NationStates Jolt Archive

I got it! I finally sorted out how a system that is based on making the rich richer and the poor poorer works, and why no one tries to do anything about it (except some peopel of course)

Here it is:
-The rich people at the top are of course happy, they're the richest in society, they want this system the most.

-Their employees are not as happy, but they think that by hard working they will once become as rich as their bosses.
Also they are happy that they are richer then the unemployed.

-The unemployed are happy that they at least have a house, and they dream of once getting a job.(of course they will get a job someday, even if it is for a mere week)

-The homeless aren't really that happy BUT at least they live in a western country, where oportunities lie around every corner. They aren't as poor as those people in African countries who starve to death!

-The people who starve to death are not happy at all, but who cares about them? All they do is fight amongst each other!

And on top of this, the richest do everything to keep the rest frightened (e.g. crime rates drop, crime shown on TV mounts) so they don't even think about protesting: only the government can save them: first the commies, who were never a real threat, now the terrorrists, who are in fact a threat, but they're not being fought in the right way (Iraq had nothing to do with terrorrists)

See: I got you all figured out, you rotten capitalists :D
and as we all know: "To know a law is to be able to change it"

so watch it ;)

Many a true word is spoken in jest. Well said.

I don't get it.

Again, more people who need to read "Wealth of Nations." Until then speak less of this thing you like to believe is capitalism. Or at least don't call it capitalism.

PS American economics isn't pure capitalism. Shhh...don't tell anyone.

Capitalism works because people are more inventive and productive when they are rewarded with more money. Therefore capitalism works because it's fueled by economic self interest.

Capitalism must be regulated because there are ways to accumulate enough money and power to suppress competition, exploit the workers, and corrupt the government which lead to accumulating even more moeny and power. Therefore capitalism must be carefully regulated because it's fueled by economic self interest.

I got it! I finally sorted out how a system that is based on making the rich richer and the poor poorer works, and why no one tries to do anything about it (except some peopel of course)

Here it is:
-The rich people at the top are of course happy, they're the richest in society, they want this system the most.

-Their employees are not as happy, but they think that by hard working they will once become as rich as their bosses.
Also they are happy that they are richer then the unemployed.

-The unemployed are happy that they at least have a house, and they dream of once getting a job.(of course they will get a job someday, even if it is for a mere week)

-The homeless aren't really that happy BUT at least they live in a western country, where oportunities lie around every corner. They aren't as poor as those people in African countries who starve to death!

-The people who starve to death are not happy at all, but who cares about them? All they do is fight amongst each other!

And on top of this, the richest do everything to keep the rest frightened (e.g. crime rates drop, crime shown on TV mounts) so they don't even think about protesting: only the government can save them: first the commies, who were never a real threat, now the terrorrists, who are in fact a threat, but they're not being fought in the right way (Iraq had nothing to do with terrorrists)

See: I got you all figured out, you rotten capitalists :D
and as we all know: "To know a law is to be able to change it"

so watch it ;)

woo hoo capitalism :) :D

Again, more people who need to read "Wealth of Nations." Until then speak less of this thing you like to believe is capitalism. Or at least don't call it capitalism.

PS American economics isn't pure capitalism. Shhh...don't tell anyone.

I never said anything about any country in particular
and the definition of capitalism is: "The system were the produced wealth is invested to generate more wealth" how does any western country not fit in there?

I
and the definition of capitalism is: "The system were the produced wealth is invested to generate more wealth" how does any western country not fit in there?

That doesn't equal pure capitalism. Pure capitalism is that system with no regulation whatsoever. There are necessary regulations to prevent the darker aspects of human nature from running amok while ensuring the most competitive environment possible for all who participate in the economy, with the end result being the most gain in wealth for the largest number involved. Regulation of capitalism is inherently utilitarian in this regard.

Again, more people who need to read "Wealth of Nations." Until then speak less of this thing you like to believe is capitalism. Or at least don't call it capitalism.

Smith knew that capitalism would build enormous wealth rapidly...and he knew how it worked, but...he didn't believe it would actually make people happy.

Why is capitalism(regulated or not) not really the best system possible? *slightly sarcastic tone*
because in this system, most people are way down on the ladder, this isn't that obvious because they are poorly educated and don't have the chance to talk about this (on the internet for example)

Capitalism works because it's human nature to be a greedy asshole.

Capitalism works because it's human nature to be a greedy asshole.

Your nature, perhaps, not mine.

Why is capitalism(regulated or not) not really the best system possible? *slightly sarcastic tone*
because in this system, most people are way down on the ladder, this isn't that obvious because they are poorly educated and don't have the chance to talk about this (on the internet for example)

Because it works and every other system attempted besides it has failed miserably.

The vast majority of people in developed economies are middle class, so we're not down at the bottom of the ladder; and many people are well educated enough to get jobs to get them in to the middle class or higher so that isn't true either.

Capitalism works, and it works best of all (for now and in the past, of course). That's why it's the best.

Capitalism works because people are more inventive and productive when they are rewarded with more money. Therefore capitalism works because it's fueled by economic self interest.

Capitalism must be regulated because there are ways to accumulate enough money and power to suppress competition, exploit the workers, and corrupt the government which lead to accumulating even more moeny and power. Therefore capitalism must be carefully regulated because it's fueled by economic self interest.

for a minute there i thought i was listening to Gordon Gekko...

Greed is good!

Because it works and every other system attempted besides it has failed miserably.

The vast majority of people in developed economies are middle class, so we're not down at the bottom of the ladder; and many people are well educated enough to get jobs to get them in to the middle class or higher so that isn't true either.

Capitalism works, and it works best of all (for now and in the past, of course). That's why it's the best.

high-fives Vetalia

You forgot to add: Because it's the only system shown to work without collapsing the economy.

Capitalism works,..... for a while, because those in power will allways want more, that is their doom, because in due time the people who are being milked will rise up, this has allways happened in the past and will happen again in the future, I just hope I will still be their when the masses rise to show that not the government or anyone else has power, but that the people ARE the power

for a minute there i thought i was listening to Gordon Gekko...

Greed is good!
Maybe just Bud Fox.

You forgot to add: Because it's the only system shown to work without collapsing the economy.

Really? I seem to recall something occuring in 1929.

Surely completely unregulated capitalism will be a great move for everyone.

Really? I seem to recall something occuring in 1929.



Yet, we're still intact are we not? Is the Soviet Union still intact? Hmm, I wonder...

1. The majority of people are "poor", and let's be real don't wanna work.
Let's face it I'm now becoming a young adult and the idea of getting a job and paying my bills is frightening, there is nothing i would love more than to have a bunch of rich people paying high taxes so I could get out of the whole jobs and responsibilities thing. Naturally people like me will vote for socialist reforms.
2. Rich people work hard, are intelligent, and yes I'll admit it some of them are privileged, but all things considered are still a minority, minorities are always oppressed by the majority. The majority in this case is jealous, so looks for some way to punish those who do better in their work than them to their own benefit.
3. Governments love socialism because it gives them as politicians more power over their citizens lives, it gives them more easy votes in elections, and in the end it makes them as leaders more powerful. People would rather be safe and comfortable than be free, therefore freedom takes the backseat, and government gets shotgun in the front, and now they're providing for the wellbeing of their voters it's time to get payback. So what will they make us do for them, now that they scratched our back...? Frightening thought.
4. Socialism sounds good reading it on paper, it sounds good to people who care about the poor. If you care about the poor you have to be a socialist or you get accused of being a rich snob who hates poor people and people of color, so no one would dare disagree with it...politics of hatred and fear reserved for rich capitalists? I think not.

