to operate.
Another method I've heard suggested would be for the government to charge a fee to enforce contracts. If two people made a contract and didn't pay this fee, the government wouldn't enforce the contract, and it would just be so much paper. If they had paid the fee, and one of them tried to brake the contract, the government would force that person to uphold his end of the bargain.
At any rate, I hate the current system of fining people for being productive.

 

[Smurf]

pi-r8s suggestion, I think, would quickly degrade into a corporate controlled state.

Theoretically I support the idea of a donation-only state. However in practice, should those changes be implimented with no other changes to the system, I do not.

 

[pi-r8]

Why do you think that, Smurf? In my system, the government would have absolutely no power over the economy- it would be completely unregulated. So, even assuming that a corporation could take over the government, what possible motivation would it have for doing so?

 

[Smurf]

The reason I didn't go into that further is it has been argued to death here, most people agree that it is true (the question is whether or not it is good), and so isn't really at issue. Even you seem to agree that it is true, so I'm not sure what your issue is with it. Ie, you have acknowledged that your idea requries human nature to change in order for it to work. So why are you trying to argue this now?

I have never argued that human nature must change before Anarchy can be implimented. If I believed such I would be required to view the Zapatista's, or the Barcelona Anarchists, or Christiania Residents, et cetera, as another evolution, or mutation, of humanity. I find that absurd (as I would think everyone else does).

The idea that humanity's only incentive in life is the accumulation of material and monetary wealth is absolutely ridiculous and unsupported.

 

[Smurf]

So, even assuming that a corporation could take over the government, what possible motivation would it have for doing so?

The only way that a corporation wouldn't have gained any power from taking the government would be if the government had no power at all. i.e. that it didn't exist. If the government has the right to enforce anything, then it can be used.

Scenario: The government is controlled completely by McDonalds because they're the only one's that donate money to them. A small restaurant opens up on the main street of New York. McDonalds doesn't like this. The police arrest the the restaurant owner on trumped up charges and execute him.

Solution: Don't give the government law enforcement power.

Problem with solution: No one to stop organizations, such as McDonalds or even GreenPeace, from starting their own private police force and executing the resaurant owner (or oil company CEO) themselves.

 

[Smurf]

This isn't an "in-name-only" situation, Smurf, like calling a dictatorship a democracy. Your example is quite simply a leader lying about what he's doing. Mine was a leader trying to do something and being up-front about it, and failing. Stalin and Lenin (among others) tried to implement Marx's vision or their version of Marx's vision. All failed, to one extent or another. The closest thing to success was probably Cuba, and it is still a dictatorship and has a natural resource (beaches) that allows it to be horribly inefficient and still survive. That's true (that they didn't succeed), but you cannot claim that they didn't try to realize Marx's vision (or at least a part of it), because they did.

Fair enough. However, does the failed Republic of Rome, which degenerated into a dictatorship, necessarily mean that any other democratic experiments will be equally unfruitfull? Obviously not. Similarily the failed experiment of Communism in Russia does not necessarily mean that it can not be implimented more successfully.

Also, Cuba seems to be getting a lot of attention recently because, alledgedly, she does a lot of things better than us. Perhapse she's not a total failure after all and we should consider learning something.


...

I should be studying for my test. I'll argue more later.

 

[Art]

The problem is that (from the quote two quotes up) that "unchecked capitalism" is a strawman argument. It makes capitalism sound like anarchy and that simply isn't what capitalism is or what capitalists want it to be.

George Soros doesn't appear to think it is a strawman argument and I'd imagine he probably knows somewhat more about the subject of capitalism than either of us. Here's what he had to say about it

"the biggest danger to democracy these days is laissez-faire capitalism, which threatens to tear apart the social fabric of societies that practice it."

or Robert Kutner, founding co-editor of the bimonthly American Prospect and a contributing columnist for Business Week. He says

"the gap between the haves and have-nots in U.S. society is eroding the social compact and undermining the country's moral authority."

or Harvard economist Richard Freeman, in a Harvard Business Review article he referred to

"our apartheid economy"

. or former labor secretary Robert Reich who in his farewell speech said;

"It used to be in America, a rising economic tide caused all ships to rise. But recently, the rising tide is elevating only the yachts. The rowboats in between have barely avoided taking on water and the little rafts and dinghies are sinking"

.

