News USA's Moral Obligation to Spread Democracy: Thoughts?

[Burnsys]

The richest man in the world is Bill Gates - he knows software, but that's about it: he seems genuinely confused about business and economics.

i don't think he is confused about bussines and economic. if not he wouldn't be the richest man in the world...

My point is that the richests men in the world... they are the one who shape the global busines and economics.. i don't know how to explain you...

They have corporations and companies all around the world, and they manage very large amounts of money, they control global busines and economics, the rest of us, have to adapt to them..

 

[Smurf]

The richest man in the world is Bill Gates - he knows software, but that's about it: he seems genuinely confused about business and economics.

The richest man in the world is Ingvar Kamprad, founder of IKEA.
Creator of Wal-Mart would be richer if he hadn't died recently (his grand children got almost $30 bill each)
Bill Gates graduated business school with top grades if my memory serves me, and uh, isn't he dead.

This site has a different opinon:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2004&passListType=Person&searchParameter1=unset&searchParameter2=unset&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=25&resultsSortProperties=%2Bnumberfield1%2C%2Bstringfield2&resultsSortCategoryName=Rank&passKeyword=&category1=category&category2=category

 

[Smurf]

The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking. ~J.K. Galbraith

 

[vanesch]

The US and western europe have now too little capitalism. All long-term projections shows that the current welfare state cannot be supported in the future.

I'm sorry but this sounds too much as an ideology that has to be supported at all costs. The "US has too little capitalism" sounds a bit like Stalin wasn't communist enough, that's why the soviet union didn't work out.

It seems to me, as I said, that die-hard capitalist proponents make tautological statements of the kind. If something works well somewhere, it is used as an argument in support of the ideology to be defended, and if it doesn't work out, then there wasn't enough of it.

The theoretical problems with capitalism are the following:
- the market system is a kind of weighted voting system, where the more money you have, the more your vote counts (because the more you can consume and hence send out market signals). As such, there is an instability that will converge to making the rich richer and the poor poorer, with a production that is optimised to satisfy the rich.
- most market analysis is based on steady-state solutions (no time dynamics). It is not because you have a steady-state solution that the time-dependent dynamics will evolve towards it (you can have dynamical instablities, especiall when there are delays).
- there is a positive feedback, in that the "choice of the consumer" is now in a large part determined by publicity, which is financed by the producers. So there aren't the two essential poles anymore that are supposed to keep each other in balance: the producers determine demand, and they determine offer.
- because of economies of scale, there is a natural tendency to make big corporations. Normally this should be offset, from a certain size onward, by the increased overhead. But the problem is that big companies have two extra assets: first, they have more publicitary muscle and hence can change the demand at their wishes ; second, they start to be able to influence political power and can thus influence the rules of the game. So there is also a tendency towards quasi monopoly.

The two reasons why capitalism works, are much simpler: they are based upon a glorification of greed and the menace of poverty.

 

[Smurf]

Good post Vanesch, but the USSR wasn't communist, they didn't even call them selves communists but socialists, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And they weren't even very good at that.

To add to your list I think the combination of both Free Market and Free Press allows Corporations way too much control over [ultimatly the minds of] people.

 

[the number 42]

The United States has a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations

The Soviet Union has a moral obligation to spread Communist ideals in other nations

Palestine has a moral obligation to spread Islamic ideals in other nations

Hitler has a moral obligation to spread Nation Socialist ideals in other nations

Guardian readers have a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations

France has a moral obligation to spread Culinary Habits in other nations

Macdonalds has a moral obligation to spread Fast Food to other nations

Mrs Smith has a moral obligation to spread her Morally Upright views to her neighbours

etc

Ever helped an old lady across the road, then found out she didn't want to cross in the first place? Do unto others as THEY would have you do unto them.

 

[vanesch]

The richest man in the world is Bill Gates - he knows software

He doesn't !

 

[vanesch]

And unfortunately capitalists have often been promoters of less capitalism, if this can reduce competition against their own business.

You seem to start to understand the fundamental problem of capitalism. Consider this "promotion of less capitalism" as a market signal, coming from successful agents

 

[Aquamarine]

I'm sorry but this sounds too much as an ideology that has to be supported at all costs. The "US has too little capitalism" sounds a bit like Stalin wasn't communist enough, that's why the soviet union didn't work out.

