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

[russ_watters]

Any argument for why this is?:

Experts believe that a coefficient of 0.5 likely precipitates social unrest.

There are a lot of interesting stats there (seriously*), but stats are only good as their analysis. It seems to me that the main assertion (that the US is headed for rebellion) is not supported by an argument there. No attempt, other than the empty quote above, was made to connect the statistics to the original assertion.

And so I wonder how much longer the current capitalist system in the US and elsewhere will survive as history suggests it is an unstable system in it's present form in the long term.

Unless you can provide an example of a capitalist system failing for this reason or, at least, a logical argument connecting your statistics to your assertion, that really doesn't follow at all. Indeed, if your hypothesis were correct, the data would imply that the US should already be seeing the seeds of this predicted unrest. But the reality is that the social unrest you are suggesting just plain isn't there.

"History suggests" that other factors have a bigger impact on such social unrest. For example, the employment situation in France.

*Caveat - it would be nice to see the actual statistics in context instead of the twice culled and paraphrased stats from a heavily offcenter source.

 

[russ_watters]

I think if it came down to it, I would support a revolt...

...the average man too uninformed...

Having said that, americans are for the most part too fat and stuporous with their daily dose of mind numbing TV and facination with distraction to do much.

Isn't that just another way of saying that most Americans don't share your dissatisfaction?

There have always and will always be small groups wanting revolutionary change, but that doesn't mean a populous is headed for rebellion (I'm not implying you meant that, just pointing it out).

My boss is a far right-wing conservative and though I don't think he'd advocate overthrow of the government, he spends an awful lot of time stressing over the sorry state of our country (it may be too conservative to you, but it is too liberal to him). To me, that's wasted energy and unnecessary angst.

Have you seen the movie "American History X"?

 

[russ_watters]

Here's my theory on the subject...

Assuming for now that economic-fueled social unrest is a catalyst for revolution (ironically, in your example of the American revolution it was as much the rich revolting as anyone else), I believe that it is a simple matter of economic hardship that leads to economic-fueled revolution.

People often equate the US's income gap with economic hardship and justify that with poverty statistics that are actually contrived to show a high poverty rate (basing the poverty threshold on a specified percentage of median income instead of specifying a standard of living and seeing where it actually falls). But even with a generous threshold, the US only has on the order of about 13% poverty. Is 13% enough to lead a successful revolution? Set that aside for a moment...

The poverty rate in other developed nations is comparable to that in the US, but as people like Art will be quick to point out, the US's high Gini index means there is a steeper slope on the wrong side of the poverty line in the US than in other countries. Ie, if you are an average poor person in the US, you are probably worse off than the average poor person in a European country. This would supposedly be the source of that social unrest that Art was talking about. But...I'll put this in bold because it is critical:

If the poverty rates in developed countries are roughly equal, EVERYONE above the poverty line in a country with a higher Gini index is better off than the equivalent person in another country with a lower Gini index.

Now if the poverty lines aren't directly comparable, then maybe the income distribution lines don't cross at 15%, but rather cross at 20% - or 25% (very few would be above that). Even still, everyone to the right of that point is better off in the US than in such a country. I'll try to construct the graph, but at the very least we do know for sure that more than half of the US's population is better off than their counterparts in almost every other developed country. That's median income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

This, of course, is contrary to the liberal/socialist mantra that suggests a few wealthy elite are doing well in the US and everyone else is doing poorly. If that were true, that would suggest social unrest, but clearly it is not.

I submit that while inequality may cause a lot of people to complain, it is the actual standard of living that determines whether or not people might be inclined to complain loudly enough to call it "social unrest", leading to revolt.

 

[Milo Hobgoblin]

This, of course, is contrary to the liberal/socialist mantra that suggests a few wealthy elite are doing well in the US and everyone else is doing poorly. If that were true, that would suggest social unrest, but clearly it is not.

the ironly of the liberal/socialist mantra is their schemes for improving things generally worsen them.. leading to greater numbers of people having less and an even smaller number of wealthy elite at the top.


They tax the rich. leading to drastic reductions in capital investment.. leading to fewer jobs for the lower classes.. they offer more subsidies to the poor who spend the majority of their disposable income on consumption.. further indebting them to the wealthy elite...