One small example - no capitalist in their right mind would ever want to do away with the Sherman Act.

I can think of several, Bill Gates for example.

 

[Smurf]

Can I get sources for all those quotes?

 

[deckart]

Fair enough. However, does the failed Republic of Rome, which degenerated into a dictatorship, necessarily mean that any other democratic experiments will be equally unfruitfull? Obviously not. Similarily the failed experiment of Communism in Russia does not necessarily mean that it can not be implimented more successfully.
Also, Cuba seems to be getting a lot of attention recently because, alledgedly, she does a lot of things better than us. Perhapse she's not a total failure after all and we should consider learning something.
...
I should be studying for my test. I'll argue more later.

People have been risking their lives trying to escape Cuba using some of the most elaborate floatation devices for some time now. I think that speaks for itself about how great things are in Cuba.

 

[Smurf]

People have been risking their lives trying to escape Cuba using some of the most elaborate floatation devices for some time now. I think that speaks for itself about how great things are in Cuba.

irrelevant to my point.

 

[deckart]

irrelevant to my point.

Hey, you brought it up as some sort of example.

 

[Art]

Can I get sources for all those quotes?

Don't you trust me?
Btw I'm sure you could get sources but I guess what you really mean is will I supply you with the sources for all of these quotes.
1) Soros - http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_02.06.97/news_views/media.html
2) Kuttner - his book 'Everything for Sale'
3) Freeman - http://www.inequality.org/freeman2.html
4) Reich - http://ncrve.berkeley.edu/CW73/Reich.html

 

[Mercator]

Well, the obvious way for a government to function without taxes would be to ask people to voluntarily donate money. Sure, lots of people wouldn't donate, but some would, and if the government wasn't supporting a welfare state it would require much less money to operate.
Another method I've heard suggested would be for the government to charge a fee to enforce contracts. If two people made a contract and didn't pay this fee, the government wouldn't enforce the contract, and it would just be so much paper. If they had paid the fee, and one of them tried to brake the contract, the government would force that person to uphold his end of the bargain.
At any rate, I hate the current system of fining people for being productive.

Voluntarily donate money? No taxes? Sounds like the pure communism to me. Do you actually need money in your system?

 

[Mercator]

Actually Capitalism has only been able to survive because it has allowed social corrections. In my view, Marx and his theory and later the failed experiments in USSR and China were direct results of the pure capitalism. Worker's conditions in the 19 th century were appaling. No wonder that people like Marx came up with what looked like a more human solution. In West Europe worker's conditions were only marginally better than in the old Russia. But after the Russian revolution, workers started to revolt. In Belgium we had a priest, Daens who stood up for the rights of workers and in the beginning of the 20 th century there were constant clashes between the workers and the rulers. As there were in the US , by the way. Labour day, 1 st of may originated in the US. Frightened by the USSR example, the leading class had to find solutions. So they started to give into worker's demands. One by one, universal suffrage, limited workweek, holidays, social security were introduced so that the situation would not deteriorate into another civil war. So, ironically, capitalism was saved by communism and introducing socialist elements.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I see no difference between asserting that the system is flawed, and asserting that a system is corrupted by flawed people.
If a system, after being established, allows it's self to be exploited and changed by flawed people, it is, as far as I can see, as flawed as the people exploiting it.

Lol... a system requires people to run it Smurf. The original idea may have been great and worked just fine or perhaps needed some fine tuning once it's wheels actually hit the pavement and there were some minor problems. Just because certain people in influencial positions saw opertunities to flex their muscle and adjust the system to be more beneficial to them does not mean the system is flawed but that the operators are flawed and this is being reflected in the output of the system.

Just because people have been known to cheat at a game and maybe even force or trick others into allowing them to cheat does not mean that the game is inherantly unfair. In any of the systems we are referring to here the "pawn" has quite a bit of power. The fact that the pawn chooses not to utilize that power is no one's fault but it's own. If it allows itself to be tricked and forced into untenable positions it is still it's own fault. As long as there are those around who will exploit the pawns and the pawns are unwilling to flex their power it does not matter what system you put in place. The pawns will inevitably be exploited. Changing the rules of the game will not prevent the cheaters from cheating.

I could begin explaining why capitalism seems to work better, in my opinion(note please that I am not stating it is a fact), than communism (or other systems) but unless we can agree on what I stated above there isn't much point.