It seems to me, as I said, that die-hard capitalist proponents make tautological statements of the kind. If something works well somewhere, it is used as an argument in support of the ideology to be defended, and if it doesn't work out, then there wasn't enough of it.

The theoretical problems with capitalism are the following:
- the market system is a kind of weighted voting system, where the more money you have, the more your vote counts (because the more you can consume and hence send out market signals). As such, there is an instability that will converge to making the rich richer and the poor poorer, with a production that is optimised to satisfy the rich.
- most market analysis is based on steady-state solutions (no time dynamics). It is not because you have a steady-state solution that the time-dependent dynamics will evolve towards it (you can have dynamical instablities, especiall when there are delays).
- there is a positive feedback, in that the "choice of the consumer" is now in a large part determined by publicity, which is financed by the producers. So there aren't the two essential poles anymore that are supposed to keep each other in balance: the producers determine demand, and they determine offer.
- because of economies of scale, there is a natural tendency to make big corporations. Normally this should be offset, from a certain size onward, by the increased overhead. But the problem is that big companies have two extra assets: first, they have more publicitary muscle and hence can change the demand at their wishes ; second, they start to be able to influence political power and can thus influence the rules of the game. So there is also a tendency towards quasi monopoly.

The two reasons why capitalism works, are much simpler: they are based upon a glorification of greed and the menace of poverty.

All empirically proven wrong. The more capitalism, the less poverty.

And since all people become richer in capitalism, then the corporations produce for all. There is not much money in luxury goods for the super-rich, most big corporations make money by products for the common people.

Redgarding the supposed influence of the corporations on politics, it seems to have failed miserably. Taxes and socialization of the economy have increased dramatically all through the 20th century.

Regarding advertisement:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Advertising.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BrandNames.html

And you seem to have no knowledge of theoretical economics. I suggest reading something by for example MIses.

 

[Aquamarine]

Of Course they are smart about economics, at leats capitalist elite, i don't know about comunist or islamic elite. But great part of capitalist elite are bankers, and of course a banker know about economics, they mabe be promote less capitalism in countrys of the first world. but overhere they have no competition, couse they have bougth it all with loans from their banks..

Here 90% of the market is owned by 2 communications companies,, 1 french, 1 from italy, 1 Water service company from usa, 3 oil companies: 2 from usa, 1 from spain, 1 electric company from usa, 1 bank from every first world country, the rest which represent less than 20% is left to us.. the same happen with the food industry, electronic, mining, clothes, automovile, etc... they bougth it all with loans.. they have no more competition here..
i don't say capitalism is harmfull, but "This Capitalism" USA is spreading in the world, by the use of brutal force, or by extorsion becouse of the debts, is not good.

Don't again bring in the conspiracy by bankers. Most rich people are not bankers.

Many rich people of course have knowledge of how to make money in a particular field like software or furniture. This doesn't mean that they know much about macro economics.

Many political leaders, like Roosevelt, knows little about economics.

Again regarding Argentina, is has very little capitalism which is why it has in a remarkably short period of time moved from having living standard equal to that of western Europe to its present misery. If you wang to get rich again, stop blaming others for conspiracy and start going the way of Hong Kong.
http://cf.heritage.org/index2004test/country2.cfm?id=Argentina

 

[the number 42]

Again regarding Argentina, is has very little capitalism which is why it has in a remarkably short period of time moved from having living standard equal to that of western Europe to its present misery. If you wang to get rich again, stop blaming others for conspiracy and start going the way of Hong Kong.

If you think everyone else in the world wants to "get rich", you are mistaken. Try to get your mind around this notion: not everyone wants the things that YOU want. As for blaming others & conspiracy theories... now THAT'S rich.

 

[vanesch]

All empirically proven wrong. The more capitalism, the less poverty.

And since all people become richer in capitalism, then the corporations produce for all. There is not much money in luxury goods for the super-rich, most big corporations make money by products for the common people.

Redgarding the supposed influence of the corporations on politics, it seems to have failed miserably. Taxes and socialization of the economy have increased dramatically all through the 20th century.

Regarding advertisement:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Advertising.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BrandNames.html

And you seem to have no knowledge of theoretical economics. I suggest reading something by for example MIses.