I've had you rotten socialists figured out for one or two years now, buit knowing the law doesn't mean it will change so...we are at a stalemate ;)

Your nature, perhaps, not mine.
Oh come now. Would the majority of human beings work, even if they received no direct and personal benefit? There are few who willingly sacrifice for the "greater good."

Capitalism works,..... for a while, because those in power will allways want more, that is their doom, because in due time the people who are being milked will rise up, this has allways happened in the past and will happen again in the future, I just hope I will still be their when the masses rise to show that not the government or anyone else has power, but that the people ARE the power


Proletarian revolutions were responsible for the biggest economic failure since feudalism. Communism in all of its forms is fundamentally flawed and doesn't work in practice, unlike capitalism.

Yes, they've risen up...with then end result being the imposition of another regime that's equally as corrupt, more oppressive, and fundamentally economically flawed and so wasn't really any better than the regime it replaced. Regimes where capitalism was overthrown were always dictatorial and didn't respect the rights of the people, so some kind of revolution was inevitable.

In free, democratic societies there has never been a successful revolution because capitalism provides the people the opportunity to improve themselves through their own work while democracy gives them the social mobility and ability to change things without ruining what they currently have.

Yet, we're still intact are we not? Is the Soviet Union still intact? Hmm, I wonder...

Ah, but the USSR was essentially capitalist as well...operating like a giant corporation. Not my concept of socialism.

And indeed, western society is intact. It took a world war to get things back in gear, though. I'd prefer that didn't happen again.

Oh come now. Would the majority of human beings work, even if they received no direct and personal benefit? There are few who willingly sacrifice for the "greater good."

So you say you would like to sit in front of your pc all day long, years and years long?
Get real

Smith knew that capitalism would build enormous wealth rapidly...and he knew how it worked, but...he didn't believe it would actually make people happy.

Had to respond to this sorry...money never makes people happy, it's a cliche' but true, socialist or capitalist no one will ever be completely happy, believe it or not many rich people are unhappy.

Really? I seem to recall something occuring in 1929.

Surely completely unregulated capitalism will be a great move for everyone.

Unregulated capitalism is dangerous, and it's foolish to suggest otherwise.

Yes, the economy has gone in to recessions, and one depression; it happened in 1929, in the 1970's, and in the 1980's and just recently with the NASDAQ bubble burst.

However, the economy recovered from all of these things and was ultimately stronger for them. When Communism collapsed and/or was implemented, things never recovered and people were kept in a permanently depression-like state. At least capitalism is a state of continuous, although not steady improvement. That's more than Communism could ever accomplish.

Proletarian revolutions were responsible for the biggest economic failure since feudalism. Communism in all of its forms is fundamentally flawed and doesn't work in practice, unlike capitalism.

Yes, they've risen up...with then end result being the imposition of another regime that's equally as corrupt, more oppressive, and fundamentally economically flawed and so wasn't really any better than the regime it replaced. Regimes where capitalism was overthrown were always dictatorial and didn't respect the rights of the people, so some kind of revolution was inevitable.

In free, democratic societies there has never been a successful revolution because capitalism provides the people the opportunity to improve themselves through their own work while democracy gives them the social mobility and ability to change things without ruining what they currently have.

I never defended communism, oh and the sovjet union was not a communist state, it was a fascist one.
Personally i think power is the root of all evil
back to the stone age!

Oh come now. Would the majority of human beings work, even if they received no direct and personal benefit? There are few who willingly sacrifice for the "greater good."

I'd work for the good of society, if society worked for the good of everyone.

Ah, but the USSR was essentially capitalist as well...operating like a giant corporation. Not my concept of socialism.
And indeed, western society is intact. It took a world war to get things back in gear, though. I'd prefer that didn't happen again.

Yes, the USSR wasn't "true" Communism. That's because true communism cannot work in practice. It has a fundamental flaw that keeps it from working; capitalism can adjust itself to cover that flaw while still keeping itself intact and still provide the same benefits.

I'd work for the good of society, if society worked for the good of everyone.

80% of human beings wouldn't if they got everything just given to them regardless...but that is very admirable of you.

I never defended communism, oh and the sovjet union was not a communist state, it was a fascist one.
Personally i think power is the root of all evil
back to the stone age!

Yes, it wasn't a "true" communist state. I know that full well, but the only examples of Communism are these failed states.

Power is evil when people do not have the ability to keep it in check and remove the corrupt from power. Absolute power is evil.

However, the economy recovered from all of these things and was ultimately stronger for them. When Communism collapsed and/or was implemented, things never recovered and people were kept in a permanently depression-like state. At least capitalism is a state of continuous, although not steady improvement. That's more than Communism could ever accomplish.

Socialism never really was implemented in the USSR...workers had no power. What we saw was a brutal dictatorship forcing state-capitalism on an undeveloped economy. The machine worked for a while, but they kept tightening screws to increase the pressure until it burst....

True democratic socialism would operate from the bottom-up, rather than top-down. However, I do adknowledge that it's a redistributive model rather than a developmental one, and i've never denied this. Capitalism builds the wealth, socialism redistributes it - You don't need more money if you already have everything you need.

Yes, it wasn't a "true" communist state. I know that full well, but the only examples of Communism are these failed states.

Power is evil when people do not have the ability to keep it in check and remove the corrupt from power. Absolute power is evil.

Face it: in America people do not have that ability, only the congress is able to remove the president from power, and they're all in his pocket, with every president it is the same thing!

Face it: in America people do not have that ability, only the congress is able to remove the president from power, and they're all in his pocket, with every president it is the same thing!

People elect the Congressmen, and vote for the President. If they don't like him, they vote him out. Even if he's reelected, he's got at most 2 terms and can't extend it without changing the Constitution, which in requires multiple levels of ratification and legal approval. He's checked on multiple sides, and even if the Congress is under his control the people have ultimate approval.

Socialism never really was implemented in the USSR...workers had no power. What we saw was a brutal dictatorship forcing state-capitalism on an undeveloped economy. The machine worked for a while, but they kept tightening screws to increase the pressure until it burst....

That's because Communism as described only works on paper, and so cannot be implemented in reality like capitalism.

True democratic socialism would operate from the bottom-up, rather than top-down. However, I do adknowledge that it's a redistributive model rather than a developmental one, and i've never denied this. Capitalism builds the wealth, socialism redistributes it - You don't need more money if you already have everything you need.

Yes, but if people have wealth as a result of capitalism, why would they want to give it up to have it redistributed to people who probably don't deserve it? It destroys any incentive to work for more, and so is again fundamentally dependent on the good will and desire of the people to work for the common good. The democratic element would make it revert to capitalism again after a short while.

Yes, it wasn't a "true" communist state. I know that full well, but the only examples of Communism are these failed states.

Which have, coincidentally, all been pre-industrial or borderline-industrial states. It's quite obvious that socialism in one country, particularly an undeveloped one, is a dismal prospect.

Power is evil when people do not have the ability to keep it in check and remove the corrupt from power. Absolute power is evil.

All power is evil, unless it is shared.

80% of human beings wouldn't if they got everything just given to them regardless...but that is very admirable of you.
I don't think there's any specific reason why not. I don't deny that many people are selfish. I see it more as a response to the world around them rather than being an innate condition of humanity, though...selfishness is what is generally needed to survive in a capitalist society, so people adapt to that.

That's because Communism as described only works on paper, and so cannot be implemented in reality like capitalism.

Though Russia, China, Vietnam, etc. (going by the orthodox Marxist viewpoint) were hardly ideal on paper in the first place to be countries where the revolution would begin.

