NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously, I had someone tell me that it would be America's downfall and that capitalism is inherently evil! Now I know people throw around that phrase like 'I love you' on an episode of Oprah but it got me wondering. Am I missing something here? Is this guy just a stinking red? [No offence meant, just a joke]

Is capitalism wrong, evil, etc. Even if it's not evil, in what ways is it flawed? Please inform me as I'd love to know more.

Capitalism means the people, rather than the government, control the capital. Exceptions are made, of course, but that's the gist. The businessmen possess the money, rather than the bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats vote democrat, while businessmen vote republican, normally. There you have the reason many liberals are anti-capitalist.

It's flawed in the sense that it gives corporations far too much control. Without special laws and trade controls, corporations would ass-fuck all the lower classes. Hey, wait a minute, they're doing that right now.

And what about outsourcing, hmm? If these corporations and conglomerates really gave a flying fuck about the people, they wouldn't hire overseas workers for less than half the pay.

Of course, if we do have protectionist laws, corporations can have a maximum amount of freedom, with the exception of being able to totally screw people.

Do you see what I mean?

It's flawed in the sense that it gives corporations far too much control. Without special laws and trade controls, corporations would ass-fuck all the lower classes. Hey, wait a minute, they're doing that right now.

And what about outsourcing, hmm? If these corporations and conglomerates really gave a flying fuck about the people, they wouldn't hire overseas workers for less than half the pay.

You mean if the corporations gave a flying fuck about the people of the country they happen to inhabit. Of course if no corporation outsourced overseas we'd just have less luxuries here and more poverty there and overall the world would suck more.

Cheers!

Yeah, so we should just let these companies throw our workers away, even though they were there first, and did nothing to warrant a layoff?

Sounds about right.

Now, I'm all for a global economy, but it would have to be eased in... You can't just up and ruin people's lives to further a cause that will happen anyway.

It's flawed in the sense that it gives corporations far too much control. Without special laws and trade controls, corporations would ass-fuck all the lower classes. Hey, wait a minute, they're doing that right now.

Damn them and their evil low prices! All power belongs to the State, none of this individual freedom nonsense, right comrade?

And what about outsourcing, hmm? If these corporations and conglomerates really gave a flying fuck about the people, they wouldn't hire overseas workers for less than half the pay.

Yeah, screw those starving third-worlders, let's fire 'em all and pay Americans minimum wage to make t-shirts.. the world will gladly buy them at 35 dollars apiece.

I'm cool with capitalism, although I have some socialist ideas. Anyway, that's really beside the point. All I wanted to say was, I understand why you asked, but if you'd really like to read some interesting thoughts on this sort of thing, the Communist Manifesto is a pretty good place to start. No, really. Have a look. :)

Yeah, so we should just let these companies throw our workers away, even though they were there first, and did nothing to warrant a layoff?

Sounds about right.

When you demand more pay than someone else who will do the same job you do, you've warranted your layoff.

Now, I'm all for a global economy, but it would have to be eased in... You can't just up and ruin people's lives to further a cause that will happen anyway.

Why not? We up and ruined slave owners lives. We up and ruined buggy whip makers lives. We up and ruined Zeppelin builders lives. We up and ruined sail makers lives. We up and ruined sword makers lives etc...

Damn them and their evil low prices! All power belongs to the State, none of this individual freedom nonsense, right comrade?



Yeah, screw those starving third-worlders, let's fire 'em all and pay Americans minimum wage to make t-shirts.. the world will gladly buy them at 35 dollars apiece.

Hey! I paid 60 dollars for my third-world made t-shirt! :p

Damn them and their evil low prices! All power belongs to the State, none of this individual freedom nonsense, right comrade?

Not quite. Protection laws for workers isn't exactly having business completely controlled by the state.


Yeah, screw those starving third-worlders, let's fire 'em all and pay Americans minimum wage to make t-shirts.. the world will gladly buy them at 35 dollars apiece.

Now, is that what I said? But, do you really think it's in good taste for this massive, giants of corporations to pay these workers dirt for the hard work that they do? Hardly.

And $35? That's cheaper than a fucking Calvin Klein T-Shirt that's made in Malaysia by a bunch of kids in sweatshops.

The problem is that it gives the power to a few oligarchs.
It is no better that feudalism in the sense that the rich inherit from their parents and rule the country at the expense of the poor who have to work for the rich.
The rich get the lion share of the wealth generated by the workers and they are richer and richer. The poor are poorer and poorer. This system is not sustainable and necessarily end up in a revolution. This is why ALL industrialized nations have adopted socialist policies like mandatory social education, minimum wages and ban on child labor, just to name a few (note those policies were cited in the communist manifesto written by Marx and Engels).
Don't be fooled. The USA is one of the most socialised countries on earth and isn't ashamed to use Marx theory when it fits its needs while finger pointing those who don't open their market to US corporations.

Not quite. Protection laws for workers isn't exactly having business completely controlled by the state.




Now, is that what I said? But, do you really think it's in good taste for this massive, giants of corporations to pay these workers dirt for the hard work that they do? Hardly.

Actually these giants of corporations pay these workers enough money to feed and house their family. It is called cost of living. Visit one of these third world countries and discover just how far 10 dollars will go.

Hey! I paid 60 dollars for my third-world made t-shirt! :p

Gotta stay away from the concerts! :)

Hah, you think that's why they pay them that much? They pay them such low wages so they can inflate their prices. That's all they do it for.

Actually these giants of corporations pay these workers enough money to feed and house their family. It is called cost of living. Visit one of these third world countries and discover just how far 10 dollars will go.

They pay them more than enough, but not too much to disrupt the economy.

SOme communists don't understand that if you go into Guyana and pay a farmer 12 dollars an hour to grow a certain crop that your company needs, while other farmers do fine on 20 a week, you throw the market into chaos.

Gotta stay away from the concerts! :)

Concerts? You try buying a Reyn Spooner Hawaiian shirt for less than 60 bucks :p

Hah, you think that's why they pay them that much? They pay them such low wages so they can inflate their prices. That's all they do it for.

One company was badgered into paying people American minimum wage. Suddenly all their workers were getting robbed and mugged and people weren't so willing to work for that company anymore. So they changed their structure by providing them other benefits.

If you started paying them American wages the local economy would go haywire.

Concerts? You try buying a Reyn Spooner Hawaiian shirt for less than 60 bucks :p

:confused: Either we're in differen't countries or I just don't get out much. ;) I get my shirts wholesale, so I dunno.

Interesting debate. But I think several issues should be brought up. First, true capitalism, in the Ricardo/Friedman sense, has never, and likely will never, be tried. Mainly because true capitalism is too unpredictable, for example a loaf of bread would cost $1 one day and $3.50 the next. Even supposed "capitalists" like Reagan and Bush often impose tariffs and increase subsidies to farmers. Secondly, the American Democratic Party is not anti-capitalist in any sense. From a purely public policy perspective, Clinton continued many (but not all) of the same economic policies as Bush 41.
Finally, capitalism, in the way it is used today, does objectively have pros and cons.
To name some of the cons (since most people seem to have already named the good side) it gives corporations much too much power and influence over the government and in shaping public opinion. Also, it has been proven to be environmentally unsustainable, (mainly in that the market poorly adds the cost of the environmental impact of the product to consumers). Capitalism has also proven to be detrimental to Third World countries, while China does have large economic growth, it is also experiancing several problems as well (too many to get into here). A great deal of Third World coutries are heavily in debt, and have been forced by the IMF to adopt many disasterous policies.

So, simply put, capitalism can be good, but it also can be bad.


Any questions?

I'm cool with capitalism, although I have some socialist ideas. Anyway, that's really beside the point. All I wanted to say was, I understand why you asked, but if you'd really like to read some interesting thoughts on this sort of thing, the Communist Manifesto is a pretty good place to start. No, really. Have a look. :)

Yeah, like if you really believe that mumbo jumbo about the true cost being labor. Let's face the facts, communism died with the soviet union.

They pay them more than enough, but not too much to disrupt the economy.

SOme communists don't understand that if you go into Guyana and pay a farmer 12 dollars an hour to grow a certain crop that your company needs, while other farmers do fine on 20 a week, you throw the market into chaos.
Some capitalists don't understand that the land of Guyana belongs to the citizens of Guyana, not to US corporations.

Communism is flawed because most humans seem to be corrupt, so they abuse the system (eg: move to a communist area and do bugger all work).

Capitalism is also slightly flawed as the main corporations end up with all the money and they only care about the profits.

Ideally we would all revert to savages, hunting and foraging, living in mud huts and caves. :D

Some capitalists don't understand that the land of Guyana belongs to the citizens of Guyana, not to US corporations.

The land, and citizens, of Guyana want the US corporations there.

Some capitalists don't understand that the land of Guyana belongs to the citizens of Guyana, not to US corporations.

No one can force trade on people, agreed.. :confused:

Anyway... Guyana was an example. Their people happen to prefer trade to isolation, and no one's got a gun to their heads.

One company was badgered into paying people American minimum wage. Suddenly all their workers were getting robbed and mugged and people weren't so willing to work for that company anymore. So they changed their structure by providing them other benefits.

If you started paying them American wages the local economy would go haywire.
This is why those country need to move beyond capitalism.

No one can force trade on people, agreed.. :confused:

Anyway... Guyana was an example. Their people happen to prefer trade to isolation, and no one's got a gun to their heads.
You confuse trade and capitalism.
And they have a gun on their head. Look at how the US deals with socialist countries in central and south america. (Note the US itself is socialist but doesn't want other countries to use minimum wages because they want cheap labor).

The land, and citizens, of Guyana want the US corporations there.
erm... no.

erm... no.

Pfft, yah. :rolleyes: :p

erm... no.

errrr... Yeah.

errrr... Yeah.

There's gotta be a thread where there's just a question, say, on music, and it goes back and forth like that. That'd be sweet.

What is wrong with capitalism?
First of all, the source of the problem is the fact that the means of production are private property. Capitalist society is divided in two social classes: the bourgeoisie (the owners/employers - those who own means of production) and the proletariat (the workers/employees - those who do not own means of production). The bourgeoisie (which is a tiny minority compared to the proletariat) is the ruling class, since it effectively owns and controls the entire economy. It has overwhelming wealth and power compared to the proletariat. But the bourgeois do not acquire their wealth through their own work. They acquire it by exploiting the work of others - by extracting a profit from their employees. Allow me to explain:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or the amount of work that went into it. That product - the fruit of the employee's labour - becomes the property of the employer.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. In capitalism, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and how much money they are willing to work for. So, as I mentioned above, the wage has nothing to do whatsoever with the value of the product he produces, or the amount of work he puts into it.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

Capitalists might argue that you are free to quit your job and go work for another employer. But ALL employers must exploit their workers in order to make a profit, so your only "choice" is whether you will be exploited by one employer or by the other employer across the street (and the skilled middle-class employees in rich western nations might not feel exploited, but that doesn't change the fact that they are exploited as much as any other workers). Capitalists might also argue that employees are free to start their own business and become employers themselves. But this argument doesn't even stand up to common sense: How exactly can you have more employers than employees? How can you have more bosses than workers? The fact is that in any capitalist society, the employers (the bourgeoisie) will always be a minority and the employees (the proletariat) will always be the majority. Some proletarians might have the opportunity to move up into the bourgeoisie, but they are very few compared to the proletarians who don't have that opportunity. Success stories are the exceptions, not the rule.

errrr... Yeah.Sorry I didn't know. The iraqi people want the US corporations as well. Everybody love the US corporations.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.
.

