News Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[Art]

I didn't miss the central point, I just chose to address something else. It's unavoidable when your perspective of the world is rather different than most people in the forum.

lol sorry Smurf it's the way I phrased it. I meant that you, Alex and me all interpreted it one way whilst LYN read it another.

 

[Smurf]

lol sorry Smurf it's the way I phrased it. I meant that you, Alex and me all interpreted it one way whilst LYN read it another.

Ah *shrug* I havn't really been following. It seems ever since I posted that fancy words thread everyone's stopped arguing about politics and started arguing about arguing.

 

[McGyver]

Role of Invisible Hand in Free Market Economics

Let me first make the distinction between Capitalism, and Free Market Economics.
Free Market is an "economic theory" which the West has had in practice for hundreds of years. Capitalism, on the other hand, in its more precise language, is a practice under "Free Market" economics and today also a buzz "term" used by politicians and business to describe our "Free Market." The distinction between the two - is that a "Free Market" requires an active and vibrant role of an "invisible hand," or the will of consumers and market participants to maintain order in the marketplace, independant of outside intervention. In its most strict interpretation - it negates ANY need for government regulation/intervention in managing our marketplace. Yet, experiences have proven this stricter view not to be so wise, i.e. Taft-Hartley Act, unions and anti-trust, the 1930s and 1988 stock market crashes, savings and loan collapse, thousands of federal and state regulatory agencies, mis-reporting of corporate accounting data (new Sarbanes-Oxley), and the list goes on. Both the U.S. and EU Free Market systems have accepted a "given" amount of oversight, where EU is viewed as being more socialistic, yet it generally has less stringent regulations than here in the U.S.
In order for Capitalism to work effectively, as demanded by conservatives, it too must incorpate the "invisible hand." Yet, as much as so many groups decry various forms of government intervention, these same companies and organizations are quick to ask for "special consideration" from government when it dis-proportionately favors their own interests - and this is the "corruption factor" in the U.S. political process, where industries, companies, unions, and organizations try to exert their desidered "dysfunctional influence" over the true Free Market system.
The reality is that business in the U.S. is creating a new form of "Capitalistic," that appears more Imperialistic, a bit of a "Dictatorship," and certainly less "Free Market." These changes and clever "mis-use" of the term, "Free Market," then seems a bit contradictory. This is quite evident today when one examines how government policy is being used to evolve this new form of Capitalism, in such things as tax advantages for corporations who outsource overseas, unchecked exorbitant executive compensation (Disney-Ovizt challenge) which a federal Court upheld as not given to Disney board negligence, lucrative no-bid government contracts, doing away with affirmative action, and even, yes even government intervention in family planning matters, medical care, and abortion.
Even many U.S. industries and the U.S. Supreme Court have mis-understood "Free Market." In the USSC's recent Groekster file sharing decision, I don't believe they ever considered the music industry's long-standing practice of making "hit" songs only commercially available through the purchase of an entire CD or record. For many years, consumers were forced to pay "over market price" for music they wanted. Where was the Free Market? It emerged as new Internet file sharing software and sites like Napster. One could say that the marketplace remedied itself!
If the United States truly desires to have a "Free Market" within its business and consumer marketplace, or "Capitalism" as so many political operatives cleverly interchangibly use - then it MUST be willing to walk the talk, to more freely let the marketplace remedy itself. In these instances, the "Invisible Hand" also includes the roles of the civil courts, free speech, equal rights, and equal opportunities. Neither the political Left, nor Right, can have it both ways. True Capitalism must acknowledge the pivitol role of the "Invisible Hand."
For more on my perspectives, please view www.diaceph.com
Stephen Dolle
Dolle Communications

 

[Smurf]

McGyver that's one of the greatest posts ever. I think Adam Smith is easily one of the most misunderstood intellectuals in our culture today.

 

[McGyver]

McGyver that's one of the greatest posts ever. I think Adam Smith is easily one of the most misunderstood intellectuals in our culture today.