Yes, but if people have wealth as a result of capitalism, why would they want to give it up to have it redistributed to people who probably don't deserve it? It destroys any incentive to work for more, and so is again fundamentally dependent on the good will and desire of the people to work for the common good. The democratic element would make it revert to capitalism again after a short while.

Of course the capitalists won't want to give up their wealth willingly...but if the workers are against them, they have no choice, as their wealth is useless if the workers are in complete control of their factories. The people who own the wealth and those who produce the wealth are very different groups of people. I hardly think that the workers, when running their factories and the like democratically and having the profits shared, would want to revert to having one person take it all again.

Since 85% of business owners are small business owners profitably freelancing or running Mom n' Pop shops, I find it strange that we always seem to be left out of these conversations. How can critics of capitalism continually (or conveniently) "overlook" the overwhelming majority of business owners?

Since 85% of business owners are small business owners profitably freelancing or running Mom n' Pop shops, I find it strange that we always seem to be left out of these conversations. How can critics of capitalism continually (or conveniently) "overlook" the overwhelming majority of business owners?

Small business owners aren't generally wealthy enough to be part of the capitalist class, that's why. Most are just average people, and most work hard, long hours for little reward, so they share more in common with the worker than they do Bill Gates (for example).

Though Russia, China, Vietnam, etc. (going by the orthodox Marxist viewpoint) were hardly ideal on paper in the first place to be countries where the revolution would begin.

Yes, but Communist movements couldn't gain any traction in free, developed economies because the majority of the people liked the system they had and were able to organize for their rights while still maintaining the system that was in place and could provide them with better opportunity.


Of course the capitalists won't want to give up their wealth willingly...but if the workers are against them, they have no choice, as their wealth is useless if the workers are in complete control of their factories. The people who own the wealth and those who produce the wealth are very different groups of people. I hardly think that the workers, when running their factories and the like democratically and having the profits shared, would want to revert to having one person take it all again.

The workers are the capitalists; the labor force in developed economies is predominantly middle class and are able to get what they deserve for their work through effort and merit. Even the lower class workers who work in factories have labor unions to get what they want and deserve, and are able to vote for change in elections.

The people want capitalism because it enables them to have the best life possible for the work they do, and gives them real social mobility, and democracy enables them to change their nations' policies. The autocratic robber barons of the early Communists' time are gone, because capitalism has been regulated and improved and so is no longer the oppressor of the working class it once was.

Small business owners aren't generally wealthy enough to be part of the capitalist class, that's why. Most are just average people, and most work hard, long hours for little reward, so they share more in common with the worker than they do Bill Gates (for example).

There is no class called "capitalists"; in modern economies the people rise and fall on their own merit and get what they deserve for the work that they do. That's a relic of the Industrial Revolution. Everyone who participates in the capitalist economy is a capitalist, and they all have the opportunity to improve themselves.

Bill Gates and his friends built Microsoft from scratch in to a massive corporation with billions in assets and personal wealth. They are one of the ultimate proofs of the success of the capitalist system.

There is no class called "capitalists"; in modern economies the people rise and fall on their own merit and get what they deserve for the work that they do.

Nice world you live in.
In my world, some people are lucky enough to do that. Many, many others aren't.

Case in point. How hard has GWB worked to become President?
Oh I won't deny there's been a lot of work done to make him President, but how much has been done by him personally? If he hadn't started off the son of a CIA head and former president, with a significant personal family fortune to back him up, do you really think he'd be where he is now?

Personally, I can think of a lot of people, good, hard-working, republican type people even, who really deserve the Presidency and would likely do a better job, but you and I both know it'll never happen because they're trapped in an economic and social circle that prevents their ascendency there.

Small business owners aren't generally wealthy enough to be part of the capitalist class, that's why. Most are just average people, and most work hard, long hours for little reward, so they share more in common with the worker than they do Bill Gates (for example).
But that's the crux of the problem with this argument. "Capitalists" are defined as the top 2% of income earners in this system. Perhaps I don't qualify as a capitalist in the strictest sense of the word since I'm not fabulously wealthy, but I still don't see why 2% of the population should define an entire system. It just sounds like a lot of symantic wordplay, when you get right down to it.

Arguing about the top or bottom 2% just seems redundant, and sensationalist.

I love this system, since it has given me the ability to succeed beyond my expectations. And that was with very, very little capital (I started my biz with under $500.)


General Small-Business Facts-

-85 percent of Americans view small businesses as a positive influence on American life (NFIB, 2001).
-Small businesses account for more than 40 percent of the offline economy (IDC, January 2001).
-An estimated 25.5 million small businesses in America employ more than half of the country's private workforce, create three of every four new jobs, and generate a majority of American innovations (Small Business Administration, 2000).
-Small businesses represent more than 99 percent of all employers


Small business owners are the backbone of the system, and the majority who keep it running through their hard work and innovation.

Considering these statistics, it's hard not to listen to overblown, accusational arguments against capitalism and not take them personally.

Nice world you live in.
In my world, some people are lucky enough to do that. Many, many others aren't.

Of course there are people who can't achieve this because of factors beyond their control. However, the overwhelming majority of the population can, and it's more than accurate to say it's a widespread ability.

Case in point. How hard has GWB worked to become President?
Oh I won't deny there's been a lot of work done to make him President, but how much has been done by him personally? If he hadn't started off the son of a CIA head and former president, with a significant personal family fortune to back him up, do you really think he'd be where he is now?

I don't know if he would. Not many people start off like Bush did, and many more than that number are sucessful and wealthy. While there's no denying that there are people which are born in to these situations, there are many more who got in to their positions by hard work. The presidency requires money to get elected, and that's the way it's been with many presidents; politics requires cash and isn't the best example of social mobility or the capitalist meritocracy. Again, a vast majority of the population has succeeded on its merits and education, and effort. Otherwiase, we'd be far worse off than we are today.

Personally, I can think of a lot of people, good, hard-working, republican type people even, who really deserve the Presidency and would likely do a better job, but you and I both know it'll never happen because they're trapped in an economic and social circle that prevents their ascendency there.

That's the way politics is. It doesn't reflect the economy at large, and it doesn't reflect the entire system. It's a continuation of the political climate present in every single political system ever concieved. the people with the wealth and influence are the ones in power, and no revolution will fix that. Even the "communist" nations' leaders schemed, killed and bought their way to the top. Political manipulation isn't a uniquely capitalist condition. Where there's power, the worst elements of humantiy will congregate.

I never said anything about any country in particular
and the definition of capitalism is: "The system were the produced wealth is invested to generate more wealth" how does any western country not fit in there?
This just means that the system is set up so the system, not the individual, generates more wealth. That is your misrepresentation.

Bill Gates and his friends built Microsoft from scratch in to a massive corporation with billions in assets and personal wealth. They are one of the ultimate proofs of the success of the capitalist system.
Do you think some poor McDonald's cleaner (for example) agrees? Does he/she think the capitalist system works because Gates HAS billions, he/she DOESN'T???

Of course there are people who can't achieve this because of factors beyond their control. However, the overwhelming majority of the population can, and it's more than accurate to say it's a widespread ability.
So why isn't the majority of people as rich as Bill Gates?

Do you think some poor McDonald's cleaner agrees? Does he/she think the capitalist system works because Gates HAS billions, he/she DOESN'T???

How many of them squandered their opportunity, or didn't get an education? They are working at McDonalds because of their own lack of skills which, far too often, is due entirely to them. The ones who aren't there because of lack of effort are immigrants, who work as hard as possible so that they or their children will have a better future. They are another model of the capitalist system.