Yeah, employees should be paid more than the value of the product they manufacture. Say, when I sell a 99 cent taco at Taco Bell, I should be paid $1.59. Sweet! :) Do they do that in your country? Cause if so, I'm moving! :p

Sorry I didn't know. The iraqi people want the US corporations as well. Everybody love the US corporations.

Since when is Guyana Iraq?

Wait, you mean everybody everywhere hates US corporations? :rolleyes:

I can tell you this though, those guys in Iran love them Chinese corporations.

Capitalism means the people, rather than the government, control the capital.
The people? Which people? Perhaps you mean the rich people control the capital. And that is exactly the source of the problem with capitalism. Your boss owns the products of your labour, and pays you far less than they are worth (see my post above).

Socialism is the economic system in which the people control the capital (and the economy in general). Socialism means public property over the means of production - in other words, economic democracy. Every citizen is an equal "shareholder" in the national economy. And, as shareholders, the citizens can elect a team of managers - known as the government - to run the economy. Naturally, the managers (government officials) keep their jobs as long as they run the economy for the benefit of the shareholders (the people).

Sorry I didn't know. The iraqi people want the US corporations as well. Everybody love the US corporations.

Are US corporations incorporating in Iraq? No.

US corporations are providing materiel to US soldiers and infrastructure so we can finish it up and leave.

First of all, the source of the problem is the fact that the means of production are private property. Capitalist society is divided in two social classes: the bourgeoisie (the owners/employers - those who own means of production) and the proletariat (the workers/employees - those who do not own means of production). The bourgeoisie (which is a tiny minority compared to the proletariat) is the ruling class, since it effectively owns and controls the entire economy. It has overwhelming wealth and power compared to the proletariat. But the bourgeois do not acquire their wealth through their own work. They acquire it by exploiting the work of others - by extracting a profit from their employees. Allow me to explain:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or the amount of work that went into it. That product - the fruit of the employee's labour - becomes the property of the employer.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. In capitalism, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and how much money they are willing to work for. So, as I mentioned above, the wage has nothing to do whatsoever with the value of the product he produces, or the amount of work he puts into it.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

Capitalists might argue that you are free to quit your job and go work for another employer. But ALL employers must exploit their workers in order to make a profit, so your only "choice" is whether you will be exploited by one employer or by the other employer across the street (and the skilled middle-class employees in rich western nations might not feel exploited, but that doesn't change the fact that they are exploited as much as any other workers). Capitalists might also argue that employees are free to start their own business and become employers themselves. But this argument doesn't even stand up to common sense: How exactly can you have more employers than employees? How can you have more bosses than workers? The fact is that in any capitalist society, the employers (the bourgeoisie) will always be a minority and the employees (the proletariat) will always be the majority. Some proletarians might have the opportunity to move up into the bourgeoisie, but they are very few compared to the proletarians who don't have that opportunity. Success stories are the exceptions, not the rule.


Capitalism, the land of the Rich, the Middle Class and the Poor
Command Economy, the land of the Party Members and the Poor.

I'll take Capitalism.

Yeah, employees should be paid more than the value of the product they manufacture. Say, when I sell a 99 cent taco at Taco Bell, I should be paid $1.59. Sweet! :) Do they do that in your country? Cause if so, I'm moving! :p
Don't be an idiot. Workers should keep the full value of their labour - no more no less. Capitalism always gives them less.

The people? Which people? Perhaps you mean the rich people control the capital. And that is exactly the source of the problem with capitalism. Your boss owns the products of your labour, and pays you far less than they are worth (see my post above).


In America, 2/3 of the population works for the small businessman, not Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.. I'm not sure how it works where you are, but here, the government can't tell me what to charge for products, or whether or not I can incorporatem, other than filing a ficticious business name in the paper and filing with the Sec. of State if it's an LLP.

And if your boss paid you more than the product was worth, he's off his medication.

Since when is Guyana Iraq?

Wait, you mean everybody everywhere hates US corporations? :rolleyes:

I can tell you this though, those guys in Iran love them Chinese corporations.
Guyana is a big forest filled with tribal populations who depend on the forest. The government is stomping on them and destroys the forest for the benefit of global capitalist pigs. Are you seriously suggesting that the people who live in the amazonian forest want the US there? And for your information, I have relatives in french Guyana working at kourou. They are not that happy with US corporations (hey they're french).

Don't be an idiot. Workers should keep the full value of their labour - no more no less. Capitalism always gives them less.

Of how much worth is the person who organizes all the labor and takes the risk of setting up and establishing the company and taking the loan to make it all happen?

Of how much worth is the person who answers the help-line when you give them a call?

None of those people add actual cash value to the product, but then if we paid all the workers the exact value they added in none of these support people would get any money.

Don't be an idiot. Workers should keep the full value of their labour - no more no less. Capitalism always gives them less.

No. Why would anyone start a business then? What's the incentive?

If Pepe's Apple Stand sells $50 worth of apples, the worker who sold it gets some and I get some. Sounds fair. After all, I'M taking the risk. The worker is not.

In America, 2/3 of the populations works for the small businessman, not Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.. I'm not sure how it works where you are, but here, the government can't tell me what to charge for products, or whether or not I can incorporatem, other than filing a ficticious business name in the paper and filing with the Sec. of State if it's an LLP.

And if your boss paid you more than the product was worth, he's off his medication.
America has minimum wages, mandatory social education and 45% revenue taxes and massive corporate subsidies, along with the biggest military budget in the world. the US government is hypocrit.

If you started paying them American wages the local economy would go haywire.
Yes, they might actually have enough money to buy food for their children. Oh, the horror! :rolleyes:

The land, and citizens, of Guyana want the US corporations there.
Actually, nobody asked them.

Im sure other people will cover all the other aspects of why Capitalism is bad policy, so Ill stick to why capitalism is inherently evil (something I doubt anyone else will cover).

Capitalism is inherently evil because it promotes the inaccurate beleif that having more money should be the goal of life. Youve heard the saying "he who dies with the most toys wins", that is the mantra that capitalism leads to.

You see this phenomenon in the world around you. People measure success by the size of your house. This is illogical. The bigger your house is the more you have to clean. The bigger your house is, the further you have to walk to go from your bedroom to the kitchen or from any room to any other room. Why would having a bigger house be better? It isn't, but capitalism says you must have a bigger house to show your status. People also measure success by the car they drive. Nevermind that the Toyota Camry and the Honda Civic are more reliable than the Jaguar, you still need the Jaguar to prove you are successful.

You hear people falling for this ridiculous notion that money is the goal of life all the time. You hear people boast about the US being the greatest nation because it is the richest nation. Yet they dont take into account the thing that matters most, the standard of living. Of what use is the idea that your nation is the richest, if crime is high, education is horrible, and people have to pick and choose which medication they will go without this month because they cannot afford to buy all the ones they need?

Capitalism leads to a focus on money and a disregard for things that really matter. Things like family and community. Capitalism promotes competition rather than unity. It promotes sacrificing yourself and your family in order to climb that corporate ladder. It promotes companies cutting corners and sacrificing things like safety and the environment in favor of higher revenues. It promotes that view that has led the US to where it is, forget health care, forget ending poverty, lets just focus on being the richest.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Capitalism is inherently evil because it promotes one of the seven deadly sins, greed.

Of how much worth is the person who organizes all the labor and takes the risk of setting up and establishing the company and taking the loan to make it all happen?

Of how much worth is the person who answers the help-line when you give them a call?

None of those people add actual cash value to the product, but then if we paid all the workers the exact value they added in none of these support people would get any money.
And how much worth is the rich kid who inherited his stock shares from his father and spends all his days in Hawaï tanning on the beach and snorting cocaïn occasionally calling his banker to ask how business is going?

Capitalism, the land of the Rich, the Middle Class and the Poor
Command Economy, the land of the Party Members and the Poor.

I'll take Capitalism.
I'm sorry, was that idiocy supposed to be your poor excuse for an argument?

The vast majority of countries with command economies have been more successful than countries with market economies that started under similar conditions (for example, the Soviet Union was far richer than Brazil, although both Russia and Brazil had pretty much the same conditions at the beginning of the 20th century).

Yes, they might actually have enough money to buy food for their children. Oh, the horror! :rolleyes:

With the wages they are paid, get this, they have enough money to buy food for their childern. The horror.

America has minimum wages, mandatory social education and 45% revenue taxes and massive corporate subsidies, along with the biggest military budget in the world. the US government is hypocrit.

Social education? No one here is bound to attend government-run schools. No one.

Nowhere is there a 45% tax on revenue. The corporate income tax is a good deal lower, and there are ways around creative dividends, believe me.

I'm sorry, was that idiocy supposed to be your poor excuse for an argument?

The vast majority of countries with command economies have been more successful than countries with market economies that started under similar conditions (for example, the Soviet Union was far richer than Brazil, although both Russia and Brazil had pretty much the same conditions at the beginning of the 20th century).

The Soviet Union was ... rich? WTF?

The vast majority of countries with command economies went down the friggin tubes. Take a good look at the failed experiments with communism in the USSR, Eastern Europe, South America ...

I mean seriously, you just said the USSR got rich. Wtf are you smoking? You are talking about a country that committed some of the most horrible environmental destruction of all time, an economy that collapsed and whose people had to deal with shortages in virtually every product.

And how much worth is the rich kid who inherited his stock shares from his father and spends all his days in Hawaï tanning on the beach and snorting cocaïn occasionally calling his banker to ask how business is going?

That's what we call a myth, friend.

In the U.S. at least, 90% of millionaires are self-made. I.E., they inherited nothing or less than the average person.

Additonally, the average millionaire declares bankruptcy 2.5 times in their lives. In other words, they take risks and fail before they succede, and sometimes afterwards.

Old money aristocracy is a good propaganda image, but not the truth.

Social education? No one here is bound to attend government-run schools. No one.

Nowhere is there a 45% tax on revenue. The corporate income tax is a good deal lower, and there are ways around creative dividends, believe me.
Here is the OECD report on this (for 2002):
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/PDF/oecd_inctax_2002.pdf

Income tax

Czech Republic = 32%
Mexico = 35%
UK = 40%
Canada = 43.4%
US = 45%
Netherlands = 52%
Sweden = 55.5%
Belgium = 56.2%
France = 60.4%

Note : some taxes are direct, some are less direct.
See OECD reports about productivity they are very interesting.

Communism is flawed because most humans seem to be corrupt, so they abuse the system (eg: move to a communist area and do bugger all work).

Capitalism is also slightly flawed as the main corporations end up with all the money and they only care about the profits.

Ideally we would all revert to savages, hunting and foraging, living in mud huts and caves. :D
This, I think, comes closest to the mark.

What I always find interesting about this particular debate is that each side says the other doesn't work for essentially the same reason, the people.

Capitalists insist that people are self interested and will sandbag in the communist world.

Communists insist that people are self interested and won't take their fellow citizens into consideration when persuing thier profit.

Seems to me that they both have the same problem with slightly differing outputs. Rather inforces some of my friend's notions that the real problem is that we where never meant to gather in groups larger than 150*, but anyway...