The average liberal/socialist has as much long term economic vision as my 9 year old.

its real easy for people to tak about the success of socialism in countries with small populations of well educated citizens.. but they quickly forget the US has 300+ millions citizens many of whom are unskilled, low skilled or minimally educated.. i.e. providing little to a tax base. Whats even more ironic is all these Euro (and even Canadian) socialist *****ing abut immigration now that its affecting the abiltiy to fund their welfare states with ever increasing numbers of illiterate and inskilled immigrants (i.e. NO tax contribution) .

Hell, we have more people on welfare than the ENTIRE population of many of these socialist countries.

The "poor" in America live VERY well.. Most owning at least one automobile, cable TV, cel phones etc.. head into ANY inner city ghetto and see how many peole have televisions, cel phones and at least a couple of meals every day.

would any of you dare to compare that to the poor in your socialist Utopias? I highly doubt many of them can even afford to register a car in these socialist countries.


America .. is not responsible for the worlds poor... I the American taxpayer am not responsible for the worlds poor.. these are soveriegn issues that the respective governments of these countries must deal with.. but how many times have we seen that ANY subsidization provided simply goes into the pockets of these corrupt regimes?

What then? Invade them to force your liberal/socialist ideologies down their throats? So its NOT ok to invade them to protect our interest.. but its ok to invade them to turn them into collectivist hellholes?

Should we send them money, food? Who is going to pay for it? You? Or does it just magically fall out of the sky? I have kids to feed, a morgtage to pay.. why must I be burdened with the social responsibitlies of someone 12k miles away while their own government officials live lifestyles that would make the entire GOP jealous...



and why is it you liberal and socialist NEVER point the finger at their governments.. why is it always the fault of the first world countries for not "fixing" the problem? We didnt create it (an no I don't want to hear your post colonial garbage.. its bullsh-t and you know it)

This is the result of some dumbass mudfarmers rising through the ranks.. using genocide to rally his followers and creating mass starvation through corruption and oppresion... but you collectivist drones just can't see the elephant in the living room.. dancing on your god damn coffee table..
this is the result of YOUR collectivist ideologies of "nationalizing" precious resources instead of investing them and feeding the profits beck into your national economies... beause you are SOOO worried someone might get ahead in the process.

Blame the first world.. they arent "giving enough".

I have an idea.. why don't all you socialist pick up a rifle.. get on a plane and go take down these oppresive regimes.. and for those of you too weak to do so because of your strict vegetarian diets and too many years in acadaemia can send 50% of YOUR disposable incomes directly to the poor starving citizens of these countries..

until then STFU and stop expecting others to do so.. and STOP expecting the first world to cleanup the mess of some retarded dirt farmer and his "regime".

 

[russ_watters]

the ironly of the liberal/socialist mantra is their schemes for improving things generally worsen them.. leading to greater numbers of people having less and an even smaller number of wealthy elite at the top.

I see it in slightly different terms. Socialism tends to pull the ends of the spectrum together by pulling a small minority up and a large majority down (because of what I discussed in my previous post).

This doesn't make sense to socialists because the socialist's mind, a guy like Bill Gates could afford to bring a thousand people up from the bottom to middle-class. What they miss is that a socialist system prevents guys like Bill Gates from existing by keeping a leash on his success every step of the way.

 

[Art]

It seems a couple of clarifications are needed here -

I prefaced my earlier post with this statement

I wonder where capitalism will eventually lead to? Revolutions in the past have been driven by economic injustices where the many with little resented the few with it all.

Revolution means rapid social change and although it can include coup d'etats or armed rebellion more often than not is achieved through peaceful protest and I doubt anyone would seriously disagree that economic injustice has triggered many such revolutions.

I then listed some data which I personally found to be quite intriguing and surprising.

The full data set is available here in a report which sets out to answer the question 'Is the U.S. a Good Model for Reducing Social Exclusion in Europe?'
http://www.cepr.net/publications/social_exclusion_2006_08.pdf

Given the current data and trends it seems to me that in the long term such a system has to be unsustainable not only in the US but in all countries which are on the same curve as unchecked eventually the Gina coefficient reaches 1 whilst the intergenerational income coefficients also reaches 1 which clearly cannot happen. A bit like the Highlander series - 'In the end there can be only one'

I am not advocating socialism as a superior socio-economic model, which I get the impression some here think I am, or promoting any other socio-economic model for that matter. In fact my opinion of capitalism mirrors Churchill's quote re democracy "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Russ made the point that even Americans living in poverty in the US are relatively better off than the poor of other countries. However as Irish mothers who used to admonish their children (correctly) 'Finish your dinner there are children starving in Africa who would love to eat that' found, it failed to achieve their desired goal as the wants and desires of a citizen from another continent seemed (also correctly) totally irrelevant to the child. Equally irrelevant I suspect is the relative poverty of a poverty stricken citizen of a 3rd world country to the average 'poor' American or 'poor' European who rightly or wrongly measure their economic status against their peers.