Concerning my knowledge, it is true that I only had basic courses on micro and macro economics, like Byrns and Stone and Eaton and Eaton. It always looked pathetically simplistic to me, as compared to, say, classical mechanics.
The articles you cite are of a similar nature, concerning advertising.
But it doesn't adress the points I was making: that MOST of western economic activity serves to make useless junk, such as 3th generation mobile phones or reality TV shows. Such markets are totally created out of nothing by massive publicity, which, by itself, has been decided by the corporations making this stuff in the first place.
If you think that this is not true, I had a friend who worked in a society that did analysis on the efficiency of publicity, especially for Coca Cola. There is a very close correlation between the ads shown on TV and the consumption, with a delay of one or two days. Once they had a surprise: a peak in the sales data with no correlation in extra advertising. They quickly found out what it was: on a foreign TV chain (which is available), there was a football game and there was an ad for Coca Cola. It seems that the consumer is an almost mindless being, which consumes whatever ads he gets under his nose. The very fact that advertising is an important activity means that it works. The fact that it works, proves my point. What is scaring is the efficiency with which it works!

 

[Aquamarine]

But it doesn't adress the points I was making: that MOST of western economic activity serves to make useless junk, such as 3th generation mobile phones or reality TV shows. Such markets are totally created out of nothing by massive publicity, which, by itself, has been decided by the corporations making this stuff in the first place.
If you think that this is not true, I had a friend who worked in a society that did analysis on the efficiency of publicity, especially for Coca Cola. There is a very close correlation between the ads shown on TV and the consumption, with a delay of one or two days. Once they had a surprise: a peak in the sales data with no correlation in extra advertising. They quickly found out what it was: on a foreign TV chain (which is available), there was a football game and there was an ad for Coca Cola. It seems that the consumer is an almost mindless being, which consumes whatever ads he gets under his nose. The very fact that advertising is an important activity means that it works. The fact that it works, proves my point. What is scaring is the efficiency with which it works!

It seems that the anti-capitalists have now been forced to retreat to the second line of defense. That although capitalism reduces poverty and increases wealth, this is bad.

Who are you to decide what people should see on TV or what telephones they buy with their own money? This is the common socialistic idea that people are too stupid or too easily manipulated to decide for themselves. Instead, this must be decided by central planners. This is ignoring the fact that the people as whole has much greater processing power than a small group of dictators. There is simply no way that the planners can see and process as much data as when the people as a whole participate. ´

Please enlighten us on what goods freely choosen today is undesirable. TV shows that you dislike? Music that you dislike? Food that you dislike?

Regarding advertising, did you actually read the links in my previous post? Do you actually think that any amount of advertising can sell 286 computers for the same price att Pentium computers? Or could sell Doom 1 for the same price as Doom 3? Or could sell soft drinks with salt instead of suger?

Of course, advertising makes people try out new products. Why otherwise pay for it? But advertising for a bad product is money badly spent. Advertising works best for good products that otherwise would not be used and are used again.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092004I.html
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/economics/freeenterpriseandentrepreneurship/advertising.html

 

[Smurf]

Aquamarine, what is the most capitalist country in the world right now? In your opinion?

 

[Astronuc]

And since all people become richer in capitalism, then the corporations produce for all.

That is the standard propaganda. In actuality, more Americans are living in poverty than when Bush took office.

Redgarding the supposed influence of the corporations on politics, it seems to have failed miserably.

Corporate contributions to Bush have paid off for many corportations - less regulation, less enforcement, more tax credits (if they pay taxes), corporate welfare.

Start with Graydon Carter's book, "What We've Lost".

Interesting parallels between Bush administration and those of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover (which lead to the Great Depression).

The US should start to see a decrease in standard of living and longevity within the next decade.

As for exporting democracy - would be nice if it were true - but the current administration is about manipulation and control - exporting democracy (true democracy) is unlikely.

Read Paul Krugman's "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century".

Of course there's always Fox News, The Cato Institute and the Washington Times.

 

[Smurf]

While your at it read anything by Noam Chomsky too and subscribe to adbusters.

 

[vanesch]

It seems that the anti-capitalists have now been forced to retreat to the second line of defense. That although capitalism reduces poverty and increases wealth, this is bad.