Too many people believe that they are owed something; be it job, house, car, salary, or anything else, but forget that you have to earn those things. That is why they are stuck in jobs with no future.

So why isn't the majority of people as rich as Bill Gates?

Most people didn't work on an invention that revolutionized personal computing, didn't start a company in a brand new market, and didn't put in the time and effort to build and take public a corporation. Almost all of his wealth comes from stock holdings, which are supported in their value by the corporation he worked to build.

All of his wealth comes from his work and that of the people that cooperated to build Microsoft.

How many of them squandered their opportunity, or didn't get an education? They are working at McDonalds because of their own lack of skills which, far too often, is due entirely to them. The ones who aren't there because of lack of effort are immigrants, who work as hard as possible so that they or their children will have a better future. They are another model of the capitalist system.
So what you're saying is it's completely up to the person himself, whether or not he goes to med school (for example)? Funny, I thought you needed to have money in order to study in a capitalist society.

Too many people believe that they are owed something; be it job, house, car, salary, or anything else, but forget that you have to earn those things. That is why they are stuck in jobs with no future.
So what you're saying is, a McDonald's cleaner or some single-parent ER nurse works less than someone rich. Funny, I thought a society needs cleaners as well as IT millionaires...

Most people didn't work on an invention that revolutionized personal computing, didn't start a company in a brand new market, and didn't put in the time and effort to build and take public a corporation. Almost all of his wealth comes from stock holdings, which are supported in their value by the corporation he worked to build.
So what you're saying is, in order to succeed you must randomly start a company in a brand new market in order to POSSIBLY succeed. And if it's so simple, why isn't everybody an IT millionaire? Maybe because a capitalist society is unpredictable and thereby insecure for the people in it. You just have to guess what works. If you don't guess right, you become a poor McDonald's cleaner?

I don't know if he would. Not many people start off like Bush did, and many more than that number are sucessful and wealthy. While there's no denying that there are people which are born in to these situations, there are many more who got in to their positions by hard work. The presidency requires money to get elected, and that's the way it's been with many presidents; politics requires cash and isn't the best example of social mobility or the capitalist meritocracy. Again, a vast majority of the population has succeeded on its merits and education, and effort. Otherwiase, we'd be far worse off than we are today.


I disagree, and would say that the more unregulated capitalist a country is, the worse the social mobility is. See, if you cut taxes then inevitably free services such as education (and health, though not in the US) suffer. However, privatised versions of these services such as private schools do better. This means that comparitively those who go to state schools, and particuarly state schools in poor areas, are even more disadvantaged, whilst private school students are more likely to do better.

I really wish I could find the statistics on the internet somewhere, but I did hear that the social mobility in Sweden, a very socialist country where according to many right wingers 'People don't have any potential to succeed', has an almost completely fluid social mobility scale - those who are born poor have every chance to succeed, and those who are born rich have every chance to fail. It is a true meritocracy. Predictably, America's was a lot more rigid - you of course can succeed as a poor person in America, but it is rarer and only due to the fact America does have free education and welfare to an extent.

However, it is obviously not solely down to Capitalism. I was suprised to learn that Britains social mobility scale is almost the same as Americas, despite Britain being more socialist and investing a great deal of tax money on free education.

Still, it is certainly not true that the more capitalist a country is the more opportunities there are.

You people are forgetting the theory of unpaid labour. A man may make 100 shoes a day in a capitalist system, yet only be paid for 10 whilst the capitalists retain the rest of the profit that rightfully belongs to the worker.
I love the theory of communism, yet I feel that only socialism can be implimented sucessfully. It blends both systems into a workable package.

So what you're saying is it's completely up to the person himself, whether or not he goes to med school (for example)? Funny, I thought you needed to have money in order to study in a capitalist society.

You can get scholarships, need-based grants/interest free loans, need based acholarships, athletic scholarships, and much more. All you have to do is do well in school and you can more than afford college.

So what you're saying is, a McDonald's cleaner or some single-parent ER nurse works less than someone rich. Funny, I thought a society needs cleaners as well as IT millionaires...

They don't work less, their work produces less of value proportionate to the supply of people capable of doing the job. There are millions of minors who could work as cleaners or any other job like it, because they require no training and produce lieelt of value. The money you earn is directly tied to supply, demand, productivity and qualification, along with the return the company gets on their investment in your work.

So what you're saying is, in order to succeed you must randomly start a company in a brand new market in order to POSSIBLY succeed. And if it's so simple, why isn't everybody an IT millionaire? Maybe because a capitalist society is unpredictable and thereby insecure for the people in it. You just have to guess what works. If you don't guess right, you become a poor McDonald's cleaner?

No. People can "succeed" (however its defined) in more ways than starting a company. Simply getting an education and working towards a goal is success, as is becoming a leader in your field, changing lives, and so on. Money isn't the end-all be all of success, although it helps to ensure a supply of it. All you have to do is put the effort toward your goal. Capitalism is the freedom to do what you want with your money and your talents. Being a millionaire isn't necessarily success; there are many miserable wealthy people and content working class people. Sucess is what you make of it.

Starting a company in a new market is why Gates succeeded at his goal. His work wasn't simple, it took years to get the company running, with many tense moments and long hours. He had a product, and knew there was a market which could make him money and transform the world of computing. He worked extrememly hard wth his partners to make it a reality.

You people are forgetting the theory of unpaid labour. A man may make 100 shoes a day in a capitalist system, yet only be paid for 10 whilst the capitalists retain the rest of the profit that rightfully belongs to the worker.

In Communism, there can be two men working, one of whom makes 10 shoes and the other who makes 200. Yet, at the end of the day, they are both paid the same amount regardless of the work done. That is why communism, and to a lesser extent socialism, do not work as envisoned. Capitalism rewards the worker individually on their productivity and merit, not equally.

Capitalism is inherently individualism.

You can get scholarships, need-based grants/interest free loans, need based acholarships, athletic scholarships, and much more. All you have to do is do well in school and you can more than afford college.

And if you're rich, you don't need to fight for that scholarship. Is it fair that money makes some people privileged?
People can "succeed" (however its defined) in more ways than starting a company. Simply getting an education and working towards a goal is success, as is becoming a leader in your field, changing lives, and so on. Money isn't the end-all be all of success, although it helps to ensure a supply of it. All you have to do is put the effort toward your goal. Capitalism is the freedom to do what you want with your money and your talents. Being a millionaire isn't necessarily success; there are many miserable wealthy people and content working class people. Sucess is what you make of it.
I'd like to live in a world where money doesn't mean success. But if you have money, you are privileged. I'm sure the cleaner would just love to earn money like Gates. Why can't he/she? It's hard for me to believe everything IS up to him/her...

They don't work less, their work produces less of value proportionate to the supply of people capable of doing the job. There are millions of minors who could work as cleaners or any other job like it, because they require no training and produce lieelt of value. The money you earn is directly tied to supply, demand, productivity and qualification, along with the return the company gets on their investment in your work.
This is capitalism. But is it right that though one would work hard, one would be less privileged than other people who work only as hard? Is it right that things not depending on a person (supply, demand etc.) influence this person's welfare? In a more socialist society one can (at least in theory) have a happier life, because money isn't so meaningful.

And if you're rich, you don't need to fight for that scholarship. Is it fair that money makes some people privileged?

You do have to fight for scholarships; it's the admissions influence that gets you in. That isn't right, but it happens in any economic system in any culture. In Communist countries, the children of party elites got special priveliges just like the wealthy in the US. Capitalism isn't at fault, human nature is.