 

[Mercator]

What I also notice on this board is that only few people bother to make distinction between anarchism ,communism , socialism and social welfare measures. I have the impression that many Americans think in left-right terms and in their mind "Liberal" stands for everything from libertarians to minimum wage defenders. In fact communism and socialism stand in each other's way. In China, after a period of communist experiment and "dictatorship of the proletariat", with the well known results, only the dictatorship is kept as the political system, while the economic system is as close to the pure capitalism as you can find in the world today. As spectacular as the results are, we here in China all know that this situation is not sustainable. There are already cracks in the ceiling. What China needs to do now, is to become a little more socialist, like the US , or Europe otherwise the capitalist experiment will not survive.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Actually Capitalism has only been able to survive because it has allowed social corrections. In my view, Marx and his theory and later the failed experiments in USSR and China were direct results of the pure capitalism. Worker's conditions in the 19 th century were appaling. No wonder that people like Marx came up with what looked like a more human solution. In West Europe worker's conditions were only marginally better than in the old Russia. But after the Russian revolution, workers started to revolt. In Belgium we had a priest, Daens who stood up for the rights of workers and in the beginning of the 20 th century there were constant clashes between the workers and the rulers. As there were in the US , by the way. Labour day, 1 st of may originated in the US. Frightened by the USSR example, the leading class had to find solutions. So they started to give into worker's demands. One by one, universal suffrage, limited workweek, holidays, social security were introduced so that the situation would not deteriorate into another civil war. So, ironically, capitalism was saved by communism and introducing socialist elements.

It's only logical that in any system all parties must be happy with the situation or all parties suffer. It may take revolution for the most powerful party to suffer but it will happen. In this I can agree with Marx.

 

[Mercator]

Lol... a system requires people to run it Smurf. The original idea may have been great and worked just fine or perhaps needed some fine tuning once it's wheels actually hit the pavement and there were some minor problems. Just because certain people in influencial positions saw opertunities to flex their muscle and adjust the system to be more beneficial to them does not mean the system is flawed but that the operators are flawed and this is being reflected in the output of the system.
Just because people have been known to cheat at a game and maybe even force or trick others into allowing them to cheat does not mean that the game is inherantly unfair. In any of the systems we are referring to here the "pawn" has quite a bit of power. The fact that the pawn chooses not to utilize that power is no one's fault but it's own. If it allows itself to be tricked and forced into untenable positions it is still it's own fault. As long as there are those around who will exploit the pawns and the pawns are unwilling to flex their power it does not matter what system you put in place. The pawns will inevitably be exploited. Changing the rules of the game will not prevent the cheaters from cheating.
I could begin explaining why capitalism seems to work better, in my opinion(note please that I am not stating it is a fact), than communism (or other systems) but unless we can agree on what I stated above there isn't much point.

TSA, but a key factor in discussions if this or that system works IS people's nature. If you discuss communism in a vacuum, it sounds fantastic. But put one greedy bastard in the equation and the whole theory fails. And the same goes for capitalism.
To me, the old definitions of communism etc... have little use anymore in the present day situation. I rather look at socio-economic systems in a Darwinistic way. The systems have been constantly evolving into a very complex "living" body. Explaining the Chinese situation with terms like "communism" is like dissecting a body with an axe, in the hope to find the formula of DNA!
Like the evolution of living organisms, there will never be an end to the evolution of societies. There will be unexpected events, unsuccesfull mutations etc... The best we can hope for is that eventually we reach a state that is reasonable for a majority of people and that we can maintain and control.

 

[pi-r8]

The only way that a corporation wouldn't have gained any power from taking the government would be if the government had no power at all. i.e. that it didn't exist. If the government has the right to enforce anything, then it can be used.
Scenario: The government is controlled completely by McDonalds because they're the only one's that donate money to them. A small restaurant opens up on the main street of New York. McDonalds doesn't like this. The police arrest the the restaurant owner on trumped up charges and execute him.

I don't see how your scenario could possibly come to pass. Why would only ONE corporation be giving money to the government? Surely a few other people would be giving money. Asking about what would happen if only one corporation gave all the money to the government is like asking about what would happen if only person in the world possessed every single weapon. Whatever would we do?