It would seem that neither solution actually solves the problem it seems to worry about. The answer is probably in the middle somewhere.




*(the number isn't arbitrary, it comes from anthropological data-but don't ask me for it, it's thier sabre to rattle, not mine)_

Of how much worth is the person who organizes all the labor and takes the risk of setting up and establishing the company and taking the loan to make it all happen?
That's like saying "but the slave owner went through all the trouble of setting up a plantation!" in response to an argument against slavery. I don't care if the slave owner actually did some work too - slavery is still wrong, and slave owners should not exist.

For similar reasons, capitalism is wrong, and private companies should not exist. The means of production should be the public property of the people.

Of how much worth is the person who answers the help-line when you give them a call?

None of those people add actual cash value to the product, but then if we paid all the workers the exact value they added in none of these support people would get any money.
Of course. Which is why you sometimes have to take the final value of the product and divide it more or less equally among the people who contributed to its production. That's not what capitalism does. On average, American owners get five hundred times more money than their workers.

Here is the OECD report on this (for 2002):
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/PDF/oecd_inctax_2002.pdf]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TF...inctax_2002.pdf


I get a "page not found" with that, and I do have a pdf viewer.

Anyway, I don't have a website to point to, but I have run a small business, and paid corporate income tax, so I think I'll stick with what I know.

Here is the OECD report on this (for 2002):
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/PDF/oecd_inctax_2002.pdf

Income tax

Czech Republic = 32%
Mexico = 35%
UK = 40%
Canada = 43.4%
US = 45%
Netherlands = 52%
Sweden = 55.5%
Belgium = 56.2%
France = 60.4%

Note : some taxes are direct, some are less direct.
See OECD reports about productivity they are very interesting.




"Corporations looking to relocate, or even establish, a business in the West may shy away from California, as the state’s 8.84% flat rate is the highest corporate tax rate in the West. National, only 10 other states have a higher top corporate tax rate than California. In 2002, corporate tax collections in California totaled $152 per capita, the sixth highest per capita level in the nation."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/factsonCA.html

Here we go.. and to think, I managed to compete in the second worst business environment in America: California. :) I feel proud now that I know that.

That's like saying "but the slave owner went through all the trouble of setting up a plantation!" in response to an argument against slavery. I don't care if the slave owner actually did some work too - slavery is still wrong, and slave owners should not exist

For similar reasons, capitalism is wrong, and private companies should not exist. The means of production should be the public property of the people.

Riighht. No one to organize it, it won't happen. Calling the "means of production the public property of the people" doesn't actually mean anything. Why don't you tell me how we're all going to get together and produce a Honda Civic without someone to organize all of it?

Of course. Which is why you sometimes have to take the final value of the product and divide it more or less equally among the people who contributed to its production. That's not what capitalism does. On average, American owners get five hundred times more money than their workers.

Those people didn't contribute to its production smart guy.

That's what we call a myth, friend.

In the U.S. at least, 90% of millionaires are self-made. I.E., they inherited nothing or less than the average person.

Additonally, the average millionaire declares bankruptcy 2.5 times in their lives. In other words, they take risks and fail before they succede, and sometimes afterwards.

Old money aristocracy is a good propaganda image, but not the truth.http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/PDF/oecd_inctax_2002.pdf

On average, American owners get five hundred times more money than their workers.

Hah! Have you been talking to Putin lately? He told you the one about how Bush fired Dan Rather, right? That one's a gas.

What I always find interesting about this particular debate is that each side says the other doesn't work for essentially the same reason, the people.
That is wrong Communist don't say capitalism doesn't work because of the people but because of the system.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/PDF/oecd_inctax_2002.pdf

That chart lists "the highest rate" whatever that means.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/PDF/oecd_inctax_2002.pdf

Ah ha, now I've figured it out. They've taken the tax rate for single people who earn over 326k and then throw on the average state income tax.

Cheers.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/PDF/oecd_inctax_2002.pdf

First, that link has nothing do to with my point.

Second, it's wrong on both counts.

1. the highest income tax rate isn't 45.4%, it's somewhere around 37. And you've got to be pretty rich to pay it.

2. I already addressed the corporate income tax. I pay it. I know this. California is the highest, and I don't pay 45% of my revenue to the state. :rolleyes:

The Soviet Union was ... rich? WTF?
It was rich compared to 80% of the world, you ignorant fool. It was richer than any country in Asia, Africa or Latin America, and richer than a few countries in Europe too.

The vast majority of countries with command economies went down the friggin tubes. Take a good look at the failed experiments with communism in the USSR, Eastern Europe, South America...
Take a look at the failed experiments with capitalism in the former USSR, Eastern Europe, South America...

In Eastern Europe, living standards are still lower than in the 80's. I should know - I LIVE THERE. In Russia, capitalism has been such a horrible, miserable, catastrophic failure that most people would go back to the Soviet Union in a heartbeat if they could. In South America, left-wing forces are winning election after election, because the people want to get capitalism off their backs.

By the way, have you seen what free market capitalism has done in Argentina?

Hah! Have you been talking to Putin lately? He told you the one about how Bush fired Dan Rather, right? That one's a gas.
Putin? You mean Mr. Flat Tax? Nah, he was just complaining about what an annoying leftist Bush is. Well, leftist when compared to Putin, anyway...

That chart lists "the highest rate" whatever that means.
It means those countries have either progresssive taxes or all people pay this price.

First, that link has nothing do to with my point.

Second, it's wrong on both counts.

1. the highest income tax rate isn't 45.4%, it's somewhere around 37. And you've got to be pretty rich to pay it.

2. I already addressed the corporate income tax. I pay it. I know this. California is the highest, and I don't pay 45% of my revenue to the state. :rolleyes:
Minimum wages? Military budget? Ban on child labor? MIT? NASA? corporate subsidies?

It means those countries have either progresssive taxes or all people pay this price.

That still doesn't explain why it's wrong on both counts.

That still doesn't explain why it's wrong on both counts.
It is not wrong.

Riighht. No one to organize it, it won't happen. Calling the "means of production the public property of the people" doesn't actually mean anything. Why don't you tell me how we're all going to get together and produce a Honda Civic without someone to organize all of it?
You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Socialism is the economic system in which the people control the capital (and the economy in general). Socialism means public property over the means of production - in other words, economic democracy. Every citizen is an equal "shareholder" in the national economy. And, as shareholders, the citizens can elect a team of managers - known as the government - to run the economy. Naturally, the managers (government officials) keep their jobs as long as they run the economy for the benefit of the shareholders (the people).

In socialism, the state runs the economy and the people control the state. Which part of that don't you understand?

Minimum wages? Military budget? Ban on child labor? MIT? NASA?

I don't remember claiming that we were a pure freemarket economy, with no restrictions whatsoever on economic activity.

We don't ban child labor, we limit it to a certain number of hours. And if your family business needs you, you work as long as you're told at any age. I know this one personally. ;)

First what is Capitalism?
I jotted this down a while ago and can't remember where from but I think it covers it:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

It's flawed in that it's goals run contrary to the public good. Profit is the goal, achieved through competion and creating winners and losers. If an individual is not productive, for whatever reason, and cannot contribute to the profitability of an enterprise, they have no value.

Where a country pays at least lip service to human and social rights a vast amount of legislation is enacted to protect the population from commercial practices.
Malpractice, fraud, deceit, theft, coercion, disinformation, insider trading, tax evasion, unsafe working, racism, bigotry, sexism,......

The business community have invented the concept of "Business Ethics" to promote the idea there are moral choices in business. The immoral choices are all too frequently taken which is why so many controls are needed.

Where a country does not advocate human and social rights we see little protective commercial legislation or if it is there, it is unenforced. This leads to widespread corruption. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/gov_cor&int=-1)

There is this constant conflict between public good and profitability. It is not profit in itself which is so bad but the way it is accumulated and redistributed.
It is the control of the accumulation and redistribution in which government systems differ so much. Capitalists would control it privately and socialists publicly.

It is not wrong.

Yes, it is. (We can do this again. ;) )

With the wages they are paid, get this, they have enough money to buy food for their childern.
Is that why 20,000 people are dying of hunger every day in the capitalist third world?

It was rich compared to 80% of the world, you ignorant fool. It was richer than any country in Asia, Africa or Latin America, and richer than a few countries in Europe too.

Richer in terms of total assets/gdp perhaps. Mainly because it is friggin huge with a gigantic amount of resources. It should have won the cold war buddy. But it didn't. Because having a command economy crippled it.

Take a look at the failed experiments with capitalism in the former USSR, Eastern Europe, South America...

In Eastern Europe, living standards are still lower than in the 80's. I should know - I LIVE THERE. In Russia, capitalism has been such a horrible miserable, catastrophic failure that most people would go back to the Soviet Union in a heartbeat if they could. In South America, left-wing forces are winning election after election, because the people want to get capitalism off their backs.

Because you know, capitalism has actually been implemented in any of those cases... wait, it hasn't. Indeed though nice little places like Brazil are actually doing alright. Japan, damn that place is doing great. China is implementing capitlism and is doing great. France, Germany, the UK, America...

By the way, have you seen what free market capitalism has done in Argentina?

Right, because anything in Argentina compares to what the USSR did.

When you demand more pay than someone else who will do the same job you do, you've warranted your layoff.
BLASPHEMY!!! :eek: Damn dude, I couldn't have said it better.



Why not? We up and ruined slave owners lives. We up and ruined buggy whip makers lives. We up and ruined Zeppelin builders lives. We up and ruined sail makers lives. We up and ruined sword makers lives etc...
Slave owners? How about the slaves? They're the ones that got laid off. I know that sounds like a sick joke, but what would you do be thinking if you were suddenly freed and didn't have your basic necessities met?

Is that why 20,000 people are dying of hunger every day in the capitalist third world?

That my friend has to do with the people who aren't fortunate enough to be working for those companies, for whatever reason.

I don't remember claiming that we were a pure freemarket economy, with no restrictions whatsoever on economic activity.

We don't ban child labor, we limit it to a certain number of hours. And if your family business needs you, you work as long as you're told at any age. I know this one personally. ;)
You still defend capitalism by citing the US as a successful capitalist society.
Capitalism was the 19th century. And many people starved before socialist policies was implemented in ALL industrial countries. And this is not the end of history.

Is that why 20,000 people are dying of hunger every day in the capitalist third world?

Disease and overpopulation don't help.

Capitalists insist that people are self interested and will sandbag in the communist world.
...which, of course, is a bullshit argument - because the whole point of communism is that it benefits more people more of the time than capitalism does. So you have greater odds of being happy in communism than in capitalism. So, if you are self-interested, you should choose communism.

You still defend capitalism by citing the US as a successful capitalist society.
Capitalism was the 19th century. And many people starved before socialist policies was implemented in ALL industrial countries. And this is not the end of history.

No nation on Earth is run the way Mankiw would have it run. But we're a comparatively capitalistic country, so that's what we've got.

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Socialism is the economic system in which the people control the capital (and the economy in general). Socialism means public property over the means of production - in other words, economic democracy. Every citizen is an equal "shareholder" in the national economy. And, as shareholders, the citizens can elect a team of managers - known as the government - to run the economy. Naturally, the managers (government officials) keep their jobs as long as they run the economy for the benefit of the shareholders (the people).