I'd like to live in a world where money doesn't mean success. But if you have money, you are privileged. I'm sure the cleaner would just love to earn money like Gates. Why can't he/she? It's hard for me to believe everything IS up to him/her...

They didn't put in the effort, and that is why they aren't making as much money; although there are numerous examples of extenuating circumastances, many people who are stuck in dead-end jobs are there because they didn't put the effort in while they had the chance to get an education, and their work doesn't deserve a lot of money because it is easy to do and produces little of value.

This is capitalism. But is it right that though one would work hard, one would be less privileged than other people who work only as hard? Is it right that things not depending on a person (supply, demand etc.) influence this person's welfare? In a more socialist society one can (at least in theory) have a happier life, because money isn't so meaningful.

It's not a question of right or wrong, because these factors are what determine the value of your work. A job isn't supposed to be welfare, it's an investment intentionally made by a company to make more money off of your work, and your value, which is determined by your salary or wage, depends almost entirely on your qualification. In socialism, it removes merit from the equation and requires overwhelming altruism to function. What incentive is there to work if there is no reward for doing so? Until you correct that aspect of human nature, socialism will fail. Capitalism at least provides an outlet for that drive to improve, and provides a reward as well.

I see the conversation is still revolving around the top and bottom 2% of income earners. Once you bring up solid facts regarding the majority of business owners (being small business owners), you're sure to be glossed over in any anticapitalist argument.

Anyone care to discuss the overwhelming majority of those benefitting from this system, instead of its more sensationalist, teeny-tiny minority?

Didn't think so.

You do have to fight for scholarships; it's the admissions influence that gets you in. That isn't right, but it happens in any economic system in any culture.
You propably didn't know there are countries where also university education (including med school) is free of charge. Countries that haven't emphasized the meaning of money too much. Only the candidates with the best results in an entrance examination get in - no separate systems for the rich.
They didn't put in the effort, and that is why they aren't making as much money; although there are numerous examples of extenuating circumastances, many people who are stuck in dead-end jobs are there because they didn't put the effort in while they had the chance to get an education, and their work doesn't deserve a lot of money because it is easy to do and produces little of value.
Numerous examples of extenuating circumstances, many people didn't put the effort in. So you admit numerous people just couldn't do it... And you still think it is OK?
A job isn't supposed to be welfare, it's an investment intentionally made by a company to make more money off of your work, and your value, which is determined by your salary or wage, depends almost entirely on your qualification.
In a more socialist state, also people that are doing jobs of lower education can have a good life. Do you know what kind of queues there are to public health centers in "some countries"? Do you know why some people are willing to pay for their children's education if kids from free schools can succeed as well?

I see the conversation is still revolving around the top and bottom 2% of income earners.
I'm not a part of that bottom 2 %. I'm a student and I'm planning to apply to med school. In this country, it's free and depends completely on the entrance examination. That's why I like this system. (I don't live in North Korea or China, by the way. I guess it would be a bit more difficult there...)

You propably didn't know there are countries where also university education (including med school) is free of charge. Countries that haven't emphasized the meaning of money too much. Only the candidates with the best results in an entrance examination get in - no separate systems for the rich.

There are always people who can manipluate the system. Rather than the wealthy, it's the politicians' children who get in easier.

Yes, but at the same time these countries are both smaller and economically weaker than us. Degrees don't help if there's no jobs in the field, and taxes are too high to encourage investment in them. These programs are a good idea, but they are hampered by the bureaucracy and wastefulness of government.

Numerous examples of extenuating circumstances, many people didn't put the effort in. So you admit numerous people just couldn't do it... And you still think it is OK?

I don't think it's ok, I think we need to address the causes of these problems; however, the current system of just throwing money at them isn't working. We need to encourage personal responsibility at the same time as we provide the necessary money, and the problem will slowly help itself. Our current system just enslaves generation after generation to government handouts, and that is wrong. Even those with extenuating circumstances can be traced to the lack of effort or responsibility of those around them.

In a more socialist state, also people that are doing jobs of lower education can have a good life. Do you know what kind of queues there are to public health centers in "some countries"? Do you know why some people are willing to pay for their children's education if kids from free schools can succeed as well?

But at a heavy price. These countries have high unemployment, weak growth, and declining living standards. The only totally successful socialist country is Sweden, and they are smaller than populationwise than the state of Ohio. Socialist programs are simply too expensive for the economy to support, and will inevitably run in to problems. The taxes get too high, and the bureaucracy gets too swollen. Effectively, the thing most preventing the imposition of socialism is the economy itself, and you can't get rid of the economy without ruining the country.

I'm not a part of that bottom 2 %. I'm a student and I'm planning to apply to med school. In this country, it's free and depends completely on the entrance examination. That's why I like this system. (I don't live in North Korea or China, by the way. I guess it would be a bit more difficult there...)
That's cool. My college education was paid for with loans and grants. Today I own my own small business, work whenever I choose, and wake up around noon.
That's why I like this system.

To be honest, by "some countries" I meant extremely capitalist countries (USA?) (I understand why it remained unclear). So, why pay for education, if moneyless can succeed as well?

I wouldn't call Sweden a very socialist counrty. Or well, compared to the US...

You seem to notice the current system isn't perfect. But why would it be so terrible to increase taxes and emphasize social welfare (make the money less meaningful)? It wouldn't make people lazy, many people go to work in Sweden too.

PS. The equality is real when talking about university education. At least where I come from.

1. The majority of people are "poor", and let's be real don't wanna work.
Let's face it I'm now becoming a young adult and the idea of getting a job and paying my bills is frightening, there is nothing i would love more than to have a bunch of rich people paying high taxes so I could get out of the whole jobs and responsibilities thing. Naturally people like me will vote for socialist reforms.
2. Rich people work hard, are intelligent, and yes I'll admit it some of them are privileged, but all things considered are still a minority, minorities are always oppressed by the majority. The majority in this case is jealous, so looks for some way to punish those who do better in their work than them to their own benefit.
3. Governments love socialism because it gives them as politicians more power over their citizens lives, it gives them more easy votes in elections, and in the end it makes them as leaders more powerful. People would rather be safe and comfortable than be free, therefore freedom takes the backseat, and government gets shotgun in the front, and now they're providing for the wellbeing of their voters it's time to get payback. So what will they make us do for them, now that they scratched our back...? Frightening thought.
4. Socialism sounds good reading it on paper, it sounds good to people who care about the poor. If you care about the poor you have to be a socialist or you get accused of being a rich snob who hates poor people and people of color, so no one would dare disagree with it...politics of hatred and fear reserved for rich capitalists? I think not.

I've had you rotten socialists figured out for one or two years now, buit knowing the law doesn't mean it will change so...we are at a stalemate ;)

well said, grasshopper. while we need to provide for those who can't help themselves, nobody should be able to CHOOSE to be lazy and live off the work of others. Property and monetary rights must be upheld.

And you prefer a system where everyone makes the same amount and there's no chance for moving up in society? How you've described capitalism is a complete crock. Capitalism works because business owners know how to run businesses better than the government. As far as the BS you said about poor people, I can't help but laugh in your face for that. Have you heard of two fellows named Andrew Carniege and John D. Rockefeller? You know, the two prime examples of a capitalist success? Well I've got news for you, BOTH OF THEM started at the bottom of the barrel. The capitalist system is simple, work hard and you'll go far. Under the alternatives, there's no insentive to work hard because you'll get paid the same as everyone else anyway.... Why do you think the soviet union fell, eh? Vladimir (not Lenin) is a smarter fellow than the rest of his coworkers.... He knows he can sit on his butt all day and still get paid.. The other workers see what Vladimir is doing and they decide to join him.... Guess what? No product! Just a hint,if you're going to insult anyone or anything (especally capitalism) place actual economic facts in it.... To convince people you need actual, solid proof... Not just conviction.

