NationStates Jolt Archive


Is capitalism here to stay?

New Limacon
29-06-2008, 03:06
Well, is it? For all the kudos it gets for its freedom and liberty and such, I cannot think of any reason capitalism is a more stable economic system for any given society. It made sense in the late 18th/early 19th century, and I believe it still makes sense today, but the world two-hundred years from now is bound to be different. Will the mixed economy of most industrialized nations be replaced by something new?
Yootopia
29-06-2008, 03:09
Yes.
Yootopia
29-06-2008, 03:14
I cannot think of any reason capitalism is a more stable economic system for any given society.
Because it rewards those who don't suck, and punishes those who do.
Chumblywumbly
29-06-2008, 03:18
Well, is it? For all the kudos it gets for its freedom and liberty and such, I cannot think of any reason capitalism is a more stable economic system for any given society. It made sense in the late 18th/early 19th century, and I believe it still makes sense today, but the world two-hundred years from now is bound to be different. Will the mixed economy of most industrialized nations be replaced by something new?
Of course; it already is.

Capitalism of the 18th/early 19th century isn't around any longer. Laissez-faire industrial capitalism of the past is hugely different from the protectionist, welfare-state capitalism that's prevalent in much of the world today. (Indeed, that's one of classical Marxism's biggest mistakes; attempting to bring down an economic system that doesn't exist anymore.)

Capitalism as we know it today is also adapting. It's a simple fact we won't always be able to sustain the levels, and methods, of resource gathering and production we employ today. And the economic system that initiates that resource gathering/production will have to change with it.
New Limacon
29-06-2008, 03:18
Because it rewards those who don't suck, and punishes those who do.

But something besides capitalism had existed for millenia before it began, and they seemed just as stable. (And when I say "stable," I don't mean "efficient." It is very inefficient to build a giant, tetrahedral tomb for your ruler, but ancient Egypt never had a free market.)

EDIT: Pentahedral, I mean, if that's a real word.
Yootopia
29-06-2008, 03:19
But something besides capitalism had existed for millenia before it began, and they seemed just as stable. (And when I say "stable," I don't mean "efficient." It is very inefficient to build a giant, tetrahedral tomb for your ruler, but ancient Egypt never had a free market.)
Ancient Egypt was feudal for the plebs and capitalist for the rest, albeit very stratified.
New Limacon
29-06-2008, 03:20
Of course; it already is.

Capitalism of the 18th/early 19th century isn't around any longer. Laissez-faire industrial capitalism of the past is hugely different from the protectionist, welfare-state capitalism that's prevalent in much of the world today. (Indeed, that's one of classical Marxism's biggest mistakes; attempting to bring down an economic system that doesn't exist anymore.)

Capitalism as we know it today is also adapting. It's a simple fact we won't always be able to sustain the levels, and methods, of resource gathering and production we employ today. And the economic system that initiates that resource gathering/production will have to change with it.
So do we use the word "capitalism" just out of habit, or is there still something about the 21st century economy that makes it capitalistic? At what point would it stop being capitalism with an adjective in front and become something else entirely?
Chumblywumbly
29-06-2008, 03:22
Ancient Egypt was feudal for the plebs and capitalist for the rest, albeit very stratified.
That makes no sense; a feudal system must involve feudal lords (or Pharaohs, or whoever). You can't have feudalism just involving peasants.


So do we use the word "capitalism" just out of habit, or is there still something about the 21st century economy that makes it capitalistic?
Privately-owned resources and modes of production used to create profit.

At what point would it stop being capitalism with an adjective in front and become something else entirely?
When there ceases to be privately-owned resources and modes of production used to create profit.
New Limacon
29-06-2008, 03:23
Ancient Egypt was feudal for the plebs and capitalist for the rest, albeit very stratified.

Maybe, there's never been a society that's 100% capitalist, or feudal, or anything else you can think of. But if a majority of the denizens are not in a capitalistic situation, then the society as a whole certainly isn't.
Vanteland
29-06-2008, 03:39
Technological revolution, in concern to labor, is the precursor to economic change.

Agricultural Revolution (the real one, when agriculture was invented) allowed feudalism to supplant hunter-gatherer societies. Industrial Revolution allowed capitalism to supplant feudalism. The robotic revolution, if it comes, will allow something new to develop: either Communism, a sort of dictatorship where the one who controls the robots controls society, utopia, or something else entirely.

So, no. It's not permanent.