Thanks for the kudos. Many people ask me why I take the time to author elaborate discussions on a number of these Internet forums. I think it is because of topics just like this... it causes me to REALLY think ... and then enables me to put these thoughts and inspiration into words. You should see me in rare form at one of my local coffee shops.

 

[Smurf]

I especially liked the Grokster and Napster analogy. I never thought of that.

 

[Skyhunter]

Excellent post McGyver.

What is wrong with capitalism is that the free market is too often seen as an end in and of itself. I view capitalism as an evolutionary step in social evolution. Eventually the profit motive will be augmented by a service motive. At which time society will face it's next institutional crisis, whatever that may be.

 

[loseyourname]

I have read ALL of the posts in this thread which given your comments below vis a vis "it might have been you said this or maybe it was Smurf etc..." it would appear you haven't.
I thought you had missed the central point as did Smurf and having read Alex's recent posts it is clear she thought you did too. Is it just possible that we are right and you are wrong?

Art, if her point was something other than what she actually said, how am I to blame for not knowing her point? I can only evaluate what she actually says. Since I've quoted her twice now, including one quotation that was specifically the single sentence that constituted her claim, I'm not going to bother doing it again.

Personally I'd prefer if you evaluated what I actually did say rather than what you thought I might have said.

I apologize then. However, I'm sure you realize that we're arguing here largely over what somewhat else claimed; not what you claimed.

I never once mentioned privitisation nor sought to prove or disprove a causative link. As you missed it twice already I'll repeat myself a third time. I expressly said that the data suggests that there may be zero correlation between capitalism and prosperity.

Okay, I cannot really argue with a claim that says only that a certain data set might suggest something. You'll understand if I'm also not particularly impressed by such a weak claim.

In case you did read it but didn't understand what that means, it means no causative effect. I find it difficult to reconcile your claim to be trying to raise the standard of debate on this forum with the approach you have taken on this matter.

I apologize again, then. I am trying, Art. If you think I'm insincere and really do not care about the quality of forum discussion, just come out and say it.

 

[McGyver]

Excellent post McGyver.
What is wrong with capitalism is that the free market is too often seen as an end in and of itself. I view capitalism as an evolutionary step in social evolution. Eventually the profit motive will be augmented by a service motive. At which time society will face it's next institutional crisis, whatever that may be.

Skyhunter:

I'm not sure of your point that the "the free market is too often seen as an end in and of itself." The free market merely defines the economic rules, just as does math formula for solving an equation. The specific boundaries of the free market system are then set by the legislative bodies, and enforced by the judicial system. Present day capitalism is that which is defined by each nation, and their own economic and social priorities. It is evolutionary, but not necessarily that of a social order, rather, it is a necessity for business and commerce, and now more than ever today, international commerce.

The "profit" motive is, I believe, the most crucial component of the free market system. Yes, it is based upon "greed," but its inherent value lies in encouraging individuals to work, and to work smartly and efficiently, for rewards and return - all under their own free will and via "positive reinforcement." Reward doesn't always have to be monetary. It can also include increased self worth, confidence, and the well being attained through solid teamwork. Over the years, I have managed people of all ages, undoubtedly my most memorable experiences having been what I observed in managing youth sports. Kids don't play for money, or for their parents approval. They play because they begin to see their own self advancement, successful teamwork, and how it changees their lives for the better. Adults are much the same - it's just that our "needs" are more economic.

Regarding your point that the profit motive will be augmented by a service motive, I think that already came and mostly went with the extreme solialists movements and communism in EU-Asia, and it proved not to withstand the evolutionary test of time. As for our next institutional crises, I think it is already here - as computers have begun erasing the need for human labor, and enabling vast amounts of outsourcing to far away lands. But, as all things are cyclical, that too will evolve and change, and I believe if the U.S. can adhere to free market principle's, if we can weather the storm and if politicians can refrain from becoming short term opportunists, that those impacted by outsourcing and computerization today will emerge as new benefactors of the next new economy.