My college education was paid for with loans and grants. Today I own my own small business, work whenever I choose, and wake up around noon.
That's why I like this system.
Are you sure they borrow money for anyone willing to go to university?

And why couldn't I live like you do? As I wrote, I'm not from North Korea. I have freedom. I would have freedom if i didn't have money as well. Money isn't freedom here.

To be honest, by "some countries" I meant extremely capitalist countries (USA?) (I understand why it remained unclear). So, why pay for education, if moneyless can succeed as well?

I wouldn't call Sweden a very socialist counrty. Or well, compared to the US...

You seem to notice the current system isn't perfect. But why would it be so terrible to increase taxes and emphasize social welfare (make the money less meaningful)? It wouldn't make people lazy, many people go to work in Sweden too.

PS. The equality is real when talking about university education. At least where I come from.

it would make people lazy... or, MORE people lazy.

I guarantee, you increase hand-outs and more able-bodied and -minded people are going to decide to sit on the couch all day while the rest of us work to provide them food, health care and shelter.

Why would it be terrible to increase taxes?
Answer: Decreases economic freedom, punishes success, and discourages entrepreneurialism... if you hurt entrepreneurs, you hurt (for the hundredth time... so listen) the working man.

And you prefer a system where everyone makes the same amount and there's no chance for moving up in society? How you've described capitalism is a complete crock. Capitalism works because business owners know how to run businesses better than the government. As far as the BS you said about poor people, I can't help but laugh in your face for that. Have you heard of two fellows named Andrew Carniege and John D. Rockefeller? You know, the two prime examples of a capitalist success? Well I've got news for you, BOTH OF THEM started at the bottom of the barrel. The capitalist system is simple, work hard and you'll go far. Under the alternatives, there's no insentive to work hard because you'll get paid the same as everyone else anyway.... Why do you think the soviet union fell, eh? Vladimir (not Lenin) is a smarter fellow than the rest of his coworkers.... He knows he can sit on his butt all day and still get paid.. The other workers see what Vladimir is doing and they decide to join him.... Guess what? No product! Just a hint,if you're going to insult anyone or anything (especally capitalism) place actual economic facts in it.... To convince people you need actual, solid proof... Not just conviction.

Capitalism is better for hard workers, sharp thinkers, entrepreneurial types

Socialism is better for lazy slobs with light fingers

hehe

And you prefer a system where everyone makes the same amount and there's no chance for moving up in society?
You have a nice idea of value of people. MD's are naturally more precious and useful than cleaners. Wouldn't it be great if everyone would be doctors and nobody would have to be a cleaner?

We don't need cleaners, nurses and people working for wal-mart. Naturally, people can be defined as "top of society" and "bottom of society". We aren't equally valuable, are we?

Is that what you're saying?

OK the thing is there is no such thing as unregulated capitalism. You need the state there to enforce things like property laws and generally stop society breaking down so that capitalism can flourish. Bill Gates wouldn't look too rich if the US government wasn't bothering to enforce copyright law, now, would he?

So all you people who're saying there shouldn't be any government regulation and that they should just leave the system to its own devices are talking nonsense.

So if we're gonna run a capitalist system because we (probably rightly) think it's much more efficient than having the state control everything, the question is what rules are going to make the system run most efficiently - how are we going to get that meritocracy where all the children who have the potential to be brain surgeons actually turn out to be brain surgeons instead of crack dealers, hookers or marketing consultants?

As someone fairly smart pointed out earlier, the best model seems to be the Swedish one where you make sure people get well-educated, give them chances to succeed no matter what their background etc. (OK Sweden's not quite like that but its closer than Britain or the US).

Are you sure they borrow money for anyone willing to go to university?
Well, I borrowed all of the money I needed and received the maximum grants available for my education. I didn't have to come up with a single cent. Not for books, materials or anything else. I even received a stipend of $3,500 every 4 months for rent and expenses. I dropped out of High School after tenth grade, and got my GED. I started college while everyone else was still in High School.
Let's just say, that I found it exceedingly easy to accomplish the American Dream. It's hard for me to view most anticapitalist complaints by perfectly able-bodied individuals as nothing more than self-absorbed pity and defeatism.


And why couldn't I live like you do? As I wrote, I'm not from North Korea. I have freedom. I would have freedom if i didn't have money as well. Money isn't freedom here.
Who knows? Are you lazy? Do you lack the balls to "go it alone"? Are you completely stupid, and lack any skill or talent? Do you even live in America where opportunity is ripe?
I have no idea why you can't live as I do, since I know nothing about you.
Tell me more, and I could probably tell you exactly how you could live like I do. I've helped many of my friends start up their own successful small businesses for under $1500, which most managed to save in less than a year.

I've seen capitalism work, which is far more convincing to me than any ideological treatise I have read.

"I was guilty of judging capitalism by its operations and socialism by its hopes and aspirations; capitalism by its works and socialism by its literature."
– Sidney Hook

And you prefer a system where everyone makes the same amount and there's no chance for moving up in society? How you've described capitalism is a complete crock. Capitalism works because business owners know how to run businesses better than the government. As far as the BS you said about poor people, I can't help but laugh in your face for that. Have you heard of two fellows named Andrew Carniege and John D. Rockefeller? You know, the two prime examples of a capitalist success? Well I've got news for you, BOTH OF THEM started at the bottom of the barrel. The capitalist system is simple, work hard and you'll go far. Under the alternatives, there's no insentive to work hard because you'll get paid the same as everyone else anyway.... Why do you think the soviet union fell, eh? Vladimir (not Lenin) is a smarter fellow than the rest of his coworkers.... He knows he can sit on his butt all day and still get paid.. The other workers see what Vladimir is doing and they decide to join him.... Guess what? No product! Just a hint,if you're going to insult anyone or anything (especally capitalism) place actual economic facts in it.... To convince people you need actual, solid proof... Not just conviction.

John D. Rockefeller. One of the first people to make a load of money from price-fixing trusts before Sherman figured they were anti-competitive and pushed through the Anti-Trust laws. What a shining example of free-market capitalism he was. (Note for de-regulation chimps: This is sarcasm. Price fixing is NOT what free market capitalism is meant to be about. Quite the opposite.)

Did you have to use Vladimir as an example 'cos it's the only Russian name you couldthink of?

It's hard for me to view most anticapitalist complaints by perfectly able-bodied individuals as nothing more than self-absorbed pity and defeatism.

[/I]

If it's that tricky stop doing it!

You have a nice idea of value of people. MD's are naturally more precious and useful than cleaners. Wouldn't it be great if everyone would be doctors and nobody would have to be a cleaner?

We don't need cleaners, nurses and people working for wal-mart. Naturally, people can be defined as "top of society" and "bottom of society". We aren't equally valuable, are we?

Is that what you're saying?

Doctors are not more valuable as people than cleaners, but they do a harder job. If you say "Well the janitor should make the same amount as the doctor" what idiot in their right mind would go to medical school for eight years, and do the crazy work it takes to be a doctor, when they could just mop floors for the same amount?

So here's what happens in your utopian society:
Patient: "Oh no I'm bleeding to death what am I going to do, can I get a doctor?"
Janitor: "Sorry no doctors ma'am, but don't worry we make just as much money, so I'll be glad to mop that up for you."