You're looking in too binary a way. I'm not an "anti-capitalist" if you understand by that an opposer of free market and trade, I said that from the beginning. I do believe that the free market and free trade creates a great deal of wealth and entertainment. What I'm arguing with is the ideology that the free market and trade ALL BY ITSELF solve all problems in the best way thinkable (this ideology is what is called capitalism). I'm arguing that state regulation in order to impose certain political goals a society might have is an option that is not necessarily a bad thing, EVEN if it leads to a lower GNP.
The ideal capitalist society has a state that has only one function: that is the protection of property and keeping public order, together with a justice department that solves quarrels among economic agents, and a very small amount of taxes is raised to do so. You don't even need politicians or elections or democracy for that. The function is so minimal that it doesn't matter who organizes it. All the rest is done by the market mechanism, and private initiative. No wellfare, public research, public health care. I'm telling you that I can imagine societies that don't want to live that way. An example of a political desire that cannot be realized is that poor people cannot send out any market signals anymore, so their needs are not taken into account. Society will allocate more ressources to make mobile phones, instead of solving their, much more basic problems.
I think that a certain amount of state regulation is needed, in order to impose a political view of society. And that is blasphemy in the ears of capitalists.

 

[vanesch]

Who are you to decide what people should see on TV or what telephones they buy with their own money? This is the common socialistic idea that people are too stupid or too easily manipulated to decide for themselves. Instead, this must be decided by central planners. This is ignoring the fact that the people as whole has much greater processing power than a small group of dictators. There is simply no way that the planners can see and process as much data as when the people as a whole participate. ´

Yes, yes, you know your courses very well ; I read those arguments too in my books
I'm not AGAINST telephones or Doom 27. I just wanted to illustrate that the allocation of ressources is not always in line with what one might like, politically. Maybe I'm the only one, but I find it ridiculous that a society allocates ressources to improve upon cellular phones, while there are people starving or dying of cold in winter. I don't want to impose that, but I COULD think that certain societies want to have as a political goal that one first tries to solve THAT problem and that one then thinks about mobile phones.
What I wanted to indicate was that that super processing power of all the people is biased by the amount of money they can spend.
Now I don't MIND allocating PART of what people would like to allocate to the fabricate mobile phones, if another part is allocated to solving the problem of the guy who's starving. That will of course make mobile phones slightly more expensive. What I'm describing here is TAXES and as such, some market regulation. I think that that can be a good thing.

 

[vanesch]

Regarding advertising, did you actually read the links in my previous post? Do you actually think that any amount of advertising can sell 286 computers for the same price att Pentium computers? Or could sell Doom 1 for the same price as Doom 3? Or could sell soft drinks with salt instead of suger?

There's a small scandal over here, right now: Danone sold (is still selling) a "miraculous energetic drink" called Actimel. I too bought lots of it, especially for my kid, even though it is quite expensive. Now it turns out that those tiny bottles contain... milk with some sugar. Even the marketing director of Danone is poking fun at people: "Ok, this was a well-thought campain, but even in my wildest dreams I didn't think I would sell so much ordinary milk at such incredible prices"

 

[vanesch]

That although capitalism reduces poverty and increases wealth, this is bad.

This is an honest question: does the following statistic exist somewhere:
A measure of the average living standard (depends on how you define it: say, the value spent on/by, for food, housing and health care) of the 5% poorest people in a nation ?

 

[Aquamarine]

Regarding if capitalism has reduced poverty and what capitalism is, see the first my first two posts here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47317

The most capitalistic nations today can be found here at Exhibit 1.2:
http://www.freetheworld.com/2004/efw2004ch1.pdf
Also look at Exhibit 1.6-1.18 for some correlations of economic freedom, for example with life expectancy, child mortality, child labor, access to water and corruption.

Another graphic illustration of the importance of growth and the greatness of Pax Americana:
http://www.whc.ki.se/index.php

 

[Aquamarine]

Regarding the Bush administration, it has not been particularly capitalistic. Is has increased both military and non-military more than most. For a comparison to other recent presidents:
http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/bush/images/fig5-592x391.gif

Free trade:

You ran in 2000 as a “free trade president.” Since you took office, you’ve imposed tariffs on steel, shrimp, furniture, lumber, sugar, lingerie, wire, computer chips, catfish, cotton, textiles, clothing, and flowers, to name just a few. You also signed a $190 billion bill to reinstate the federal farm subsidies program, which was scheduled to be phased out. Are these the policies of a “free trade president?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127374,00.html

 

[vanesch]

The most capitalistic nations today can be found here at Exhibit 1.2:
http://www.freetheworld.com/2004/efw2004ch1.pdf
Also look at Exhibit 1.6-1.18 for some correlations of economic freedom, for example with life expectancy, child mortality, child labor, access to water and corruption.