In socialism, the state runs the economy and the people control the state. Which part of that don't you understand?

Oh I understand it. What I don't understand is why you think that these "elected managers" will behave any differently than our elected officals who never fail to give themselves a pay raise? Or that they will behave any differently than all the elected, and appointed, officals in virtually every command economy who basicaly lined their pockets?

Because you know, capitalism has actually been implemented in any of those cases... wait, it hasn't. Indeed though nice little places like Brazil are actually doing alright. Japan, damn that place is doing great. China is implementing capitlism and is doing great. France, Germany, the UK, America...

France has had a socialist government for decades. Not is it cohabitation.
Germany and the UK are socialist.
America is hypocrit.

...which, of course, is a bullshit argument - because the whole point of communism is that it benefits more people more of the time than capitalism does. So you have greater odds of being happy in communism than in capitalism. So, if you are self-interested, you should choose communism.

Which explains the USSR...

Oh wait, people did sandbag, all the time. Might explain why they didn't maintain their machinery...

...which, of course, is a bullshit argument - because the whole point of communism is that it benefits more people more of the time than capitalism does. So you have greater odds of being happy in communism than in capitalism. So, if you are self-interested, you should choose communism.

If you're happy living as a number, rather than an individual, go for it.

France has had a socialist government for decades. Not is it cohabitation.
Germany and the UK are socialist.
America is hypocrit.

Right because you know, we're all sitting here arguing for laissez-fair capitalism...

No nation on Earth is run the way Mankiw would have it run. But we're a comparatively capitalistic country, so that's what we've got.
The US has been moving toward socialism for the past 100 years. Progress is not to go back to primitive capitalism. The future is socialist.

The problem is that it gives the power to a few oligarchs.
It is no better that feudalism in the sense that the rich inherit from their parents and rule the country at the expense of the poor who have to work for the rich.
The rich get the lion share of the wealth generated by the workers and they are richer and richer. The poor are poorer and poorer. This system is not sustainable and necessarily end up in a revolution. This is why ALL industrialized nations have adopted socialist policies like mandatory social education, minimum wages and ban on child labor, just to name a few (note those policies were cited in the communist manifesto written by Marx and Engels).

Interesting theory. I think you're full of shit. True free market capitalism doesn't necessarily make it easier for the rich to get richer, and more importantly it permits the poor to get richer. There will always be enemies of the free market who will attempt and often succeed to use the power of government to help secure a profit. 2 examples:
1. A professional sports team (a commercial enterprise) that convinces a municipal government to pay for a stadium.
2. Halliburton

Don't be fooled. The USA is one of the most socialised countries on earth and isn't ashamed to use Marx theory when it fits its needs while finger pointing those who don't open their market to US corporations.
Now here I agree with you entirely. It's too bad all those people who think they're against socialism don't agree. :rolleyes:

Oh I understand it. What I don't understand is why you think that these "elected managers" will behave any differently than our elected officals who never fail to give themselves a pay raise? Or that they will behave any differently than all the elected, and appointed, officals in virtually every command economy who basicaly lined their pockets?
That is why there are 3 branches of government.
BTW I'd rather have government officials who are at least supposed to work for the people than corporate lords who are not even supposed to care the slightest about the populace.

The US has been mocing toward socialism for the past 100 years. Progress is not to go back to primitive capitalism. The future is socialist.

China just recently started allowing international corporations to set up shop in their nation. Progress, then, would be full capitalism, rather than going back to full communism.

We're not going communist in the U.S., but one step in that direction wouldn't mean it was inevitable.

Richer in terms of total assets/gdp perhaps.
No, the Soviet Union was richer than 80% of the world in terms of GDP per capita and other indicators of standards of living.

Because you know, capitalism has actually been implemented in any of those cases... wait, it hasn't.
If you can dismiss all the failures of capitalism by waving your hand and saying "well, that's not the capitalism I want", then I can just as easily dismiss all the failures of command economics and say "well, that's not the command economics I want".

Of course, most countries where capitalism has failed are/were far MORE capitalist (i.e. they have far LESS regulations) than the western world where capitalism is doing fine.

Indeed though nice little places like Brazil are actually doing alright.
You haven't been to Brazil recently, have you?

Japan, damn that place is doing great. China is implementing capitlism and is doing great. France, Germany, the UK, America...
You mean the countries with well-regulated capitalism? Yup, they're doing MUCH better than those free market ones in the third world.

Right, because anything in Argentina compares to what the USSR did.
I can put you in touch with a friend of mine in Argentina if you doubt the kind of devastation that free market capitalism can bring. Even better, you could GO THERE and see for yourself. And visit Russia too, while you're at it.

That is why there are 3 branches of government.
BTW I'd rather have government officials who are at least supposed to work for the people than corporate lords who are not even supposed to care the slightest about the populace.

What does having 3 branches of government have to do with anything? Government workers get selected how? People vote on every worker? Captalism forces people to be efficent or be knocked off. Command Economies force you to meet "X quota" and then you're happy. In the USSR this resulted in poor quality + poor maintence + easiest way out. Resulting in enviormental destruction and massivive losses of capital in terms of oil wells, forges, machinary in general etc... After all why bother to maintain something you don't need to meet your quota? And that is exactly what happened.

If you're happy living as a number, rather than an individual, go for it.You're still a number in the databases of big corporations.

After silently viewing this exchange for some time. I have to ask.

How old are you?

I can put you in touch with a friend of mine in Argentina if you doubt the kind of devastation that free market capitalism can bring. Even better, you could GO THERE and see for yourself. And visit Russia too, while you're at it.

You realise that in Soviet Russia, the alternative to being a productive worker and compliant communist was the gulag, right?

What does having 3 branches of government have to do with anything? Government workers get selected how? People vote on every worker? Captalism forces people to be efficent or be knocked off. Command Economies force you to meet "X quota" and then you're happy. In the USSR this resulted in poor quality + poor maintence + easiest way out. Resulting in enviormental destruction and massivive losses of capital in terms of oil wells, forges, machinary in general etc... After all why bother to maintain something you don't need to meet your quota? And that is exactly what happened.
The USSR was a superpower with twice the GDP increase rate of the USA. It had more than 3 times the GDP of today capitalist Russia combined with all the former USSR states, much less crime, no mafia and full employment.

You're still a number in the databases of big corporations.

And 2/3 of us work for ourselves or a small businessman, not a massive transnational. 1/3 work for medium or large corporations, and if they don't like it, they can leave. And I don't mean to the gulag, I mean start their own business or work at a smaller firm.

In communist society, the inventor of a million-dollar product makes the same wage as a welfare queen. Invention is stifled and the individual is smashed into a mold of compliance with a standard of mediocrity.

No, richer in terms of GDP per capita and other indicators of standards of living.

Which explains why the average person in America was far better off than the average person in the USSR circa 1980?

If you can dismiss all the failures of capitalism by waving your hand and saying "well, that's not the capitalism I want", then I can just as easily dismiss all the failures of command economics and say "well, that's not the command economics I want".

problem: Capitlalism works better.

Of course, most countries where capitalism has failed are/were far MORE capitalist (i.e. they have far LESS regulations) than the western world where capitalism is doing fine.

Which is an argument for a command economy? Riighhhtt.

I can put you in touch with a friend of mine in Argentina if you doubt the kind of devastation that free market capitalism can bring. Even better, you could GO THERE and see for yourself. And visit Russia too, while you're at it.

Really you mean the destruction in Argentina compares to what Russia did... Bad does not mean they're the same.

You mean if the corporations gave a flying fuck about the people of the country they happen to inhabit. Of course if no corporation outsourced overseas we'd just have less luxuries here and more poverty there and overall the world would suck more.

Cheers!

Yeah, less luxuries, but at least not at the expense of exploited overseas workers. If you ever studied anthropology/sociology you'd understand how global capitalism keeps people in poverty, as opposed to lessening it.

And 2/3 of us work for ourselves or a small businessman, not a massive transnational. 1/3 work for medium or large corporations, and if they don't like it, they can leave. And I don't mean to the gulag, I mean start their own business or work at a smaller firm.

In communist society, the inventor of a million-dollar product makes the same wage as a welfare queen. Invention is stifled and the individual is smashed into a mold of compliance with a standard of mediocrity.
You are lucky to have anti-trust laws and to have a government regulating big corporations or they would stomp on you. Don't spit on it.

If you're happy living as a number, rather than an individual, go for it.
Define "living as a number". And then explain how you'd be more of a number in socialism than in a capitalist world where your boss refers to you as a "human resource".

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, left-wingers are far more likely to support civil rights and personal freedoms than right-wingers are.

The USSR was a superpower with twice the GDP increase rate of the USA. It had more than 3 times the GDP of today capitalist Russia combined with all the former USSR states, much less crime, no mafia and full employment.

Which explains why it all went down the shitter right? Yep. Thanks for beleving what the USSR was telling you though.

Define "living as a number". And then explain how you'd be more of a number in socialism than in a capitalist world where your boss refers to you as a "human resource".

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, left-wingers are far more likely to support civil rights and personal freedoms than right-wingers are.

Check up on the history of Civil Rights. I suspect you'll be surprised when you find out the Republican party supported them far more than the Democrats did.

Yeah, less luxuries, but at least not at the expense of exploited overseas workers. If you ever studied anthropology/sociology you'd understand how global capitalism keeps people in poverty, as opposed to lessening it.

Really, anthrophology/sociology has anything to do with Economics? Intersting.

You realise that in Soviet Russia, the alternative to being a productive worker and compliant communist was the gulag, right?
You realise that the gulag was dismantled in 1956, right?

Which explains why the average person in America was far better off than the average person in the USSR circa 1980?The USSR recovered after the WW2 in 10 years. They were technologically more advanced than the US. Of course they have less natural resources and they suffered war.

You realise that the gulag was dismantled in 1956, right?

If you are going to be so picky about a figure of speech...

You realize that realize is spelled with a Z right?

The USSR recovered after the WW2 in 10 years. They were technologically more advanced than the US. Of course they have less natural resources and they suffered war.

They were technologicaly less advanced thanks...

Interesting debate. But I think several issues should be brought up. First, true capitalism, in the Ricardo/Friedman sense, has never, and likely will never, be tried. Mainly because true capitalism is too unpredictable, for example a loaf of bread would cost $1 one day and $3.50 the next. Even supposed "capitalists" like Reagan and Bush often impose tariffs and increase subsidies to farmers. Secondly, the American Democratic Party is not anti-capitalist in any sense. From a purely public policy perspective, Clinton continued many (but not all) of the same economic policies as Bush 41.That's a ridiculous argument you would get such price fluctuations without market intervention. What current mechanism keeps bread prices stable? Actually, sometimes bread does fluctuate about that much. It's called a "sale", and is necessary to salvage some of the purchase price before the bread goes bad. Also, capitalism isn't really something that is "tried", it's more like something that occurs. No centralized authority can make it happen, they can only hamper it. You're correct to notice that Republicans aren't exactly capitalists. The Demorcatic party is marginally more socialistic than them. To say they are not anti-capitalist is nuts.