If it's that tricky stop doing it!
It's hard to tell whether you're trying to be funny, or just engaging in passive-aggressive douchebaggery. If it was the latter option, care to comment on the actual content of my posts?

It's hard to tell whether you're trying to be funny, or just engaging in passive-aggressive douchebaggery. If it was the latter option, care to comment on the actual content of my posts?

Just wouldn't want you using any double negatives where you didn't mean it. Accidents could ensue.

As for the content of your post, fine. Well done, I'm sure your American dream is fascinating, and you're clearly very special. But as you point out, there are any number of reasons why this kid (who we might at least guess could have been good at something socially useful that'd make him a lot of money) didn't get to have a go. Maybe he was lazy, or too lazy to get over certain disadvantages that he wouldn't have had had he been a little more privileged. Maybe this was a potential hard-working brain surgeon who "didn't have the balls" to borrow the money. Maybe he was stupid, lacked any skill or talent (and could have made it in marketing). The point, which if you'd care to comment on MY earlier post you would have noticed, is that unless he has your particularly fortunate combination of work ethic, daring-do, brains, talent etc. he won't get to cash in his American dream, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF VERY USEFUL STUFF HE COULD DO WELL AND GET PAID FOR. Seems a waste.

The other point (again I'm repeating myself) is that it's not just like there's these two handy categories of 'capitalism' and 'socialism', almost all countries subscribe to a little of both, so quotes about how one works and the other doesn't aren't that informative. No one thinks doctors should be paid as much as janitors, but some people think there should be more equality.

The question is where do you set the balance. My feeling is that the USA, with literacy and poverty rates that are heading for third world status (other qualifications include tin-pot dictator whose father ran the intelligence service and whose brother tried to sway the vote in the state where he's governor) hasn't really struck the sweet spot there.

Just wouldn't want you using any double negatives where you didn't mean it. Accidents could ensue.
I see. And that was funny. :D

As for the content of your post, fine. Well done, I'm sure your American dream is fascinating, and you're clearly very special. But as you point out, there are any number of reasons why this kid (who we might at least guess could have been good at something socially useful that'd make him a lot of money) didn't get to have a go. Maybe he was lazy, or too lazy to get over certain disadvantages that he wouldn't have had had he been a little more privileged. Maybe this was a potential hard-working brain surgeon who "didn't have the balls" to borrow the money. Maybe he was stupid, lacked any skill or talent (and could have made it in marketing). The point, which if you'd care to comment on MY earlier post you would have noticed, is that unless he has your particularly fortunate combination of work ethic, daring-do, brains, talent etc. he won't get to cash in his American dream, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF VERY USEFUL STUFF HE COULD DO WELL AND GET PAID FOR. Seems a waste.
If he doesn't posess work ethic, daring-do, brains, or talent, what does he have to contribute to society? I can't think of a single job that doesn't require at least one of these factors (especially the work ethic part, which alone can land you a lot of jobs). Can you?

I see. And that was funny. :D


If he doesn't posess work ethic, daring-do, brains, or talent, what does he have to contribute to society? I can't think of a single job that doesn't require at least one of these factors (especially the work ethic part, which alone can land you a lot of jobs). Can you?

Again, you kind of missed the point: he needs the combination. All he needs to lack is one of those and, so long as he ain't from a privileged background, he's out. No American Dream, no useful contribution.

I see. And that was funny. :D


If he doesn't posess work ethic, daring-do, brains, or talent, what does he have to contribute to society? I can't think of a single job that doesn't require at least one of these factors (especially the work ethic part, which alone can land you a lot of jobs). Can you?

Marketing.

If he doesn't posess work ethic, daring-do, brains, or talent, what does he have to contribute to society?

He could always just post mindless right-wing drivel on Internet message boards. :D

If Bill Gates is living the American dream, did Ron Jeremy live the American Wet Dream?

Again, you kind of missed the point: he needs the combination. All he needs to lack is one of those and, so long as he ain't from a privileged background, he's out. No American Dream, no useful contribution.
Bullshit! You need that combination to be very successful. With at least a moderate amount of work ethic, and willingness to learn, that hypothetical guy can get a job that pays the bills. I don't believe that everyone deserves to be highly successful. I make my clients lots of money, so they return the favor. I get paid what I'm worth to them. Nothing more or less.

What you seem to be talking about is whether or not that's fair. I remember using that word a lot as a child (like we all did), and I'm sure we all remember the harsh truth our parents tought us... Life isn't fair.
What people argue about is whether or not government makes a good Robin Hood. History gives us the answer to that question.

With at least a moderate amount of work ethic, and willingness to learn, that hypothetical guy can get a job that pays the bills.

Is paying the bills really living the American Dream? I know standards may be slipping across the board here in the reign of King George II but Jayzus...

Is paying the bills really living the American Dream? I know standards may be slipping across the board here in the reign of King George II but Jayzus...
See my post above. You do not (and should not) have an undeserved "right" to live any big dream. But with a little effort, you certainly can achieve the status quo.

On the Robin Hood thing, see previous post about no clear categories, and possibly one about no such thing as an unregulated market for good measure.

As for the rest: OK in some cases that's true, the more talents the more successful. But the crucial issue here is the willingness to gamble on your future success, the daring-do issue. Essentially what you've said is that you gambled and won so it's OK to have no social safety net for those who don't. There's a whole load of potentially very talented people out there who aren't going to gamble or who're going to gamble and lose because its much easier to survive in an Ivy League environment if you've lived there all your life.

And I'm not saying it's not fair and I want us all to hold hands and sing songs or that we should get that Joseph Stalin back because he REALLY knew how to run a country. Read what's on the damn page. The point is the more a government invests in things like education, employment law, environmental regulation (please continue to add things the Bush government opposes to this list), the more it's going to be able to acheive stable long-term growth in its economy instead of just this disaster-prone casino. You invest in people because they're the ones who actually make the system work. The less you invest in education, health etc. the more you'll find yourself spending on social security (even if it's pitiful) because the more people you'll have incapable of work.

Essentially what you've said is that you gambled and won so it's OK to have no social safety net for those who don't.
Show me where I made that statement, or stop making assumptions about my belief system. It's insulting (to you, not me).

OK, as far as I get the logic of your argument, you're saying the general level of social spending is acceptable in the US, or even needs scaling back a bit because it charges to much in taxes. As evidence for this we have your story where you borrowed money for college and ended up in so happy-land. Anyone could potentially do this in order live their dream (talent allowing), so why are we taxing those deserving folk who live the dream (whether cos they borrowed or cos they were just rich in the first place) on account of all those who could take your route.

Or did I misread?

OK, as far as I get the logic of your argument, you're saying the general social spending is acceptable in the US, or even needs scaling back a bit because it charges to much in taxes. As evidence for this we have your story where you borrowed money for college and ended up in so happy-land. Anyone could potentially do this in order live their dream (talent allowing), so why are we taxing those deserving folk who live the dream (whether cos they borrowed or cos they were just rich in the first place) on account of all those who could take your route.

Or did I misread?
You read what I had stated, and drew conclusions (which are right, for the most part). You screwed up when you said I had made statements that I didn't. Totally different (you should've asked, or explained that your impression was such instead). But no biggie, I make mistakes all the time. Just letting you know that most people will dwell on those mistakes for pages, and completely ignore anything of substance you might have to say, so you might want to watch out in the future.