 

[pi-r8]

Voluntarily donate money? No taxes? Sounds like the pure communism to me. Do you actually need money in your system?

Money is what makes capitalism work. One difference, however, is that in pure capitalism money would be printed by private banks, not the government.

Oh, and surely you see a difference between a system where the government completely regulates the economy (communism) and one where it doesn't regulate the economy at all (capitalism)?

 

[Mercator]

Money is what makes capitalism work. One difference, however, is that in pure capitalism money would be printed by private banks, not the government.
Oh, and surely you see a difference between a system where the government completely regulates the economy (communism) and one where it doesn't regulate the economy at all (capitalism)?

pi-r8 , here is a definition of communism:
An economic theory which stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized this theory in their 1848 Communist Manifesto.
What you proposed comes pretty close, probably to your own amazement.
If you want to use the government argument, you should talk about "regimes using the label communist (but are far from it's principles)"

 

[Smurf]

the proper term (i.e. accoring to neoclassical economics) for what you referred to as communism, pi-r8, is a "command economy".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

TSA, but a key factor in discussions if this or that system works IS people's nature. If you discuss communism in a vacuum, it sounds fantastic. But put one greedy bastard in the equation and the whole theory fails. And the same goes for capitalism.
To me, the old definitions of communism etc... have little use anymore in the present day situation. I rather look at socio-economic systems in a Darwinistic way. The systems have been constantly evolving into a very complex "living" body. Explaining the Chinese situation with terms like "communism" is like dissecting a body with an axe, in the hope to find the formula of DNA!
Like the evolution of living organisms, there will never be an end to the evolution of societies. There will be unexpected events, unsuccesfull mutations etc... The best we can hope for is that eventually we reach a state that is reasonable for a majority of people and that we can maintain and control.

I agree mostly. The thing is finding a system that best accomidates for the trouble with human nature. Russ and I believe that Capitalism does this. Ofcourse there need to be rules (laws) which prevent the system from being perverted to suit the needs of the few over the needs of the many. It seems to me though that the inherant checks and balances in capitalism reduces the need (reduces, not nullifies) for a governing body to keep things fair and the need to trust in that governing body. Micro managment is more or less taken care of by the citizens in a society with a capitalist economy.
Another point which favours capitalism in my opinion is the way in which it parallels Darwinism. For an investment of resources to continue it must survive in the market. Theoretically a mismanaged investment should not survive and the resources will cease being wasted once the endevour sinks. No one person then is necessarily trusted to make that decision for us. Unfortunately here in the US the government is fond of bailing out mismanaged operations.

be back in a minute

 

[Smurf]

Money is what makes capitalism work. One difference, however, is that in pure capitalism money would be printed by private banks, not the government.

While we're on the subject of definitions what you're referring to isn't really "capitalism" either. You're referring to is probably best called neoconservatism. Also known as Uber-privatization or Reaganism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

to continue...

Once the government gets involved by bailing businesses out we start to see something more like corporatism. Corporatism is a system under which the government allows favoured individuals to run business (corporations) to the exclusion of others. What we have currently in the US has been described as Neo-Corporatism. There are certain indivduals whose businesses (or corporations) are favoured by government legislation allowing them certain benefits and added survivability. This goes against the capitalist ideology because the government is now stepping in and meddling in the market, more or less. The capitalist (not the one of epithetical fame) should not stand for such meddling.

I will concede though that there are certain matters which are too important to allow to be gambled on in a capitalist market. In some areas it is probably better for the government to take control so that vital resources are not mismanaged and allocated in a manner that best suits the needs of the society.

 

[pi-r8]

pi-r8 , here is a definition of communism:
An economic theory which stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized this theory in their 1848 Communist Manifesto.
What you proposed comes pretty close, probably to your own amazement.
If you want to use the government argument, you should talk about "regimes using the label communist (but are far from it's principles)"

All I can say is- don't make me laugh. Do you think it's a coincidence that the more communist countries have ALWAYS had more government control of the economy? The ONLY way that the laborers will have complete control of production is if the government FORCES those who own it to do what the laborers want.
That being said... that definition is nothing like what I was describing. A capitalist government would protect property rights. I'm quite sure that there'd still be social classes, and that the laborers would NOT own the means of production, if there was a capitalist government. Whoever owned the factory could do what he wanted with it, even if it made all his workers poorer.