I am interested to see if others agree that at some point things will have to change or popular social unrest will inevitably occur in highly capitalist countries and what they think of the idea that the longer the current system continues without voluntary modification the greater the forced eventual modifications will be.

 

[Milo Hobgoblin]

It seems a couple of clarifications are needed here -

I prefaced my earlier post with this statement Revolution means rapid social change and although it can include coup d'etats or armed rebellion more often than not is achieved through peaceful protest and I doubt anyone would seriously disagree that economic injustice has triggered many such revolutions.

I then listed some data which I personally found to be quite intriguing and surprising.

The full data set is available here in a report which sets out to answer the question 'Is the U.S. a Good Model for Reducing Social Exclusion in Europe?'
http://www.cepr.net/publications/social_exclusion_2006_08.pdf

Given the current data and trends it seems to me that in the long term such a system has to be unsustainable not only in the US but in all countries which are on the same curve as unchecked eventually the Gina coefficient reaches 1 whilst the intergenerational income coefficients also reaches 1 which clearly cannot happen. A bit like the Highlander series - 'In the end there can be only one'

I am not advocating socialism as a superior socio-economic model, which I get the impression some here think I am, or promoting any other socio-economic model for that matter. In fact my opinion of capitalism mirrors Churchill's quote re democracy "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Russ made the point that even Americans living in poverty in the US are relatively better off than the poor of other countries. However as Irish mothers who used to admonish their children (correctly) 'Finish your dinner there are children starving in Africa who would love to eat that' found, it failed to achieve their desired goal as the wants and desires of a citizen from another continent seemed (also correctly) totally irrelevant to the child. Equally irrelevant I suspect is the relative poverty of a poverty stricken citizen of a 3rd world country to the average 'poor' American or 'poor' European who rightly or wrongly measure their economic status against their peers.

I am interested to see if others agree that at some point things will have to change or popular social unrest will inevitably occur in highly capitalist countries and what they think of the idea that the longer the current system continues without voluntary modification the greater the forced eventual modifications will be.

First off the only "highly capitalist" country in that report is the United States.. the income tax base of the majority of the other countries listed make them .. at best capitalist-socialist hybrids.. where the 90% percentile are paying enormous taxes. At best this may bring up a certain percentage of the extremely impoverished... but the cost is MUCH greater.. your entire middle class is brought down a few notches and their standard of living is nowhere near that of someone in the same socio-economic class as their US counterpart.

This of course leads to much smaller disposable income (or desire) to put that money into capital investments.. fueling the economy and providing jobs for your "impoverished"

and while the US may have higher numbers of peopel living at your magical 40% rate.. would you like to compare the relative luxuries enjoyed by those people in the US vs many of these other countries with lower poverty rates.

and AGAIN.. would you like to compare the POPULATIONS? we have 300+ million people.. many of the countries with lower rates of poverty (again an AMBIGUOUS number at best.. having nothing to do with quality of life) have AT BEST 1/20 the population of the US.


Considering we have 300 million people to take care of.. ALONG with the rest of the world with the ridiculous amount of foreign aid we unconstitutionally send.. we manage VERY well..




Do you honestly think.. taking quality of life and more importantly POPULATION into consideration.. that socialism is in ANY WAY preferable?

as far as education goes.. table 5 if anything proves that no matter how much money you throw at the problem.. you are not going to get thatoorly prforming 10% up.. some people simply can't compete.. whether is be sloth, low intelligence, culture or a combination.

We have 12 million illegal immigranst who simply refuse to assimilate.. they don't even belong here and most speak little if ANY English.. how much do you think the bring down the averages on ALL your charts and graphs..

and the funniest part is there are more illegal aliens inthe US the the ENTIRE populations of some of your fantasy socialist Utopias. Guess WHo is paying to keep them educated, fed, medically cared for? WE ARE.