Back on topic: I think you're trying to paint me with too broad a brush.
I believe in limited government and maximum liberty (both social and economic), which means I'd like to make choices about where my money goes, and not leave it up to dishonest politicians. I definitely believe there should be a limited safety net for individuals that cannot work due to illness or disability. But that's where that ends. That being said, who's left that "deserves" any help from their fellow citizens? Honestly?
There's a huge difference between a limited safety net for those who can't possibly help themseloves, and outright socialism that fosters a dependency class of parasitic freeloaders. If you live in the United States, you should know how many of your friends from high school would've gotten jobs if they could've just sat on their asses, getting high and watching talk shows or music videos instead of working for a living. It may work for the industrious Swedes, but here in America, it's a very bad idea.

Now what's your position on the topic? You haven't exactly been forthcoming so much as critical from an ambiguous standpoint.

*crickets*

Good post. To be fair, I tend to find myself described as socialist but my feeling is I'm closer naturally to libertarianism. I have no problem with dog-eat-dog so long as no-one's getting any unfair breaks here, and I do mean no-one.

The problem with the idea of total dergulation is that you always need a government to enforce the rules of the game, at the very least, and this is where the problem starts, because they don't have to make those rules fairly. Two quick examples:

Share-holders vs. Workers. Most governments legislate to protect share-holders as much as possible on the grounds that it encourages investment. Fair enough. But the same governments tend to not extend the same protection to unions because they're seen as causing inefficiency. The problem is that you've immediately created an unfair situation for the guys with no money, who can't organise, whereas the guys with money have a legally protected means of collective bargaining. It's a bit Marx, capital vs. labour but you get my point.

Intellectual Property Laws (with special reference to the entertainment industry): You're giving away a set of government-granted monopolies to encourage innovation. Again, fair enough. But then you keep extending those because big players who've got fat from abusing their monopolies keep lobbying you to (at the moment it seems like copyright is specifically designed to keep 15 years in front of early Disney productions). Not very free market, and another example of why "pro-business" and "libertarian" are not even close to the same thing. What you want is the minimum regulations all round. What you get is maximum (favourable) regulation for those who have a lobby, minimum for those who don't

The reason I like ideas that are broadly socialist is that essentially, they (go some tiny way towards) re-setting the playing field. Plus, I shout a lot louder about the education, environment, health-care issues than I do about guaranteed state hand-outs (although they're probably a good idea for anyone with kids, on the education basis).

And I'm British, so will now have to go to bed.

One of the more productive conversations I've had on here, though, so send us a telegram in case everyone gets bored of this thread and it dies. More fun talking to you about this stuff than some kid who thinks that Jesus told him taxes were bad.

Alright, I'm back. I got tired of being forced to hear about how the USSR wasn't a "true" communist nation and how everyone deserves to be equal regardless of reality or history. Maybe someone else will come in.

*crickets*

It was a long sodding reply, and I'm balancing it with a few other things. What does that mean anyway. I assume as an American you''re not refering to the Ashes (the joy of which you may never fully understand)?

One of the more productive conversations I've had on here, though, so send us a telegram in case everyone gets bored of this thread and it dies. More fun talking to you about this stuff than some kid who thinks that Jesus told him taxes were bad.
Thanks for the compliment. You're also more interesting to talk to than a lot of pinkos with nothing much to offer but a "that's not fair" argument. Just come back to this thread and post sometime, and we'll continue later. G'night.

It was a long sodding reply, and I'm balancing it with a few other things. What does that mean anyway. I assume as an American you''re not refering to the Ashes (the joy of which you may never fully understand)?
Just means it's quiet here (like cricket sounds in the background). :D

Because it works and every other system attempted besides it has failed miserably.

The vast majority of people in developed economies are middle class, so we're not down at the bottom of the ladder; and many people are well educated enough to get jobs to get them in to the middle class or higher so that isn't true either.

Capitalism works, and it works best of all (for now and in the past, of course). That's why it's the best.

I'm very tired so have not read entire thread, so please forgive me if this has been covered... but here in Britain the middle class is yes, the largest group, but what it actually means is most people are living beyond their means, debt is growing at a rate that cannot be sustained for much longer. Therefore you have the majority of the population living in crippling debt, slaves to the wage with no way out of the destructive cycle.

Capitalism works for those high up the food chain, those who own and run the successful companies - in the UK these are made up of financial comapnies, primarily credit card companies and debt consolidation companies. This is good for the figures of a country's economy, but very little filters down to the people.

We're comparitively lucky though, we have an NHS (thanks to traditional Labour I might add, I do not support New Labour in the slightest) and most schools have enough government funding to pay for textbooks, unlike some schools in America who apparently have to be sponsored by the likes of Coca-Cola, who slip advertising into the materials they supply. Yay, capitalism rules.

Every economic system in the past was believed to be 'the best system'. I'm sure everyone used to think Mercantilism was the 'best system'. Capitialism will no doubt be replaced by something else. What? I have no idea. Perhaps a kind of socialism( not socialism based on Marx or Lenin). It could be argued that since the rise of society there have been massive inequalities in income, political power and social freedom. Yet as time has gone by the inequalities have been greatly reduced and personal freedom greatly increased. If this trend continues then we might very well end up with a Socialist Society with private ownership and small scale capitalism still intact.

Another possiblity is a much more Free-Market Libertarian economic system. No matter what arises it will probably increase freedom and decrease inequality.

well spoke

So you say you would like to sit in front of your pc all day long, years and years long?
Get real
What does that have to do with anything? I'm not saying I'm lazy, but come on, I'm not going to work if I can receive the same benefits without doing so.

I got it! I finally sorted out how a system that is based on making the rich richer and the poor poorer works, and why no one tries to do anything about it (except some peopel of course)

This is your first mistake. The rich do get richer, but the poor do not get poorer. The rich get richer through the acceptance of risk and the application of specialized labor. The poor do not get poorer in aggregate because of Malthus's and Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages.

Here it is:
-The rich people at the top are of course happy, they're the richest in society, they want this system the most.

The ironic thing is, it is the upper and upper middle class who generally are the most liberal and prefer socialism.

-Their employees are not as happy, but they think that by hard working they will once become as rich as their bosses.
Also they are happy that they are richer then the unemployed.

The middle class is happy as they know that, because of capitalism and specialization, they can work on cars all day, or sit in front of a computer all day, yet save up to buy a boat.

So many people rant about consumerism, yet so many people find some happiness through it.

-The people who starve to death are not happy at all, but who cares about them? All they do is fight amongst each other!

A lot of people are starving to death in Western Capitalisms.

And on top of this, the richest do everything to keep the rest frightened (e.g. crime rates drop, crime shown on TV mounts) so they don't even think about protesting: only the government can save them: first the commies, who were never a real threat, now the terrorrists, who are in fact a threat, but they're not being fought in the right way (Iraq had nothing to do with terrorrists)

Yeah, TV forces people to watch what TV wants them to watch. Ratings and advertisements mean absolutely nothing.

News programs put bad news on the TV because that is what draws viewers in, not because the rich keep us under their thumb.

Your nature, perhaps, not mine.

Greed is not the nature of people, the drive for self-fulfillment is the central nature of people, though. Capitalism is the only system that allows for infinite avenues of self-fulfillment. Your generosity, for example, would be in your drive for self-fulfillment, unless you are some masochist who gives away money because it makes you feel like shit.

Under a capitalist system, you are able to work for the betterment of society, and you are able to work for the betterment of your own life. Capitalism works both ways, for you are perfectly free to donate to charity, and if you are willing to work for the betterment of society only if everyone else does, you are a little hypocritical in your altruism. And if you are able to improve your own standing in life, it is through offering a service or good to society.