Finally, capitalism, in the way it is used today, does objectively have pros and cons.
To name some of the cons (since most people seem to have already named the good side) it gives corporations much too much power and influence over the government and in shaping public opinion.
What does capitalism have to do with the suseptability of politicians to be influenced? And what ways do corporations shape public opinion that
you find unacceptable. Does the freedom of speech not extend to corporate executives? Also, it has been proven to be environmentally unsustainable, (mainly in that the market poorly adds the cost of the environmental impact of the product to consumers).

What is environmentally unsustainable?

Capitalism has also proven to be detrimental to Third World countries, while China does have large economic growth, it is also experiancing several problems as well (too many to get into here). A great deal of Third World coutries are heavily in debt, and have been forced by the IMF to adopt many disasterous policies.
The IMF is not capitalism.

Check up on the history of Civil Rights. I suspect you'll be surprised when you find out the Republican party supported them far more than the Democrats did.
Yeah - in the 19th century. Back then, the Republicans weren't right-wing (they turned right after WW1) and the Democrats weren't left-wing (they turned left after the New Deal).

Define "living as a number". And then explain how you'd be more of a number in socialism than in a capitalist world where your boss refers to you as a "human resource".

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, left-wingers are far more likely to support civil rights and personal freedoms than right-wingers are.

Left/right is not an accurate scale for civil liberties.. you're talking about libertarianism vs. authoritarianism...

By 'living as a number,' I mean the absence of incentives to excel above your peers, make a better life for your family and build capital for your own personal interests, say, starting your own firm after building funds working for another and learning the trade. A system where there is no competition gives rise to apathy and listlessness.

Yeah - in the 19th century. Back then, the Republicans weren't right-wing (they turned right after WW1) and the Democrats weren't left-wing (they turned left after the New Deal).

20th century actually.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

Cheers.

They were technologicaly less advanced thanks..
4 words:

Sputnik
Iuri Gagarin
Mir

Which explains why it all went down the shitter right? Yep. Thanks for beleving what the USSR was telling you though.
WTF you spit McCarthy propaganda and you tell me I'm brain-washed by the USSR even if I live in western Europe?
The USSR went down because they implemented free market policies under the pressure of the capitalist bloc as well as the islamist terrorists.

They were technologicaly less advanced thanks...Depends. Their space program kicked ass.

Some capitalists don't understand that the land of Guyana belongs to the citizens of Guyana, not to US corporations.
You seem to have a handle on the concept of property rights. What exactly does this have to do with foreign corporations hiring the people there? If the corporations are stealing land, or commiting any other sort of theft, fraud, or violence against the people, that is unacceptable and is not capitalism.

Simple. There are rich people and poor people.

4 words:

Sputnik
Iuri Gagarin
Mir

One word.

Apollo.

Not that space travel is the sole indicator of technological advancement.

4 words:

Sputnik
Iuri Gagarin
Mir

Technology means more than the space program..

The Russians liked to innovate to put the sickle and hammer on the front pages, but behind the curtain, most fields were lagging far behind the U.S., medicine, electronics, etc.

The only major breakthroughs there were radial-kerototmy and Leika cameras.. for the average person, technology was no boon.

Really, anthrophology/sociology has anything to do with Economics? Intersting.
Uhm, Marx? Arguably the most important sociological/economic theory ever...any study of society necessitates taking into account economics.

4 words:

Sputnik
Iuri Gagarin
Mir

don't you mean 3 words?

and as far as sputnik goes...
wow... a metal ball in space :rolleyes:

Left/right is not an accurate scale for civil liberties.. you're talking about libertarianism vs. authoritarianism...

By 'living as a number,' I mean the absence of incentives to excel above your peers, make a better life for your family and build capital for your own personal interests, say, starting your own firm after building funds working for another and learning the trade. A system where there is no competition gives rise to apathy and listlessness.
There is competition in socialism. Workers who work better, faster and smarter get more reward than the lazy ones.
In capitalism, the capital brings you more reward than work. The only incentive you have is to acquire capital, but no incentive to work.

WTF you spit McCarthy propaganda and you tell me I'm brain-washed by the USSR even if I live in western Europe?
The USSR went down because they implemented free market policies under the pressure of the capitalist bloc as well as the islamist terrorists.

The USSR was bucklingbefore that actually...

You confuse trade and capitalism.
And they have a gun on their head. Look at how the US deals with socialist countries in central and south america. (Note the US itself is socialist but doesn't want other countries to use minimum wages because they want cheap labor).
Could you please distinguish between the country known as the USA and it's central government. Most Americans know very little about that which you speak, and you can't support what you don't know about.

don't you mean 3 words?

and as far as sputnik goes...
wow... a metal ball in space :rolleyes:

No, there were four words there :p

The USSR was bucklingbefore that actually...In the 60's? They had twice the GDP increase rate as the one of the US.

In the 60's? They had twice the GDP increase rate as the one of the US.

The USSR fell in 1991 no? Before that would be 1980 and 1970.

Besides which the GDP increase rate had to do with what they were coming from and moving to while the USA was already fairly well developed.

There is competition in socialism. Workers who work better, faster and smarter get more reward than the lazy ones.
In capitalism, the capital brings you more reward than work. The only incentive you have is to acquire capital, but no incentive to work.

I'm not talking about Bob and Joe competing for the promotion at Soviet Steel Co. I'm talking about Bob's Apples doing everything they can to improve product and service so that Joe's Apples doesn't take their market share away and leave them in the dust.

If you are going to be so picky about a figure of speech...

You realize that realize is spelled with a Z right?

Not if you're speaking English it's not :p

I'm not talking about Bob and Joe competing for the promotion at Soviet Steel Co. I'm talking about Bob's Apples doing everything they can to improve product and service so that Joe's Apples doesn't take their market share away and leave them in the dust.
It is the same. If Bob is running a more successful business he will get more reward in socialism. If Joe doesn't meet the demand, he will be out of work soon.

First of all, the source of the problem is the fact that the means of production are private property. Capitalist society is divided in two social classes: the bourgeoisie (the owners/employers - those who own means of production) and the proletariat (the workers/employees - those who do not own means of production).
Look Karl, if you can provide a foolproof method of determining whether a person is bourgeoisie or proletariat along with a comprehesive defenition of "means of production", I'll quit being a capitalist.

I'm curious, how did you become a communist?

Look Karl, if you can provide a foolproof method of determining whether a person is bourgeoisie or proletariat along with a comprehesive defenition of "means of production", I'll quit being a capitalist.

I'm curious, how did you become a communist?

It's quite easy, it's simply who controls the means of production (the technology behind creating goods) and who does not.

Look Karl, if you can provide a foolproof method of determining whether a person is bourgeoisie or proletariat along with a comprehesive defenition of "means of production", I'll quit being a capitalist.

I'm curious, how did you become a communist?
A bourgeois is someone who lives with the money he gets from his capital. He is essentially a renter.
A proletarian is someone who live with the money he gets from working. Most of the time he has a salary.
The means of production are the capital which is necessary to produce wealth.

Not if you're speaking English it's not :p

Hush. the UK can't spell for shat.

It is the same. If Bob is running a more successful business he will get more reward in socialism. If Joe doesn't meet the demand, he will be out of work soon.

If Bob and Joe are free to each run their own businesses in their own way, and are free to compete for market share, then they're not in a communist system. If the government controls all capital, then there is no Bob's Apples, there's only China National Apples, or whatever the case is. Socialism is another animal. Socialism is a philosophy regarding redistribution of income, which all nations do to some extent.

It is the same. If Bob is running a more successful business he will get more reward in socialism. If Joe doesn't meet the demand, he will be out of work soon.

Wait, so your "command economy" allows for two competing apple businesses now? Doesn't sound very command to me.

The people? Which people? Perhaps you mean the rich people control the capital. And that is exactly the source of the problem with capitalism. Your boss owns the products of your labour, and pays you far less than they are worth (see my post above).

Socialism is the economic system in which the people control the capital (and the economy in general). Socialism means public property over the means of production - in other words, economic democracy. Every citizen is an equal "shareholder" in the national economy. And, as shareholders, the citizens can elect a team of managers - known as the government - to run the economy. Naturally, the managers (government officials) keep their jobs as long as they run the economy for the benefit of the shareholders (the people).Who has all the guns in this particular arrangment? And what if I want to earn a living as a criminal defense attorney and wish not to have to worry about how Representative Schmidt thinks an oil refinery should be run?

If Bob and Joe are free to each run their own businesses in their own way, and are free to compete for market share, then they're not in a communist system. If the government controls all capital, then there is no Bob's Apples, there's only China National Apples, or whatever the case is. Socialism is another animal. Socialism is a philosophy regarding redistribution of income, which all nations do to some extent.It is only a matter of ownership, not a matter of organization. In my country, the government controls several banks. There is not necessarily a monopoly, although some industries, it is more convenient.

Don't be an idiot. Workers should keep the full value of their labour - no more no less. Capitalism always gives them less.
How much is labour worth?

It is only a matter of ownership, not a matter of organization. In my country, the government controls several banks. There is not necessarily a monopoly, although some industries, it is more convenient.

Your government isn't communist either.

A bourgeois is someone who lives with the money he gets from his capital. He is essentially a renter.
A proletarian is someone who live with the money he gets from working. Most of the time he has a salary.
The means of production are the capital which is necessary to produce wealth.

The fallacy is the belief that those social groups are impenetrable to climbers or provide a floor against failure. It's possible to be a worker and then an owner, or an owner who miscalculates a risk and becomes a worker, etc.

These are descriptions, not a caste system. Some have a harder time breaking the barrier than others, but through the right channels, most people have a decent chance.

It is only a matter of ownership, not a matter of organization. In my country, the government controls several banks. There is not necessarily a monopoly, although some industries, it is more convenient.

We've had national banks in the U.S. since McCulloch vs. Maryland, out of necessity. No one is bound to keep their assets there, though. The key is economic freedom. The government can build all the public schools it wants, but I can still homeschool or attend a private institution. Options are the key.

The problem with capitalism is very simple:
It teaches that small is good in business.
Capitalism works better when you don't have big corporations but rather small and medium businesses competing within themselves.
It's not that big corps are bad in themselves (they can offer good pay and very good working environment while still having excellent profits if you apply a judicious regulation, something that doesn't really happen in the US) but they tend to concentrate a far too big share of the market in their hands, damaging the competition balance and setting up vicious circles (we hear daily of corner cuttings just to increase the profit and give a juicy reward to the shareholders or a "benefit" to the management) and reducing efficency overall.
Oligopolistic and monopolistic tendencies in a market sector greatly decreases price flexibility and favours hidden agreement between competitors (yes, in theory they are illegal. Now go to your favourite mall and check the prices, you'll find "high quality" at x, "medium" at y and "bargain" at z... Leave out the strategically placed discounts and you'll get the same price for different products... Where are cost cut and market differentiation, basic principles of capitalism?).
There are also a few places where private control is not the most efficent one, areas where there is no flexible demand to prices so they can be set arbitrarily high.
Healthcare is a prime example... Did you know that in EU pay in taxes for public healthcare a fraction of what the average joe pays in the US for insurance (who can break the agreement while the state cannot)?
And you aren't paying for quality, since the top healthcare systems are all public ones while US scored 34th in the last UN classification.

Capitalism is not bad in itself but like all things it needs to be regulated in order to work with best efficency (you don't have to believe me, just read some real economics book, you'll find plenty at bookshops for university).
You also have to remember that when you're dealing with economy you cannot use the same recipe in every place or you'll make a serious mess... Some countres needs more regulations, some other less and some will fare better with public control.