Thanks, that's interesting. So I'm perfectly well where I am actually, in the second percentile Indeed, except for income per capita, all the other parameters are ok. There's the biggest literacy

The statistic that surprises me is that relative income of the 10% poorest people is completely independent of economic organisation. But it indicates that if you provide free health care, housing and schooling for all, that the poor don't suffer so much from their poor income situation, from the moment that you have a reasonably free economy (say above 6 in the document). But that's exactly what I was saying, no ? A reasonable economic organisation has a large part of free market in it. Honestly, above 6 or so, the differences are marginal, except for the average income per capita, which doesn't indicate much because you have to take care about the relative cost of living.

Now, one has to be careful with the results presented in what you showed, because *correlations* do not mean causal relationships per se.

 

[Aquamarine]

There's a small scandal over here, right now: Danone sold (is still selling) a "miraculous energetic drink" called Actimel. I too bought lots of it, especially for my kid, even though it is quite expensive. Now it turns out that those tiny bottles contain... milk with some sugar. Even the marketing director of Danone is poking fun at people: "Ok, this was a well-thought campain, but even in my wildest dreams I didn't think I would sell so much ordinary milk at such incredible prices"

If there was false information, it was fraud which should be punished by the state.

You're looking in too binary a way. I'm not an "anti-capitalist" if you understand by that an opposer of free market and trade, I said that from the beginning. I do believe that the free market and free trade creates a great deal of wealth and entertainment. What I'm arguing with is the ideology that the free market and trade ALL BY ITSELF solve all problems in the best way thinkable (this ideology is what is called capitalism). I'm arguing that state regulation in order to impose certain political goals a society might have is an option that is not necessarily a bad thing, EVEN if it leads to a lower GNP.
The ideal capitalist society has a state that has only one function: that is the protection of property and keeping public order, together with a justice department that solves quarrels among economic agents, and a very small amount of taxes is raised to do so. You don't even need politicians or elections or democracy for that. The function is so minimal that it doesn't matter who organizes it. All the rest is done by the market mechanism, and private initiative. No wellfare, public research, public health care. I'm telling you that I can imagine societies that don't want to live that way. An example of a political desire that cannot be realized is that poor people cannot send out any market signals anymore, so their needs are not taken into account. Society will allocate more ressources to make mobile phones, instead of solving their, much more basic problems.
I think that a certain amount of state regulation is needed, in order to impose a political view of society. And that is blasphemy in the ears of capitalists.

Interesting discussion. Actually, there are many necessary regulations that cannot easily be decided even in the most capitalistic society. For example, why should patents be protected 20 years and not 10 years? And why can one not patent a certain way to organize business or a new mathematical idea? The patent laws have been decided arbitrarily without evidence that the current way is the best.

And is not possible to know the best way by controlling all variables in experiments on the scale of societies. So to me it seems that the best way is social darwinism. That is, there should be many small societies that compete with somewhat different laws. That way, better laws will emerge through competition. I think that the primary reason that Europe and not China discovered capitalism was that there are more geographical barriers in Europe. This prevented a centralized state and allowed more competition between different systems of law.

Regarding the poor you are wrong. Since capitalism reduces poverty and raises income for all, then corporations will seek the favors of even those with the lowest income. Again, most money is not made from luxury goods to the super-rich but from goods to the common people.

Regarding if money should be taken from telephones to those starving in the third world, the more general question is if the capitalistic countries should provide more foreign aid. One basic problem is that people do not want to do that. If they wanted, they could already give more money to various aid organizations. There is no capitalistic conspiracy that prevents people from giving. Another problem is that foreign aid don't work:
http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/302.html
http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy.html

 

[vanesch]

I think that the primary reason that Europe and not China discovered capitalism was that there are more geographical barriers in Europe. This prevented a centralized state and allowed more competition between different systems of law.