I realize this is asking a lot of those persons and political leaders in the U.S. with the wherewithall, and the will, to try to take it all. But, history is filled with so many who have tried and failed, and what's different and more encouraging today is our incredible advances in information made possible through global communications. Call me an optimist!

 

[Skyhunter]

Skyhunter:
I'm not sure of your point that the "the free market is too often seen as an end in and of itself." The free market merely defines the economic rules, just as does math formula for solving an equation. The specific boundaries of the free market system are then set by the legislative bodies, and enforced by the judicial system. Present day capitalism is that which is defined by each nation, and their own economic and social priorities. It is evolutionary, but not necessarily that of a social order, rather, it is a necessity for business and commerce, and now more than ever today, international commerce.
The "profit" motive is, I believe, the most crucial component of the free market system. Yes, it is based upon "greed," but its inherent value lies in encouraging individuals to work, and to work smartly and efficiently, for rewards and return - all under their own free will and via "positive reinforcement." Reward doesn't always have to be monetary. It can also include increased self worth, confidence, and the well being attained through solid teamwork. Over the years, I have managed people of all ages, undoubtedly my most memorable experiences having been what I observed in managing youth sports. Kids don't play for money, or for their parents approval. They play because they begin to see their own self advancement, successful teamwork, and how it changees their lives for the better. Adults are much the same - it's just that our "needs" are more economic.
Regarding your point that the profit motive will be augmented by a service motive, I think that already came and mostly went with the extreme solialists movements and communism in EU-Asia, and it proved not to withstand the evolutionary test of time. As for our next institutional crises, I think it is already here - as computers have begun erasing the need for human labor, and enabling vast amounts of outsourcing to far away lands. But, as all things are cyclical, that too will evolve and change, and I believe if the U.S. can adhere to free market principle's, if we can weather the storm and if politicians can refrain from becoming short term opportunists, that those impacted by outsourcing and computerization today will emerge as new benefactors of the next new economy.
I realize this is asking a lot of those persons and political leaders in the U.S. with the wherewithall, and the will, to try to take it all. But, history is filled with so many who have tried and failed, and what's different and more encouraging today is our incredible advances in information made possible through global communications. Call me an optimist!

What I meant was that there are those (not you) that believe the free market will ultimately solve all the worlds problems and is the only system that works.

The reason I believe socialism/communism never worked was largely due to lack of motivation by the populace. If a mechanism could be implemented to motivate people to serve, as profit motivates people to work hard and produce, this would accelerate the process.

I advocate changing our system of suffrage to allow people without wealth to have more influence in the political system. Everyday people who are quiet leaders, respected within their communities for their selfless commitment to bettering the condition of their community. This would motivate more people to get involved in volunteering to work for the betterment of all.

 

[Smurf]

The reason the socialist movements half a centruy ago failed was because the government took all the people's produce and distributed it how they wanted. The people had no say in what they're labour produced and where it went, so they rebelled, by not working.

 

[Human Being]

Human beings were meant to cooperate, not compete. In the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest determines resource allocation among most species. The strong prey upon the weak, to provide for their young. Some species are more communal; the entire living unit is provided for by all its providers. In the case of human beings, the advantage which enabled their survival amongst so many other life forms is their brain. Experiences are readily converted to reusable data by and stored in the brain. These inputs can be physical,intellectual, emotional, or spiritual; and therein lies the advantage - by communicating experiences in various ways, human beings can learn from each other. All of society benefits from knowledge gained, the aggregate of which eventually becoming "technology".

Times have changed since survival was a lifelong endeavor. Civilization, the fruits of millenia of successful survival, has afforded each member of it with a precious gift. We have at our disposal a tremendous amount of time, as a species. For thousands of years, our goal as a species has been to ensure the survival of the species as a whole. This is exactly what happens in nature, albeit in a different way. Resources are stashed away for emergencies and for the next generation, but in order to do this there must be an excess of resources. Thus, the act of ensuring the survival of future generations will over time have a negative effect on resource acquisition; either there will be less to acquire, or there will be less need to acquire it.