Would you also like to take into consideration teh cost of RX drugs and how many of our seniors drain the system paying for these with medicare... would you like to take into consderation we pay 2-3 times as much for these drugs (even though they are dveloped and marketed HERE) than those Euro countries you have listed.


EVERY one of those charts leaves out HUGE dependencies that affect every factor.. things countries like Norway, Ireland, Sweden take for granted..

You want a comparison..


Why don't we compare how the average family making 25k, 50k, 75k and 100k per year live in the US compared to most of those countries on your charts.

I can promise you.. those in the 3 higher income brackets not only have much mroe disposable income but MANY more daily luxuries than their Euro counterparts.



and has it ocurred to you that maybe, just maybe the people in the lwoest bracket simply don't deserve mobility.. they are unambituous, of low intelligence, excessively hedonistic and materialistic (spending ANY disposable income on comsumption)??

Why make everyone else pay to elevate those who do not deserve..??

 

[Art]

Milo your response to my post made no attempt to respond to the questions I posed.

It seems instead to first accuse the authors of partisan reporting in an attempt to discredit the information they supplied. Anyone with any knowledge of CEPR's work would realize this is blatant nonsense. Please check out their home site and review their charter and who funds them http://www.cepr.org/Home/ceprdoes.htm

Having justified to yourself totally ignoring their data and analysis you then substitute their facts with your own totally contrary personal opinions without a single reference to support your position.

You follow this up by then attacking my motivations in posting the data suggesting yet again that I am pushing a socialist model despite me stating unequivocally I am not e.g.

your fantasy socialist Utopias etc..

.

Finally you try to make it into a nationalistic issue by portraying it as a US vs the rest whilst once again I stated plainly my question re the long term durability of capitalism applied equally to all countries.

In conclusion I believe you either seriously missed the point or are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue for the benefit of other readers perhaps because you have no answer for the questions I posed?

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

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

 

[denverdoc]

I'll second that. Some business arenas require a lot of oversight/involvement to make sure the right thing is done. This is like really basic. Others are better off with less oversight. You can't argue that if left on its own a purely profit driven enterprise will act in the best interests of anything but the owners.

This has been seen time and time again where a fix is needed and the decision is that since it would cost more to correct than pay out claims, nothing is done. Usually no one goes to jail, a fine is paid and its biz at usual. Enron was a minor exception, but so egregious that if sentences weren't dealt, who knows?

 

[russ_watters]

It seems a couple of clarifications are needed here -

I prefaced my earlier post with this statement Revolution means rapid social change and although it can include coup d'etats or armed rebellion more often than not is achieved through peaceful protest and I doubt anyone would seriously disagree that economic injustice has triggered many such revolutions.

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

The full data set is available here in a report which sets out to answer the question 'Is the U.S. a Good Model for Reducing Social Exclusion in Europe?'
http://www.cepr.net/publications/social_exclusion_2006_08.pdf

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

Given the current data and trends it seems to me that in the long term such a system has to be unsustainable not only in the US but in all countries which are on the same curve as unchecked eventually the Gina coefficient reaches 1 whilst the intergenerational income coefficients also reaches 1 which clearly cannot happen. A bit like the Highlander series - 'In the end there can be only one'

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

I am not advocating socialism as a superior socio-economic model, which I get the impression some here think I am, or promoting any other socio-economic model for that matter. In fact my opinion of capitalism mirrors Churchill's quote re democracy "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

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

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

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

I am interested to see if others agree that at some point things will have to change or popular social unrest will inevitably occur in highly capitalist countries and what they think of the idea that the longer the current system continues without voluntary modification the greater the forced eventual modifications will be.

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

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[X-43D]

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

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

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

 

[Art]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[denverdoc]

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

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

Another major failure of capitalism is economic disparity.

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

The Wealth Inequality Reader

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

ibid.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

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

 

[denverdoc]

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

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

 

[denverdoc]

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

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

 

[siddharth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another major failure of capitalism is economic disparity.

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

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

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

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

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

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

camels for oil

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

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

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

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

 

[denverdoc]

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

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

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

well i think then u should start that new post !

 

[denverdoc]

well i think then u should start that new post !

OK...

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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