Finally about capitalism = individualism.
Go out, look at fashion tendencies and then find out how many people behaves differently.
Even in the big cities you'll have to work hard to find out a sizeable number of people... You just find different sets of conformism, rather than true individualism... The few different ones are either shun away by the people or become a tendency leader (and thus just another layer of conformism).

Damn, it's good to be able to use your university degree while talking like an human being... Economics can be socially interesting after all :p

And how much worth is the rich kid who inherited his stock shares from his father and spends all his days in Hawaï tanning on the beach and snorting cocaïn occasionally calling his banker to ask how business is going?
What do you care? Would you like to trade places with him? You can't afford cocain? Seriously, would you wish to be born into a rich family? I have a great desire for more wealth, but I'm glad to have had the not so wealthy life I've had so far.

Not that space travel is the sole indicator of technological advancement.
Of course, but you would do well to remember that the USA had a massive head start on the Soviet Union. How well developed was Tsarist Russia in 1917 compared to the USA in 1917?

Healthcare is a prime example... Did you know that in EU pay in taxes for public healthcare a fraction of what the average joe pays in the US for insurance (who can break the agreement while the state cannot)?
And you aren't paying for quality, since the top healthcare systems are all public ones while US scored 34th in the last UN classification.


Cuba still number 1? :rolleyes:

Of course, but you would do well to remember that the USA had a massive head start on the Soviet Union. How well developed was Tsarist Russia in 1917 compared to the USA in 1917?

Your point? It is far easier to play catch-up than it is to come up with new stuff...

The fallacy is the belief that those social groups are impenetrable to climbers or provide a floor against failure. It's possible to be a worker and then an owner, or an owner who miscalculates a risk and becomes a worker, etc.
If it is possible for a slave to win his freedom and become a slave owner, that doesn't make slavery ok. Besides, although social classes are not impenetrable in capitalism, it is a fact that vertical motion (upwards or downwards on the social ladder) is growing increasingly uncommon in our capitalist world.

Your point? It is far easier to play catch-up than it is to come up with new stuff...
If that were true, there would be a natural tendency for all countries to reach an equal level of development, since the poor ones would catch up faster than the rich ones could pull ahead. However, this is not the case in our world. The wealth gap is growing, not shrinking. Therefore, your theory is invalid.

If it is possible for a slave to win his freedom and become a slave owner, that doesn't make slavery ok. Besides, although social classes are not impenetrable in capitalism, it is a fact that vertical motion (upwards or downwards on the social ladder) is growing increasingly uncommon in our capitalist world.

Really and where are you getting this lovely fact from? Yale just volunteered to foot the entire bill for all students whose parents make less than 45k a year. If your parents make less than 60k a year your tution is cut in half.

Harvard doesn't charge a cent to anyone who comes from a family who earns less than 40k a year.

Cheers.

Besides, although social classes are not impenetrable in capitalism, it is a fact that vertical motion (upwards or downwards on the social ladder) is growing increasingly uncommon in our capitalist world.

As opposed to impossible in a communist society? And I haven't seen any evidence to say that climbing is any more difficult nowadays than it ever was. Inflation hasn't moved in 10 years to any siginificant degree. Homeownership has never been higher, and tax rates are lower than they have been since '92. I'd say the times are ripe for starting a business or investing.

Your point? It is far easier to play catch-up than it is to come up with new stuff...What are you talking about?

If that were true, there would be a natural tendency for all countries to reach an equal level of development, since the poor ones would catch up faster than the rich ones could pull ahead. However, this is not the case in our world. The wealth gap is growing, not shrinking. Therefore, your theory is invalid.

Depends on the nation that is doing the catch up. My theory is valid given a country that actually wants to catch up. Most of the "poorer" countries have these nice dictators that just want to give themselves more cash and can do that quite easily without any need for technological advancement. Indeed a lot of these "poorer" countries should be quite rich if they had their act together.

In any case, countries have tended to equal out in reality. Perhaps that is not the case in your fantasy world.

Has it ever occurred to anyone how much money is wasted on advertising? How much is ploughed into getting you to buy super fluffy bleach-o soapflakes rather than turbo megascrub soapflakes?

Imagine, then, that all of the money poured into this advertising was collected up, and instead we just had state soapflakes, which everyone bought.

The amount of money generated by soapflake sales would be the same, but the outlay would be a lot less. We'd also save on packaging, since we wouldn't need to draw people's attention away from the other soapflakes.

Not only could we use some of this money to develop a better soapflake, but we could maybe use what's left to build a hospital or something.

Who has all the guns in this particular arrangment?
In socialism? Everyone does. To be more exact, I strongly believe that a socialist system needs to protect the people's right to bear arms. And guess what? Lenin agrees:

For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed.

-1918 Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic; Article One, chapter 2

And what if I want to earn a living as a criminal defense attorney and wish not to have to worry about how Representative Schmidt thinks an oil refinery should be run?
I don't see the connection between you and Representative Schmidt in that scenario.

Really and where are you getting this lovely fact from? Yale just volunteered to foot the entire bill for all students whose parents make less than 45k a year. If your parents make less than 60k a year your tution is cut in half.

Harvard doesn't charge a cent to anyone who comes from a family who earns less than 40k a year.

Cheers.They do it out of charity because they would look bad in comparison to socialist schools.
If they were really capitalist, they would try to maximize profit.

What are you talking about?

Read the context and you should have no problem figuring it out. If you can't figure it out I'll just start ignoring your posts due to the idiocy of the person making them.

Yeah private beaches. Yeah private water. Yeah private air.
I can't wait to be charged to have sunlight.

They do it out of charity because they would look bad in comparison to socialist schools.
If they were really capitalist, they would try to maximize profit.

What does that have to do with the point? The schools aren't capitalist anyway, they are bastions of communist thinking.

Read the context and you should have no problem figuring it out. If you can't figure it out I'll just start ignoring your posts due to the idiocy of the person making them.
What is this new stuff?
USSR was the first in Space. Their economy was newer than the one of the US. I don't get what you are talking about.
But you can ignore me, I'm stupid anyway.

Has it ever occurred to anyone how much money is wasted on advertising? How much is ploughed into getting you to buy super fluffy bleach-o soapflakes rather than turbo megascrub soapflakes?

Imagine, then, that all of the money poured into this advertising was collected up, and instead we just had state soapflakes, which everyone bought.

The amount of money generated by soapflake sales would be the same, but the outlay would be a lot less. We'd also save on packaging, since we wouldn't need to draw people's attention away from the other soapflakes.

Not only could we use some of this money to develop a better soapflake, but we could maybe use what's left to build a hospital or something.

I'll take the necessary evil of advertising over the unnecessary evil of having to live with the one and only soap flake that the government decides to make, and never update.

Has it ever occurred to anyone how much money is wasted on advertising? How much is ploughed into getting you to buy super fluffy bleach-o soapflakes rather than turbo megascrub soapflakes?

Imagine, then, that all of the money poured into this advertising was collected up, and instead we just had state soapflakes, which everyone bought.

The amount of money generated by soapflake sales would be the same, but the outlay would be a lot less. We'd also save on packaging, since we wouldn't need to draw people's attention away from the other soapflakes.

Not only could we use some of this money to develop a better soapflake, but we could maybe use what's left to build a hospital or something.

Advertising money isn't put in an incinerator. It goes to researchers, ad firms and consultants, and right back out the door. And I don't remember a communist society that discouraged consumerism of products there weren't shortages of - communists need their citizens to spend their paychecks too.

Also, what's a soapflake? Is that like laundry detergent?

What does that have to do with the point? The schools aren't capitalist anyway, they are bastions of communist thinking.So what was your point?

What is this new stuff?
USSR was the first in Space. Their economy was newer than the one of the US. I don't get what you are talking about.
But you can ignore me, I'm stupid anyway.


Of course, but you would do well to remember that the USA had a massive head start on the Soviet Union. How well developed was Tsarist Russia in 1917 compared to the USA in 1917?

Your point? It is far easier to play catch-up than it is to come up with new stuff...

Read.

I'll take the necessary evil of advertising over the unnecessary evil of having to live with the one and only soap flake that the government decides to make, and never update.
So you would rather get stuck in capitalism but you want update at the same time?

So what was your point?

it is a fact that vertical motion (upwards or downwards on the social ladder) is growing increasingly uncommon in our capitalist world.

Consider it in that context for awhile. If Yale and Harvard are giving free admission to people who are coming from the lower classes is vertical motion growing increasingly uncommon? Doubtful.

Read.
I think you didn't get what Contantinopolis said. He said the USA had a massive head start because their infrastructure were well developed.
The USSR did invent new stuff. It just takes time to develop.

I'll take the necessary evil of advertising over the unnecessary evil of having to live with the one and only soap flake that the government decides to make, and never update.
In socialism, you could simply choose to elect someone else to a certain government office if you don't think the current guy is doing his job properly.

The reason why soviet planners were able to get away with poor management in the 70's and 80's was because they didn't have to worry about elections and making the people happy so that they could be re-elected.

Consider it in that context for awhile. If Yale and Harvard are giving free admission to people who are coming from the lower classes is vertical motion growing increasingly uncommon? Doubtful.
Oh I see you still confuse the USA with capitalism.

So you would rather get stuck in capitalism but you want update at the same time?

Capitalism updates products virtually daily. Government controlled economies result in the continued production of 20 year old cars without a thought about new safety features because they are “good enough”.

Capitalism updates products virtually daily. Government controlled economies result in the continued production of 20 year old cars without a thought about new safety features because they are “good enough”.
Sure. All inovation will stop the day we nationalise the industry.
Where are you getting those opinion from?

Oh I see you still confuse the USA with capitalism.

Oh I see you are still dumb enough to not comprehend "context." Constan over there states vertical motion is disappearing today in today's world. Not that it would disappear in capitalism. Its not disappearing.

What is the problem with capitalism? The problem is that it presupposes that the main motive of any human action is profit, and this turned out to be the maximization of profit in this time and age... This is not the only problem about capitalism, still it provides a starting point as to understanding why it is not ok about capitalism. This passage by Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, makes my point clear to an extent.

But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren,
and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only.
He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in
his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do
for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a
bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I
want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of
every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one
another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand
in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the
brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their
regard to their own interest.

Smith, Adam (Author). The Wealth of Nations.
London, UK: ElecBook, 2001. p 30.

Copyright © 2001. ElecBook. All rights reserved.
[/I]

Capitalism updates products virtually daily. Government controlled economies result in the continued production of 20 year old cars without a thought about new safety features because they are “good enough”.
When did anything like that actually happen in a planned economy? In case you didn't know, the soviets updated their car models too.

Oh I see you are still dumb enough to not comprehend "context." Constan over there states vertical motion is disappearing today in today's world. Not that it would disappear in capitalism. Its not disappearing.
He talked about today's capitalist world. Harward and Yeles are not capitalist institutions.

In socialism, you could simply choose to elect someone else to a certain government office if you don't think the current guy is doing his job properly.

Right and that works so very well right now in America were most people think almost all politcians are corrupt but they keep on getting voted in anyway?

Who has the money/funds/ability/capital to run for election in this workers paradise of yours?

How many positions are elected?