The presence of excessive excess provides the impetus for capitalism - value. The need to invent a placeholder for value is brought about by the exchange of excessive resources. This placeholder should intuitively be easily exchangeable and valued equally by all. Conceptually important to civilization, that which is now called money enables the civilized individual to obtain another's excess resources. As civilization advanced, and technology with it, the ability to acquire resources from the planet has increased exponentially. Keep in mind that all of this has occurred within the general context of cooperation among millenia of human beings.

That said, there is a darker side to the advancement of civilization, and it regards the concept of recycling. To explain precisely, the reuse of resources already acquired and used - not just natural resources but human beings and land itself. Domination by historic figures often paralleled times of great advancement, to the detriment of those being dominated. It goes without saying that people have been treated as expendable resources by many historic "leaders of state", all throughout time. For when excess resources are available, recycling becomes a burden, a resource-consuming effort.

Excess resources easily beget competition. They always have and will continue to do so as long as humanity sees survival through a distorted lens. Most people live their lives under the pretext that the aquisition of excess is the best indicator of survival ability. If they have a lot of "stuff", they will survive "easier" than someone who has no "stuff". They will be able to live the "good life", which the person with no "stuff" cannot do. They will be "happier" than someone who has no "stuff". Once technology could support the "Rat Race", the starter's gun went off.

Capitalism is entirely based upon competition, and this flawed human perception of what survival really is. Corporations are considered "individuals" legally, but they influence society far more than one human being can. These corporations evolve within their own "society" to possesses relationships with each other, much the same way people do. Parent companies, child companies, sibling companies, aunt/uncle/cousin companies, best friend companies, high-school-buddy companies, etc. And don't forget enemy companies. All these virtual individuals with varying relations, under the false pretext that having the most "stuff" is best, competing for a "finite" excess of resources - what a recipe for self-destruction.

What's wrong with capitalism is that in its "purest" form, capitalism reduces the potential "lifespan" of an economy, and continually increases the chance of a "life-threatening" economic episode. The rules of capitalism dictate that growth and profit maximization are paramount, that investing is preferred over saving, and that if you don't do it - someone else will. The mentality that "business is war" exists within the virtual minds of so many of these corporations. If there's excess to be had, take it before it's taken by others. At least, that's how I see capitalism - corporation and consumer alike, they both want to get a lot of stuff. More is always better.

What's wrong with capitalism is that it places so much importance on the "value placeholder" of MONEY that people eventually learn how to "create" it from absolutely nothing. They learn how to produce value placeholders that are not backed by equivalent natural resources. Technology has advanced to the point in which "virtual" money *IS* real, and if a few bytes of data in some computer in some country are changed such that a bank account somewhere is now larger, who's to care? Investing is often seen as "smart", but functionally it is nothing more than a way to make someone else even more wealthy than they already are.

Okay, I've blathered on long enough, and I'd like to change direction before I finish up.

Taking an extreme stance, money can be described as a virus and a cancer within the entity known as "economy". It requires a living host to prosper. In some cases, it reproduces by causing its host's "cells" to make more of it. In others, it has "evolved" into something vastly self-reproductive in spite of the host's "immune system". Either way, growth will continue until the hosts' ability to sustain that growth is compromised - after which money will begin to "die". Capitalism is destined to fall prey to itself, UNLESS humanity starts to care more about the future than the present. There are so many intuitive ways that can be done, I'll end with that point.

(ps - I tried catching up on the thread before posting, but so much of it is off-topic that I said screw it.)

 

[The Smoking Man]

The reason the socialist movements half a centruy ago failed was because the government took all the people's produce and distributed it how they wanted. The people had no say in what they're labour produced and where it went, so they rebelled, by not working.

Ironically, if you want capitalism, you look at China.

If you want Socialism/Communism, you look at the G8.