Your argument remains intact, but I thought that the discoverers of capitalism were the Mesopotamians (Babylon and all the city states around). They had banks, for instance (but probably no stock options). The Iraqis, say

 

[vanesch]

There's a point, though, that I'd like to discuss. The EU is pushing a far more capitalistic view of things than the US (I'm not talking about the countries making up the EU, but the European Commission).
As I said before, in general, this is not a bad thing. But there are points where I have the impression that it is more out of ideology than out of pragmatism. So, for instance, they are pushing to liberate completely the market for electricity and for railroads. Personally, I don't think that that's a good idea, because these are systems that work particularly well in continental Europe, and concerning railroads, the British did liberate it years ago, and their system is a mess as compared to the continental (government organized) one. Look at the German ICE or the French TGV, it is innovative, the prices are acceptable and the service is, if not perfect, quite good.
I would think that these are typical areas where it is maybe better to have state gouvernance, which can see on longer terms, make very big investments, use implementations that take into account social as well as economic factors.

 

[Aquamarine]

Thanks, that's interesting. So I'm perfectly well where I am actually, in the second percentile Indeed, except for income per capita, all the other parameters are ok. There's the biggest literacy

The statistic that surprises me is that relative income of the 10% poorest people is completely independent of economic organisation. But it indicates that if you provide free health care, housing and schooling for all, that the poor don't suffer so much from their poor income situation, from the moment that you have a reasonably free economy (say above 6 in the document). But that's exactly what I was saying, no ? A reasonable economic organisation has a large part of free market in it. Honestly, above 6 or so, the differences are marginal, except for the average income per capita, which doesn't indicate much because you have to take care about the relative cost of living.

Now, one has to be careful with the results presented in what you showed, because *correlations* do not mean causal relationships per se.

I find it strange that anyone would not want to be in the most capitalistic group. Considering for example that the poorest 10% in that group have about double the income of the next group.

And the importance of a high income will probably just increase in the future, making inclusion in the first group even more important. For example, there is much research on the cause of aging. In the near future, there may be drugs that increases life expectancy significantly beyond our current biological limits. But they are likely to be very expensive as all new drugs thanks to increasing regulation.

It is true that correlations is not causality. You can find the evidence for that here. Many of those papers not linked can be found by searching for the title with google, on the hompages of the authors:
http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html

 

[Aquamarine]

There's a point, though, that I'd like to discuss. The EU is pushing a far more capitalistic view of things than the US (I'm not talking about the countries making up the EU, but the European Commission).
As I said before, in general, this is not a bad thing. But there are points where I have the impression that it is more out of ideology than out of pragmatism. So, for instance, they are pushing to liberate completely the market for electricity and for railroads. Personally, I don't think that that's a good idea, because these are systems that work particularly well in continental Europe, and concerning railroads, the British did liberate it years ago, and their system is a mess as compared to the continental (government organized) one. Look at the German ICE or the French TGV, it is innovative, the prices are acceptable and the service is, if not perfect, quite good.
I would think that these are typical areas where it is maybe better to have state gouvernance, which can see on longer terms, make very big investments, use implementations that take into account social as well as economic factors.

Regarding the advantages of privatization in different areas:
http://www.rppi.org/privwatch.shtml

For example electricity or surface transportation:
http://www.rppi.org/electricity/
http://www.rppi.org/surfacetransportation/index.html

Or similarly from cato:
http://www.cato.org/research/regulatory-studies/index.html

 

[vanesch]

I find it strange that anyone would not want to be in the most capitalistic group. Considering for example that the poorest 10% in that group have about double the income of the next group.

The very fact that you find that strange means that maybe not everybody has the same mindset . That's ok.

I tried to explain why: it doesn't matter that they have lower absolute income, when their basic needs are provided for free. What's better: to earn $6000 a year, but to have to buy, as anyone else, health care, housing, food, schooling for the children, or to earn $3000, but have free health care, almost free housing (you pay a symbolic rent), you have to buy food, and schooling is free ?

In the near future, there may be drugs that increases life expectancy significantly beyond our current biological limits. But they are likely to be very expensive as all new drugs thanks to increasing regulation.

This is more an illustration of what I tried to point out all the time: that's only for people with money, right ? Is it better that, say, one third of the population can afford itself such products, or that there is a minimum health care for everybody ? Should you be able to prolongue your life while someone else, 4 streets further half your age, dies of the flu because he didn't get a shot against it ?