As opposed to impossible in a communist society?
There's a big difference between lack of mobility because all people are equal and lack of mobility because some people are masters and others are servants.

Right and that works so very well right now in America were most people think almost all politcians are corrupt but they keep on getting voted in anyway?
As opposed to the CEOs. they have a very good reputation of never being corrupted.

He talked about today's capitalist world. Harward and Yeles are not capitalist institutions.

its Harvard and Yale smart guy.

Harvard and Yale are part of the USA smart guy. He is stating vertical movement is becoming rare in the USA. Which generally can't be believed if poor people are getting free rides at some of the world's best colleges.

Who has the money/funds/ability/capital to run for election in this workers paradise of yours?
In my country, election campaigns are funded by the government.

As opposed to the CEOs. they are a very good reputation of never being corrupted.

Some are, some aren't. Difference is the bad CEOs get fired rather quickly and have difficulty getting another job.

its Harvard and Yale smart guy.

Harvard and Yale are part of the USA smart guy. He is stating vertical movement is becoming rare in the USA. Which generally can't be believed if poor people are getting free rides at some of the world's best colleges.
Can someone with no money from Angola attend Yales?

Some are, some aren't. Difference is the bad CEOs get fired rather quickly and have difficulty getting another job.sure. You convinced me.

When did anything like that actually happen in a planned economy? In case you didn't know, the soviets updated their car models too.

I don't happen to have the book handy but it stated that the USSR commissioned the production of some 1960 or 1970 Italian Car and continued producing it till 1989ish as the car for the people.

Party Members/Government naturally rolled around in much better and more modern cars.

Right and that works so very well right now in America were most people think almost all politcians are corrupt but they keep on getting voted in anyway?
It's not my fault America has a stupid 2-party system. Go learn something from European democracies.

Who has the money/funds/ability/capital to run for election in this workers paradise of yours?
Anyone who gathers a certain number of signatures (endorsements) from the people can be a candidate, and he/she receives funds from the government to run his/her campaign. All candidates get a more or less equal funding, with differences based on the number of signatures they gathered. This is how many democracies work today (especially in Western Europe and Scandinavia).

Also, given the booming popularity of the internet, gathering endorsements from the people should be easier and cheaper than ever.

How many positions are elected?
As many as possible.

Can someone with no money from Angola attend Yales?

No s smart guy.

Why should they be able to? I thought you were all about stopping outsourcing earlier hm?

I don't happen to have the book handy but it stated that the USSR commissioned the production of some 1960 or 1970 Italian Car and continued producing it till 1989ish as the car for the people.

Party Members/Government naturally rolled around in much better and more modern cars.
The USSR? Italian cars?

I think you didn't get what Contantinopolis said. He said the USA had a massive head start because their infrastructure were well developed.
The USSR did invent new stuff. It just takes time to develop.

I think you are still lacking the ability to comprehend what was said.

I don't happen to have the book handy but it stated that the USSR commissioned the production of some 1960 or 1970 Italian Car and continued producing it till 1989ish as the car for the people.
I never heard of anything like that (for the record, I'm Romanian, and I know quite a lot of Russians - we used to share a border with the USSR, after all).

At the moment Capitalism has caused no pain to me in any way, so I feel fine.

However, American Capitalism is a wee bit whacko. The corporations need to be put under more control. That's why I hope a democrat gets elected in '08(im a republican guy, BTW). Our country has gone too far too the right. We need to come back a bit.

Consider it in that context for awhile. If Yale and Harvard are giving free admission to people who are coming from the lower classes is vertical motion growing increasingly uncommon? Doubtful.
Yale and Harvard have a combined class size of, what, a few thousand students?

That's a drop in the ocean.

And I'll dig up some statistics on class mobility if you don't believe me. But I also have to point out (again) that if it is possible for a slave to win his freedom and become a slave owner, that doesn't make slavery ok. Thus, mobility is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether capitalism is good or bad.

It's not my fault America has a stupid 2-party system. Go learn something from European democracies.

Which have produced a unemployment rate that if occured in America causes us to scream bloody murder about the economy? Thanks.

Anyone who gathers a certain number of signatures (endorsements) from the people can be a candidate, and he/she receives funds from the government to run his/her campaign. All candidates get a more or less equal funding, with differences based on the number of signatures they gathered. This is how many democracies work today (especially in Western Europe and Scandinavia).

What happened to paying people the amount they put into the product? So I suppose we pay them that, but then take the money back to pay for other people's campaigns?

Also, given the booming popularity of the internet, gathering endorsements from the people should be easier and cheaper than ever.


As many as possible.

Ah, that doesn't say much. What happens to all the people who are appointed but not elected? Or do you elect every manager of every store in the entire nation? Who do they report? Corruption doesn't happen at any level? Ha.

No s smart guy.

Why should they be able to? I thought you were all about stopping outsourcing earlier hm?
You thought wrong.

The USSR? Italian cars?

Built in the USSR naturally... commissioned the design from the Italians and then set up production in the USSR.

You thought wrong.

Really? Care to explain your views on the very first page?

Which have produced a unemployment rate that if occured in America causes us to scream bloody murder about the economy? Thanks.
What do you know about western european unemployment? It is not bacause we count all unemployed person as unemployed that the US has more employment.

Yale and Harvard have a combined class size of, what, a few thousand students?

That's a drop in the ocean.

And I'll dig up some statistics on class mobility if you don't believe me. But I also have to point out (again) that if it is possible for a slave to win his freedom and become a slave owner, that doesn't make slavery ok. Thus, mobility is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether capitalism is good or bad.

Capitalism does not equate to slavery and an example using slavery has no application to Capitalism as practiced in America.

Really? Care to explain your views on the very first page?You lack the skills to understand. Read some books about communism first. It is an international movement.

Capitalism does not equate to slavery and an example using slavery has no application to Capitalism as practiced in America.
America is not capitalist. It is hypocrit.

And I'll dig up some statistics on class mobility if you don't believe me. But I also have to point out (again) that if it is possible for a slave to win his freedom and become a slave owner, that doesn't make slavery ok. Thus, mobility is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether capitalism is good or bad.

It's relevant to debunk the myth that our system is run by the same people from one generation to the next - that the old-money aristocracy has the control. It's simply not the case.

Slavery that is not absolute is better than slavery that is absolute; the more options you have, the better, even in the worst circumstances. This is the secondary benefit of the system as it stands.

What do you know about western european unemployment? It is not bacause we count all unemployed person as unemployed that the US has more employment.

The US counts all people who are looking for jobs but don’t have one as unemployed. Or does Germany and France now suddenly count stay at home moms as unemployed? :rolleyes:

It's relevant to debunk the myth that our system is run by the same people from one generation to the next - that the old-money aristocracy has the control. It's simply not the case.

Slavery that is not absolute is better than slavery that is absolute; the more options you have, the better, even in the worst circumstances. This is the secondary benefit of the system as it stands.From one generation to the next the farmers in Angola are still poor.

The US counts all people who are looking for jobs but don’t have one as unemployed.
For 13 weeks. After that they don't have benefits and they don't appear on statistics anymore.

You lack the skills to understand. Read some books about communism first. It is an international movement.

Which is why it has conveniently been practiced inside national boundaries and often enough communist nations didn't get along with each other? What fun.

America is not capitalist. It is hypocrit.

As practiced in America smart guy. No one here is arguing for laissez-fair

Which is why it has conveniently been practiced inside national boundaries and often enough communist nations didn't get along with each other? What fun.
Socialism is not communism.

As practiced in America smart guy. No one here is arguing for laissez-fair
America relies on the dollar, massive trade deficit and exploitation of the third world. Their industrial base is ineffective.

For 13 weeks. After that they don't have benefits and they don't appear on statistics anymore.

They don't get benefits, they still show up on statistics. The survey counts all people who report themselves as looking for a job but don't have one, whether or not they are receiving unemployment benefits.

Cheers.

From one generation to the next the farmers in Angola are still poor.

My argument is that communism doesn't solve problems, not that every believer in the capitalist system will or can be rich.

Which have produced a unemployment rate that if occured in America causes us to scream bloody murder about the economy? Thanks.
News flash: Thanks to Bush, your unemployment rate is at a level that should cause you to scream bloody murder about the economy.
Meanwhile, the European standards of living make America look like a dump (that's what a Swedish friend of mine said after going to America on a holiday, at least).

And I don't see how any of this is relevant when we're talking about the democratic process (not about the economy).

What happened to paying people the amount they put into the product? So I suppose we pay them that, but then take the money back to pay for other people's campaigns?
What? You're not making any sense. Campaign funding comes from the state budget, naturally. And it's not "extra money" that you can spend any way you like - it is campaign funding.

At any rate, this system is in place and working in many countries today, so I don't see the problem.

Ah, that doesn't say much. What happens to all the people who are appointed but not elected? Or do you elect every manager of every store in the entire nation? Who do they report? Corruption doesn't happen at any level? Ha.
Of course there will be some corruption. There's always some corruption, including in your beloved capitalism and in your beloved corporations (does the word "Enron" ring any bells?). The point is to keep corruption to an acceptable minimum.

Socialism is not communism.

Of course, communism didn't exist and those countries were for all intents and purposes Socialists anyway no? They still didn't get along so well. And they all started with the nice ideals your are espousing.

Of course, communism didn't exist and those countries were for all intents and purposes Socialists anyway no? They still didn't get along so well. And they all started with the nice ideals your are espousing.
They were stopped by greedy capitalists like you as well as islamist extremists like Ossama Ben Laden.

Capitalism does not equate to slavery and an example using slavery has no application to Capitalism as practiced in America.
Slavery is the most brutal form of exploitation. Capitalism is not as brutal, but still exploitation. I've explained this back on page 3:

First of all, the source of the problem is the fact that the means of production are private property. Capitalist society is divided in two social classes: the bourgeoisie (the owners/employers - those who own means of production) and the proletariat (the workers/employees - those who do not own means of production). The bourgeoisie (which is a tiny minority compared to the proletariat) is the ruling class, since it effectively owns and controls the entire economy. It has overwhelming wealth and power compared to the proletariat. But the bourgeois do not acquire their wealth through their own work. They acquire it by exploiting the work of others - by extracting a profit from their employees. Allow me to explain:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or the amount of work that went into it. That product - the fruit of the employee's labour - becomes the property of the employer.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. In capitalism, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and how much money they are willing to work for. So, as I mentioned above, the wage has nothing to do whatsoever with the value of the product he produces, or the amount of work he puts into it.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

Capitalists might argue that you are free to quit your job and go work for another employer. But ALL employers must exploit their workers in order to make a profit, so your only "choice" is whether you will be exploited by one employer or by the other employer across the street (and the skilled middle-class employees in rich western nations might not feel exploited, but that doesn't change the fact that they are exploited as much as any other workers). Capitalists might also argue that employees are free to start their own business and become employers themselves. But this argument doesn't even stand up to common sense: How exactly can you have more employers than employees? How can you have more bosses than workers? The fact is that in any capitalist society, the employers (the bourgeoisie) will always be a minority and the employees (the proletariat) will always be the majority. Some proletarians might have the opportunity to move up into the bourgeoisie, but they are very few compared to the proletarians who don't have that opportunity. Success stories are the exceptions, not the rule.