 

[RunDMC]

Capitalism was a great way to motivate industrial revolution style growth, but the model may now be outdated. Without going into the details of how it is not the best tool for the 21st century (nice post, Human Being), how about some free-form suggestions on how it could be replaced, tweaked or added to? (Communism is not the only alternative.)

EXAMPLES: What would be the effect of a second currency solely for leisure goods? Could swapping payroll tax for land rates remove a source of unearned income? How should genuine innovation be rewarded? Is the patents system adequate? Is it right that there are over 150 brands of water? Should medium-level industrial accidents be accepted as a form of collective risk-taking? Here' a crazy one: What would happen if the government provided a tax rebate for every hour you could prove you weren't at work? Would you be balancing your need to be at work to earn your income with the tax offset provided by a work/life balance? Should Spain fight for the known health benefits of the siesta, or is it a slap in the face to EU's efficiency?

Capitalism works, but so does a steam engine. We seem to have brains lurking in this forum, so who has some suggestions? What is the twin-cam, fuel-injected form of capitalism? (Yes, I understand the irony here: fuel-injected, twin-cam engines are largely a product of capitalism!)

Step 1: what are we trying to achieve? What do we want? Survival (in the western world) is almost off the agenda as a serious goal. What next? Poetry? Yuck! Kite surfing? Maybe! :)

I'm trying to be provocative (in a good way) here. I genuinely look forward to your thoughts.

 

[pi-r8]

(Communism is not the only alternative.)

Unfortunately, it is. Either the government recognizes that every individual has a right to own property, or it doesn't. If it does recognize that right, then it will ensure that only he can decide what to do with it. Pure capitalism follows automatically- there would be no taxes, no trustbusting, no economic regulations. Just property.

If, however, the government does not recognize the right to own property, no one can really posess anything. If you have something, it's just a privilage that can be taken away. In some governments is rarely taken away, but in others such as the USSR, property has been taken away at the drop of the hat. Or you could have a government that does nothing at all, and let's any random thug who wants your property come steal it.

Communism, socialism, anarchy, whatever you want to call it- there's no such thing as private property.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No government in the world allows for pure ownership of land.
It can ALWAYS be taken away.
It's a beatch to be laying track for a railroad and have to take a series of 90 degree turns around some little old ladies house when she refuses to sell.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml"... Your Friend.
And fer you damn Liberals ...

And this isn't happening just in small towns. In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what's going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times.

Oh god ... I've been possessed by Pengwuino!
Begone foul spirit ... The power of the lord commands you ... the power of the lord commands you ... AAAAAAaaaargh!

 

[pi-r8]

yeah, it's theft like that creates the problems which people associate with capitalism

 

[X-43D]

In short, PURE capitalism promotes greed at all costs. Who cares if you destroy the environment, make people work 15 hour days w/ no benefits, or pay workers 15 cents an hour as long as you make $1 more in profits right?? There are serious flaws with unrestricted capitalism. Believe it or not the Catholic Church offers up a very good argument against pure communism and capitalism in Rerum Novarum. Even if you hate Catholicism and religion, you should still read it. It is very thought provoking. Wiki has a brief descripition of the Papal encyclical here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum

I agree. Greed is not a good quality. A society can prospere if and only if human rights are respected. Slavery combined with racism were a strong violation of these rights. Even today blacks and other minority groups are economically discriminated compared to whites.

Some countries have adopted social capitalism which i think is the best choice.

 

[Smurf]

Unfortunately, it is. Either the government recognizes that every individual has a right to own property, or it doesn't. If it does recognize that right, then it will ensure that only he can decide what to do with it. Pure capitalism follows automatically- there would be no taxes, no trustbusting, no economic regulations. Just property.
If, however, the government does not recognize the right to own property, no one can really posess anything. If you have something, it's just a privilage that can be taken away. In some governments is rarely taken away, but in others such as the USSR, property has been taken away at the drop of the hat. Or you could have a government that does nothing at all, and let's any random thug who wants your property come steal it.
Communism, socialism, anarchy, whatever you want to call it- there's no such thing as private property.