You might be of that opinion. In that case, you can push for YOUR nation to adopt such a scheme. But please, please, do not impose it on everybody (especially not with bombs) - which was the starting point of this discussion.

 

[Aquamarine]

I tried to explain why: it doesn't matter that they have lower absolute income, when their basic needs are provided for free. What's better: to earn $6000 a year, but to have to buy, as anyone else, health care, housing, food, schooling for the children, or to earn $3000, but have free health care, almost free housing (you pay a symbolic rent), you have to buy food, and schooling is free ?

This is more an illustration of what I tried to point out all the time: that's only for people with money, right ? Is it better that, say, one third of the population can afford itself such products, or that there is a minimum health care for everybody ? Should you be able to prolongue your life while someone else, 4 streets further half your age, dies of the flu because he didn't get a shot against it ?

You fail to see the importance of a high absolute gdp/capita. There is simply no way that a country with a low gdp/capita can provide good health care, even if everybody has the same income. If very expensive longevity drugs become available, only those countries with the highest gpd/capita will be able to afford them. And the higher gpd/capita in these countries, the more of the population can get them. It is not possible to give this to all if the gpd/capita is low enough.

And you are ignoring that the most capitalistic group score higher on all measures compared to the second group except the very close literacy. For example about 50% less infant mortality or corruption.

 

[vanesch]

And you are ignoring that the most capitalistic group score higher on all measures compared to the second group except the very close literacy. For example about 50% less infant mortality or corruption.

Yes, statistics are great. I was born in Belgium (number 18 on the list), which ranks much higher on the list than France (number 44), where I live now. Socially, life is, in general, better in France, honestly (but in fact, the difference isn't that important). I have way higher income, for instance, and better social security coverage. (I think that France will rise on the list, because the current gouvernment here is working towards it.)
But when you look at the list, you see that the top of the list are the West and some rich oil states. Most third world nations rank lower. So you shouldn't be surprised to find better statistics for that first group!
Now, is it because capitalism makes countries rich ? Or is it because rich countries tend to embrace capitalism ?

 

[Aquamarine]

Yes, statistics are great. I was born in Belgium (number 18 on the list), which ranks much higher on the list than France (number 44), where I live now. Socially, life is, in general, better in France, honestly (but in fact, the difference isn't that important). I have way higher income, for instance, and better social security coverage. (I think that France will rise on the list, because the current gouvernment here is working towards it.)
But when you look at the list, you see that the top of the list are the West and some rich oil states. Most third world nations rank lower. So you shouldn't be surprised to find better statistics for that first group!
Now, is it because capitalism makes countries rich ? Or is it because rich countries tend to embrace capitalism ?

I have already commented on this:

It is true that correlations is not causality. You can find the evidence for that here. Many of those papers not linked can be found by searching for the title with google, on the hompages of the authors:
http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html

 

[Smurf]

Regarding if money should be taken from telephones to those starving in the third world, the more general question is if the capitalistic countries should provide more foreign aid. One basic problem is that people do not want to do that. If they wanted, they could already give more money to various aid organizations. There is no capitalistic conspiracy that prevents people from giving. Another problem is that foreign aid don't work:

It's not so much wether you should take money out of your telephones and put it into the third world so much as you should stop taking it out of the third world to put in your telephones.

 

[seeker03]

Hmm... it was mentioned in the beggining, but this is the topic for the November-December time period for the Lincoln Douglas Scholastic debate circuit and affirmative is getting OWNED MASSIVELY. I've workd on about 18 different possible arguements and neither of them work out as there are incredibely obvious counter-arguements that are powerfull in their simplicity. I've reached the same conclusion as the author in that it is impossible to have a vague hope of defending unless one defines democratic ideals in a more liberal sense to be a general set of acts or thought processes that the people have. (ie, listening to the voice of all the people+each individual counts)


If you define democratic ideals to mean that, it delivers simply based on the aforementioned Moral Imperative that we have a moral obligation to spread the word of this moral system where the voice of all is what matters.

 

[Canute]

Vanesch

You make some very good points. But I wonder if it is possible to have a sensible discussion about these issues. It seems to me that the American public are as misinformed as to the nature of the world outside the US as the Russian public were of of the world outside the USSR under Stalin.