News flash: Thanks to Bush, your unemployment rate is at a level that should cause you to scream bloody murder about the economy.
Meanwhile, the European standards of living make America look like a dump (that's what a Swedish friend of mine said after going to America on a holiday, at least).

Uh huh. Your Swedish friend is an idiot.

What? You're not making any sense. Campaign funding comes from the state budget, naturally. And it's not "extra money" that you can spend any way you like - it is campaign funding.

And the state budget comes from what? It magically appears out of no where? Why no, it comes from taxing the workers. Which means they are not getting paid the full value of their work.

Of course there will be some corruption. There's always some corruption, including in your beloved capitalism and in your beloved corporations (does the word "Enron" ring any bells?). The point is to keep corruption to an acceptable minimum.

Yes because you know a system where the government sets the standards, enforces the standards and works to meet the standards is going to cut corruption to the minimum... wait no it won't, it will maximize it.

News flash: Thanks to Bush, your unemployment rate is at a level that should cause you to scream bloody murder about the economy.
Meanwhile, the European standards of living make America look like a dump (that's what a Swedish friend of mine said after going to America on a holiday, at least).
.

Those are two absurd claims. What's the unemployment rate at here now? 5.6? 5.5? It's averaged lower than during the Clinton years, which were supposedly so strong. Meanwhile, it's 12.6% in Germany, the worst since WWII...

They don't get benefits, they still show up on statistics. The survey counts all people who report themselves as looking for a job but don't have one, whether or not they are receiving unemployment benefits.

Cheers.What is the point of reporting yourself if you don't get benefit?

Slavery is the most brutal form of exploitation. Capitalism is not as brutal, but still exploitation. I've explained this back on page 3:

And your explanation is? Oh yeah, crap.

Those are two absurd claims. What's the unemployment rate at here now? 5.6? 5.5? It's averaged lower than during the Clinton years, which were supposedly so strong. Meanwhile, it's 12.6% in Germany, the worst since WWII...
Those 12.6% are not starving in the street.

What is the point of reporting yourself if you don't get benefit?

It is a survey conducted of the population, it is not self-reporting. A company goes out to you, and tells you they'll give you some cash to fill out this survey. Why thanks, heres a 20. Or they do a phone survey. Etc…

Those 12.6% are not starving in the street.

Those 5.5% in America aren't either.

Cheers.

Those 12.6% are not starving in the street.

And we are? The average American living 25% below the poverty line owns two cars and a 2-bedroom house. I'd like to see that in Germany.

It is a survey conducted of the population, it is not self-reporting. A company goes out to you, and tells you they'll give you some cash to fill out this survey. Why thanks, heres a 20. Or they do a phone survey. Etc…
There is more incentive to be reported in Western Europe.

Those are two absurd claims. What's the unemployment rate at here now? 5.6? 5.5? It's averaged lower than during the Clinton years, which were supposedly so strong. Meanwhile, it's 12.6% in Germany, the worst since WWII...
Germany is not the only country in Europe.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. In capitalism, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and how much money they are willing to work for. So, as I mentioned above, the wage has nothing to do whatsoever with the value of the product he produces, or the amount of work he puts into it.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

Connect the dots for me. Paying a wage that is less than the actual value of a product is exploitative because... I don't see why a non-exploitative wage should be equal to a product's value.

And we are? The average American living 25% below the poverty line owns two cars and a 2-bedroom house. I'd like to see that in Germany.
I'd rather be unemployed in Germany than in the USA.

I'd rather be unemployed in Germany than in the USA.
I guess you're more likely to be so, too.

I guess you're more likely to be so, too.
I don't think so.

There is more incentive to be reported in Western Europe.

Which magically would mean that the Unemployment rate in America is actually 3 times what is generated via survey? So how many magic mushrooms did you eat today?

Connect the dots for me. Paying a wage that is less than the actual value of a product is exploitative because... I don't see why a non-exploitative wage should be equal to a product's value.
It is fairly easy to understand though. I don't see how it can be expressed in simpler terms.

Which magically would mean that the Unemployment rate in America is actually 3 times what is generated via survey? So how many magic mushrooms did you eat today?
I don't use magic mushrooms.

Germany is not the only country in Europe.

It's not easy owning a home or two cars anywhere in Europe. I have friends in Germany who have worked 15 years since college and still live in an apartment - with kids.

Meanwhile, here's some stats on who the U.S. government considers to be poor in America.

- Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Just saying.

It's not easy owning a home or two cars anywhere in Europe. I have friends in Germany who have worked 15 years since college and still live in an apartment - with kids.
Look at the density.
Houses are a lot more expensive in Europe because it is a lot more dense.

Germany is not the only country in Europe.

France 10%
Spain 10.3%
Poland 18.2%
Greece 10.5%

Overall unemployment rate for the EU is 8.8%

USA 5.2% circa January 2005. Japan 4.5%

I don't use magic mushrooms.

Too bad, it would have given you an excuse for your thought process.

France 10%
Spain 10.3%
Poland 18.2%
Greece 10.5%

Overall unemployment rate for the EU is 8.8%

USA 5.2% circa January 2005. Japan 4.5%In France you don't even have to have ever worked to be unemployed. You are unemployed at 25 when you don't have a job.
BTW in the USSR there was 0%.

And the state budget comes from what? It magically appears out of no where? Why no, it comes from taxing the workers. Which means they are not getting paid the full value of their work.
True, true, taxes are required to keep a government alive, and a government is required in order to have a socialist system. Notice, however, that a communist system (which is the final goal of the communists, obviously) does NOT include a government. The workers aren't paid the full value of their labour in socialism (although they are paid a far greater portion of it than under capitalism). The workers keep the full value of their labour only in communism.

Of course, you can also look at socialism in terms of the social contract: "Taxes" are the price the workers pay to the government in return for the various services that the government provides. If they decide they don't need those services, they can of course vote to abolish the government and establish communism.

Yes because you know a system where the government sets the standards, enforces the standards and works to meet the standards is going to cut corruption to the minimum... wait no it won't, it will maximize it.
The people set the standards, and the people work to meet those standards. Corruption is kept at a minimum thanks to the democratic process.

If France you don't even have to have ever worked to be unemployed. You are unemployed at 25 when you don't have a job.

In America you don't even have to have ever worked to be unemployed, you just have to be looking for a job.

I sincerely doubt France does its unemployment by taking everyone over the age of 25 and saying "ok, so, you got a job? Nope? you're unemployed"

If they did that, they're unemployment would be about 50%.

Too bad, it would have given you an excuse for your thought process.
No problem I don't need any excuse. I am what I am and fuck you if you don't like it.

In America you don't even have to have ever worked to be unemployed, you just have to be looking for a job.

I sincerely doubt France does its unemployment by taking everyone over the age of 25 and saying "ok, so, you got a job? Nope? you're unemployed"

If they did that, they're unemployment would be about 50%.
The people over 25 and before the legal retirement. That is 10%.

True, true, taxes are required to keep a government alive, and a government is required in order to have a socialist system. Notice, however, that a communist system (which is the final goal of the communists, obviously) does NOT include a government. The workers aren't paid the full value of their labour in socialism (although they are paid a far greater portion of it than under capitalism). The workers keep the full value of their labour only in communism.

Socialism ends up creating taxes in what range again? the ~50% range? Yeah, they're keeping about half of their value. Sounds like a lot to me... :rolleyes:

Of course, you can also look at socialism in terms of the social contract: "Taxes" are the price the workers pay to the government in return for the various services that the government provides. If they decide they don't need those services, they can of course vote to abolish the government and establish communism.

And the Government would allow that? Sincerely doubtful.

The people set the standards, and the people work to meet those standards. Corruption is kept at a minimum thanks to the democratic process.

And that will stop the elected people from being corrupt greedy bastards? Or it will ensure they take the best possible action and not simply the "eh, this gets us by" action?

BTW in the USSR there was 0%.

And Iraq had 100% voter turn out and they all voted for Saddam.

Or do you really believe that USSR magicaly gave everyone a job and stopped inflation? Nevermind the people who were in between jobs? Frictional unemployment? Wait you mean peopel magically went from one job to another without a day off work?

Socialism ends up creating taxes in what range again? the ~50% range? Yeah, they're keeping about half of their value. Sounds like a lot to me... :rolleyes:
There was no taxes in the USSR.

There was no taxes in the USSR.

Yeah, you just weren't allowed to have money. That solves everything.

The people over 25 and before the legal retirement. That is 10%.

Uh huh. So only 10% of the people between 25 and legal retirement don't have a job? What of the people who don't want a job? Don't need one? Are being supported by their spouse?

No problem I don't need any excuse. I am what I am and fuck you if you don't like it.

Yep and you believe that the unemployment rate in America is actualy 3 times what is due to "cause I say so" Yep. Righto there.

And Iraq had 100% voter turn out and they all voted for Saddam.

Or do you really believe that USSR magicaly gave everyone a job and stopped inflation? Nevermind the people who were in between jobs? Frictional unemployment? Wait you mean peopel magically went from one job to another without a day off work?
Yes. Ask people from eastern Germany. Having a job was considered an inalienable right and they had guaranteed employment when they left school.

There was no taxes in the USSR.

Actually there was a 100% tax.

Yeah, you just weren't allowed to have money. That solves everything.
The workers were paid in the USSR.

Yes. Ask people from eastern Germany. Habing a job was considered an ialienable right and they had guaranteed employment when they left school.

Funny my Grandfather came from East Germany and had a very different outlook on the matter.

Funny my Grandfather came from East Germany and had a very different outlook on the matter.
Yeah I have family there too.
Read :
"Lessons of Soviet Planning for Full Employment." In Labour and Employment in the USSR, 69-82. David Lane, ed. Brighton: Wheatsheaf, 1986.

As a leftist Canadian teacher, perhaps I can contribute a tiny bit to this debate. Capitalism generates tons of wealth, but it's what is done with that wealth that is key to the issue. Frankly, I think responsible capitalism is the ideal way to go. Unfortunately, responsible capitalism is a theory that few corporations choose to apply, and a philosophy that few choose to live by.

What is it? Well, it involves letting capitalism do what it does best -- i.e., generate wealth, which it does more successfully than any other economic model tried to date -- but also involves corporations using that wealth responsibly. That means providing the people whose country they inhabit with meaningful employment, including fair wages, working conditions, and benefits. After all, these are the people who pay the taxes that provide corporate subsidies, not to mention purchase the finished products. It also means that these corporations must pay taxes and obey the law of the land, but they also have an ethical obligation to the environment of that country -- and frankly, of the world as a whole.

In short, if we don't want a quasi-communist government redistributing the wealth generated by corporations, then the corporations must do the redistributing themselves... but they must do it fairly. Trouble is, few do, so it's up to the government to regulate them... for some odd reason, many corporations are more interested in maximizing (not just making) a profit than they are in the welfare of people as a whole. Corporations that actually have a social conscience and act on it -- as opposed to those who just pretend for PR -- are shining examples of responsible capitalism.

Of course, the majority do not fall into this category. Our own Prime Minister refuses to fly Canadian flags on his commercial ships (he's a shipping magnate who opts instead for a variety of Caribbean flags) just so he can avoid paying the associated shipping taxes. This is a perfect example of irresponsible capitalism.

At any rate, the debate continues... but it is a healthy debate and I am pleased to see so many people actively engaged in discussing the issue.