FYI, capitalism is a system where people with capital (capitalists) can invest said capital. Communist governments, so far, are just state-capitalists, with the people getting the dividends.
Yootopia
29-06-2008, 03:42
That makes no sense; a feudal system must involve feudal lords (or Pharaohs, or whoever). You can't have feudalism just involving peasants.
OK, well I'll put it a bit better (am a bit pished)

- The peasantry's efforts were mainly taken by their landowners in a fairly feudal fashion
- The landowners then used this income to trade in a largely capitalist 'upper' society.
Chumblywumbly
29-06-2008, 03:48
- The peasantry's efforts were mainly taken by their landowners in a fairly feudal fashion
- The landowners then used this income to trade in a largely capitalist 'upper' society.
It certainly allowed them to trade far and wide, but although there may be aspects of capitalism that are shared with feudal trade, I wouldn't call such a thing 'capitalism'.

Technological revolution, in concern to labor, is the precursor to economic change.
Technological change is one precursor to economic change; changes in society/environment are other precursors. A more holistic understanding of societal change is needed to look at capitalism.
Kyronea
29-06-2008, 05:53
Well, is it? For all the kudos it gets for its freedom and liberty and such, I cannot think of any reason capitalism is a more stable economic system for any given society. It made sense in the late 18th/early 19th century, and I believe it still makes sense today, but the world two-hundred years from now is bound to be different. Will the mixed economy of most industrialized nations be replaced by something new?

Capitalism will remain in some form until it becomes too difficult to impliment. This would probably only happen in an interstellar empire, so we've probably got a few thousand years before then .
Soviestan
29-06-2008, 05:57
God I hope so.
Skalvia
29-06-2008, 06:27
I expect that in some form Capitalism will go on, because it was never conceived as an economic plan anyway, It was just a general observation by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations...the principles of Supply and Demand happen regardless of how much Government interference there is...

but, more to the point, I think the future is more of a refinement of the Mixed Economy, with more restrictions on Conglomerates, Monopolies, and the Speculators that make them happen...

Whats going on with the Big Oil companies i think will be a thing of the past, as the Government will be forced to step in or face economic collapse, and when that happens, i dont think youll see as much in the way of large Corporate businesses for awhile, as the Government attempts to keep the situation from reoccurring...At least until those measures cause another crisis and there's another "Reaganite" so to speak, and the cycle starts over...
IL Ruffino
29-06-2008, 11:14
God, I hope so.
Renner20
29-06-2008, 11:47
Is capitalism here to stay? While there are bullets in my gun it is.
Neu Leonstein
29-06-2008, 12:12
This thread suffers from bad definitions.

If capitalism is merely the ownership and voluntary exchange of resources, then of course it is here to stay. In fact, it has been around for as long as humanity has been, and will be around until we develop super-replicators that eliminate all scarcity. Even tribal societies with no private property still operate like capitalists, except that their economic agents within the market are family groups or tribes rather than individuals. By the same token, ancient Egypt had a free market, except that many were excluded because they weren't granted the status of free human being.

If by capitalism you mean something else, then it might not be around forever. But to be honest, that doesn't really matter. What matters is that people be able to exchange their resources and products voluntarily, and that as many people as possible are included in this market. I couldn't give a toss what you called it, but as far as I can see, there is no reason ever to give up that idea, short of aforementioned replicators.
Yootopia
29-06-2008, 12:18
Is capitalism here to stay? While there are bullets in my gun it is.
You're British. I doubt you own a gun, and if you did, what the fuck would you do about it were capitalism to go?

Seeing as you've never been in the army, not much.
Andaras
29-06-2008, 12:39
It's not about what is 'better', that misses the point, socialism WILL replace capitalism as inevitably as capitalism replaced feudalism. And communism will inevitably follow socialism.

Within capitalism lies the seeds of it's own destruction, the proletariat have been given the tools with which they will supplant the bourgeois.
Yootopia
29-06-2008, 12:50
It's not about what is 'better', that misses the point
:D You continue to crack me up.
socialism WILL replace capitalism as inevitably as capitalism replaced feudalism.
Aye probably.
And communism will inevitably follow socialism.
Not until we're born equal.
Within capitalism lies the seeds of it's own destruction, the proletariat have been given the tools with which they will supplant the bourgeois.
Not in the UK. Happy days.
Ad Nihilo
29-06-2008, 18:26
My uninformed opinion is that as population increases exponentially and land becomes more scarce due to the climate fucking up badly (probably), we'll revert to feudalism.
1010102
29-06-2008, 18:46
We can only hope that it is.
Jello Biafra
29-06-2008, 19:41
Most likely for a while longer, then it will evolve into something else. It depends on how quickly Earth's resources are used up.
Glen-Rhodes
29-06-2008, 19:44
Call me crazy, but I see America going the Democratic Socialist route. Socialism is being slowly more prevalent in American society.
Conserative Morality
29-06-2008, 20:42
Capitalism has existed for a VERY long time, since the beginning of man.
Capitalism is an economic system in which property is owned by either private individuals or a corporation.
Therefore, Capitalism has always existed, and probably always will. Unless we get some sort of mind-control device/cameras everywhere including the bathroom system, it's here to stay.
Chumblywumbly
29-06-2008, 20:50
Is capitalism here to stay? While there are bullets in my gun it is.
And what will you fire your imaginary bullets at?