I don't understand your reasoning Pi.

You say private property is important because otherwise the state can take it away from you. But you say that Anarchism is just as bad, even though there's no state to take it from you.

 

[X-43D]

It's obvious that power projection and capital development requires that someone get the short end of the stick. Much of the wealth of the west was build on Africa's exploitation using slave labour and cutthroat mercantalism.

 

[Plastic Photon]

A lack of understanding. There is a classical view of capitalism, Adam Smith, and a modern, Ayn Rand. Maybe it is that Ayn Rand's ideas are scary to most people. No taxes, no unwilling coercion, no property right restrictions, etc.

 

[pi-r8]

I don't understand your reasoning Pi.
You say private property is important because otherwise the state can take it away from you. But you say that Anarchism is just as bad, even though there's no state to take it from you.

The problem I see with Anarchy is that since there's no government PROTECTING your property, anyone who has you outgunned can take it away from you.

 

[pi-r8]

Much of the wealth of the west was build on Africa's exploitation using slave labour and cutthroat mercantalism.

Care to prove this rather provocative point?

 

[Burnsys]

It's obvious that power projection and capital development requires that someone get the short end of the stick. Much of the wealth of the west was build on Africa's exploitation using slave labour and cutthroat mercantalism.

Also much of the whealt from europe was build on theft of America natural resources (Gold, silver) and the forced labor of the native population to death in the mines...

 

[pi-r8]

Also much of the whealt from europe was build on theft of America natural resources (Gold, silver) and the forced labor of the native population to death in the mines...

Don't you find it a little strange that Europe's wealth didn't really start growing quickly until they stopped doing this (the industrial revolution)?

 

[X-43D]

Care to prove this rather provocative point?

There are many reasons for Africa's poverty but colonialism did play a major role on the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Africa

 

[McGyver]

Should Spain fight for the known health benefits of the siesta, or is it a slap in the face to EU's efficiency?

Capitalism works, but so does a steam engine. We seem to have brains lurking in this forum, so who has some suggestions? What is the twin-cam, fuel-injected form of capitalism? (Yes, I understand the irony here: fuel-injected, twin-cam engines are largely a product of capitalism!

Hey, if your lucky enough, productive enough, or just plain lazy enough - you'll reap what you reward. A siesta is a form of reward. We used to hunt or grow our own food, build our own homes, etc., somewhere along the way it became more advantageous to "specialize," and pay others for which you are not able or well adapted to doing yourself. Thus, the evolution of money. It's the money "games" that have become the source of problems.

As for the twin engine, turbo version of a new economic model, I believe we heading in that direction, notwithstanding some growing pains and bumps in the road. The Internet and information age will help to assure more fair and responsiveness within any system, and we as citizens, must utilize our own resources to offset "legislative and juducial activism" which again is attempting to undermine our freedoms, rights, work, and ownership, etc.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Don't you find it a little strange that Europe's wealth didn't really start growing quickly until they stopped doing this (the industrial revolution)?

Huh?

So what were the Brits doing taxing the USA?

The Spanish in Mexico hauling off Gold by the boatload?

What was all of Europe doing in SE Asia?

Wealth is a relative thing.

Now ... America's wealth didn't really start growing until after WWII when of all the developed nations in the world had basically been bombed to rubble and the USA was relatively untouched. They were the only ones left in the world with products to sell until general recovery took place a few years later.

Those with communist leanings were shunned and blockaded as well as having decided on a philosophy of isolationism.

And so ... The USA blossomed into a model of inefficiency of unskilled labour with a 10 to 20% rejection rate in manufacturing. (This would later allow the foothold Japan would gain with a 0 defect policy)

European products had traditionally been built to a higher standard like the BMW for instance.

Europe found themselves with a glut of semi skilled labour without the industry to support it... and so migration started happening.