I don't mean to offend anyone too much by this. All of us are at the mercy of our media and those who manipulate public information. But there seems to be a frightening lack of cynicism and political sophistication among US voters. It seems many still believe that the Iraq war was about 9/11. I wonder just how many Americans know why Bin Laden went to so much trouble, and why so many were prepared to lay down their lives, to bomb New York.

It also seems that the patently absurd idea of declaring a global war on terrorism is still seen as sensible. One supposes that the sudden increase in global terrorism that followed this declaration is seen as a coincidence. Personally I find the idea that nobody is allowed to fight for their freedom is ridiculous. I suppose if Robin Hood were alive the B52's would be over Sherwood Forest.

I recently heard a Russian who had fought in Afganistan talking about how he and other servicemen had been lied to by their government about the need for the war, his regret that it had ever been fought, and his embarrassment that he had accepted the bull**** at the time. Plus ca change.

Mind you, I'm ashamed to say that Britain went to war as well. Suddenly I gained great respect for the French. I never met one single person who thought, before it started, that we should go to war in Iraq, and I have never met one since. But we did it all the same. At least we have since publicly clarified that our PM lied and cheated to get his chance to make a name for himself (as everyone I know knew at the time). I like to think his career is as dead as Bush's should have been. But who knows, one person one vote democracy being what it is.

 

[Smurf]

Vanesch
I recently heard a Russian who had fought in Afganistan talking about how he and other servicemen had been lied to by their government about the need for the war, his regret that it had ever been fought, and his embarrassment that he had accepted the bull**** at the time. Plus ca change.

A but he was russian, and thus must've been subjected to communist propoganda about the 'evil capitalists' by the government run media. The west isn't like that at all... right?

 

[vanesch]

At least we have since publicly clarified that our PM lied and cheated to get his chance to make a name for himself (as everyone I know knew at the time). I like to think his career is as dead as Bush's should have been. But who knows, one person one vote democracy being what it is.

Well, I'm probably very naive, but I didn't have *such* a bad impression of Blair. Do you think he knew and lied, or was he just tricked into it by the Bush administration ? I had the impression that he honestly thought that the Bush administration was right and just blindly followed. I do remember that he went completely against his public opinion (like the monster demonstrations proved).

 

[Smurf]

Are you not aware that Bush and Blair are still planning stuff together? Obviously if he was tricked into it he doesn't care and has his own agenda with Bush. I really got almost a worse opinion of Blair than I did Bush mainly because he's the epitimy of British Me-Tooism

 

[studentx]

Its a bit hypocrite to blame Blair for believing Saddam had WMD.

 

[Smurf]

why? Why is it hipocritical to blame Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain (England? UK? whichever it is), who is briefed by the MI5, one of the most capable intelligence agencies in the world, for going into war with no reason?

 

[russ_watters]

Personally I find the idea that nobody is allowed to fight for their freedom is ridiculous.

Since when is Bin Laden fighting for his freedom?

 

[kat]

Since when were the men who were welcomed in our country, went to our schools worked for our businesses, given them same freedoms we have...fighting for freedom?

 

[vanesch]

Since when is Bin Laden fighting for his freedom?

Always that same mix-up! Nobody likes Bin Laden, and he's of the worst kind of terrorists. Any crack-down on him is probably welcomed by 99.9% of the world population. However, the general impression outside the US is that the "global war on terrorism" that followed, was a bit too general, say. In that people who, according to the dictionary, were "terrorists" were maybe involved in a slightly more complicated conflict than that such a black/white simplism allows for. And that some violent actions undertaken in that framework of "let's check the dictionary whether you're a good or a bad boy... ah, you're a bad boy: CABOOM" were maybe not the best way to tackle the problem posed by a very small minority of people such as Bin Laden. It misses, say, subtlety.

 

[Burnsys]

Since when is the people fighting in philipines. in ivory coast, in irak, afganistan, Colombia and chechenia fighting for bin laden?

wait a minute... Bin laden and his ghostly sleppings cells all around the world getting ready to attack america becouse they hate freedom and the free people... Russss, i think you are beliving the wrong Conspiracy Theories...
Couse if bin laden and his network of terrorist is not a conspiracy theory, of which you don't have any proof... then we are all free...

 

[LDthinker]

I would like to make the observation that the original post, the question at hand, refers specifically to democratic ideals, not democracy. But there is a connection - democracies are based on democratic ideals. I would like to know what a proper list of democratic ideals is.