America ended up with a glut of labourers from the world over to support the newfound demand for American goods.

Really, when you think about it, was there a demand in the rest of the world for American made products prior to WWII?

Unfortunately, the world was taken over with the idea of communism which in anything except in its purest form is domed to failure.

And so the socialsist programs of Europe destroyed industry by elevating the lot of the factory worker and taxing the rich to a ridiculous extent (The UK in the 1960's saw tax rates for the rich as high as 95%!)

America however was highly resistant to this launching campaigns like McCarthyism to discredit anything that smacked of the demonized 'non capitalist' forms of government. Thus they slowed it but disn't quite stop it.

In fact, the only areas influenced by the West that remained relatively free of Unions and other 'socialist/communist' underpinnings were Hong Kong and Japan.

The rest you know. Capitalism has abandoned the west in favour of any nation which has few human rights or social programs and uses their workforce for manufacturing.

Poverty has become the comodity that attracts investment.

America is merely a lifestyle thing where the investors and bankers live.

 

[pi-r8]

There are many reasons for Africa's poverty but colonialism did play a major role on the economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Africa

I'm sure colonialism hurt Africa's economy, but what you said, and what I asked you to prove, was that the wealth of the west was built by exploiting Africa. Hurting Africa is not the same thing as building wealth.

 

[pi-r8]

TSM- I'm not really sure what you're arguing with me about. What Burnsys said, and I disputed, was that the wealth of Europe was built by slave labor, and by stealing gold and silver from the Americas. I would have thought it obvious that this couldn't possibly build an economy- all you'd end up with is a large untrained workforce and an inflated price of gold and silver. I never disputed whether or not the European powers imported slaves or gold and silver, I'm just trying to show that that's not an effective economic policy.
To prove this, I brought up the point that during the time in which the European powers were doing this, their economies didn't really grow very much- their people still weren't much richer than those in what are now considered third world countries. During the industrial revolution, however, the wealth of Europeans skyrocketed. Since the no European power was importing slaves or stolen gold/silver at that time, I think that that proves that the idea of Europe's wealth being built on slavery and theft to be false.

Now ... America's wealth didn't really start growing until after WWII when of all the developed nations in the world had basically been bombed to rubble and the USA was relatively untouched. They were the only ones left in the world with products to sell until general recovery took place a few years later.

This is completely false. The USA's wealth had been growing rapidly up until WWII, with the exception of the great depression of course. The USA had the largest GDP of any country in the world when WWII broke out. By far.

And so ... The USA blossomed into a model of inefficiency of unskilled labour with a 10 to 20% rejection rate in manufacturing. (This would later allow the foothold Japan would gain with a 0 defect policy)

So you're saying that, while the USA becoming inefficient and unskilled, it's economy was finally starting to grow?

European products had traditionally been built to a higher standard like the BMW for instance.

They've also made some cars that are a piece of ****, like the Yugo for instance. What's your point?

Europe found themselves with a glut of semi skilled labour without the industry to support it... and so migration started happening.
America ended up with a glut of labourers from the world over to support the newfound demand for American goods.

This started happening long before WWII. It happened because the American economy was growing so quickly, thanks to the industrial revolution.

Really, when you think about it, was there a demand in the rest of the world for American made products prior to WWII?

Yes.

Unfortunately, the world was taken over with the idea of communism which in anything except in its purest form is domed to failure.
And so the socialsist programs of Europe destroyed industry by elevating the lot of the factory worker and taxing the rich to a ridiculous extent (The UK in the 1960's saw tax rates for the rich as high as 95%!)
America however was highly resistant to this launching campaigns like McCarthyism to discredit anything that smacked of the demonized 'non capitalist' forms of government. Thus they slowed it but disn't quite stop it.
In fact, the only areas influenced by the West that remained relatively free of Unions and other 'socialist/communist' underpinnings were Hong Kong and Japan.

So do you agree with me then that socialism hurts the economy, and capitalism helps it? I thought you were arguing with me.