A non-physical economic theory?

Capitalism has existed for a VERY long time, since the beginning of man.
Ehhhhhhhh, no.
greed and death
29-06-2008, 21:03
Ancient Egypt was feudal for the plebs and capitalist for the rest, albeit very stratified.

Actually they now think the pyramid building was a form of welfare for farmers.

during the off season the farmers would go to work the pyramid for money to supplant their income from farming.

you see this in that several pharaohs built an additional pyramid when they lived longed then was expected.
Conserative Morality
29-06-2008, 21:09
Ehhhhhhhh, no.
So only recently man has began to own his own property?!?

What have I been missing!? *Ponders about how Peasents didn't REALLY own their bread, and how Roman soldiers didn't REALLY own their pay*
Chumblywumbly
29-06-2008, 22:18
So only recently man has began to own his own property?!?
In the sense of property rights enforced by law, then yes, only very recently.

You're suggesting that there have been property rights since "since the beginning of man", i.e from about 100,000 years ago.

That's a bit off.
Neu Leonstein
29-06-2008, 22:24
It depends on how quickly Earth's resources are used up.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/16/SPACE.TMP
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30796.html
http://www.spacedev.com/

I don't think that's gonna stop anyone.
Free Soviets
29-06-2008, 22:47
So only recently man has began to own his own property?!?

yup
Imota
29-06-2008, 22:58
Capitalism is the worst system of economics ever devised, except for all the others.
Artheres
29-06-2008, 23:12
I believe that was "Democracy", not capitalism.

Anyways. Since our technology is growing at an exponential rate, and this century will be like 10 centuries in one, I'd imagine the goal of communism ("to each according to their need, from each according to their ability") will be achieved but through an advanced form of capitalism, which will be a coexistence of open source and proprietary forms of information combined with nanotechnology and AI that can turn information sources into all the physical things we need.
Andaluciae
29-06-2008, 23:22
In developed countries, the capitalist system has seemingly become incredibly entrenched, and resistant to the sorts of threats and challenges that have been posed to its predecessors and competitors. It is a stable system, especially given that a far lower degree of direct intervention is required in the industrialized core to maintain the stability of the system.

In developing countries, though, the system is nowhere near as stable. By their very nature, they are transitional societies, and the change that is occurring creates a degree of instability. I feel the great test will be to see how these transitional societies evolve over the next two or three decades, and if they have achieved a similar degree of development to the core, or not.
Andaluciae
29-06-2008, 23:24
Actually they now think the pyramid building was a form of welfare for farmers.

during the off season the farmers would go to work the pyramid for money to supplant their income from farming.

you see this in that several pharaohs built an additional pyramid when they lived longed then was expected.

The inverse of paying people to dig random holes...
Andaluciae
29-06-2008, 23:27
It's not about what is 'better', that misses the point, socialism WILL replace capitalism as inevitably as capitalism replaced feudalism. And communism will inevitably follow socialism.

Within capitalism lies the seeds of it's own destruction, the proletariat have been given the tools with which they will supplant the bourgeois.

Why, then, as capitalism has developed, have no such revolutions developed in the industrialized states, as Marx had predicted? Why have revolutions been limited to the periphery, to feudal states and undeveloped areas?
Conserative Morality
30-06-2008, 00:04
In the sense of property rights enforced by law, then yes, only very recently.

You're suggesting that there have been property rights since "since the beginning of man", i.e from about 100,000 years ago.

That's a bit off.
Unless of course, you don't believe the earth is that old...
But let's not get off topic. Tell me, where did I say "Enforced by law"? Hmm?
Sirmomo1
30-06-2008, 00:14
Unless of course, you don't believe the earth is that old...
But let's not get off topic. Tell me, where did I say "Enforced by law"? Hmm?

So by your logic, capitalism was alive and well in the Soviet Union?
Glen-Rhodes
30-06-2008, 00:14
Why, then, as capitalism has developed, have no such revolutions developed in the industrialized states, as Marx had predicted? Why have revolutions been limited to the periphery, to feudal states and undeveloped areas?

Look around. Look at America. There are a lot of Americans with socialist views (even though they'll never call themselves socialists). Socialized medicine a serious possibility in America, and has already been implemented in most industrialized states. Poor and working-class Americans are angry over high taxes for them and tax cuts for the wealthy. No matter who is elected, wealth will be redistributed. I don't know about you, but those things sure do sound like socialism to me.
Chumblywumbly
30-06-2008, 00:31
Unless of course, you don't believe the earth is that old...
Oh dear.

Tell me, where did I say "Enforced by law"? Hmm?
When you started discussing capitalism.

If you want to say that capitalism is equatable to any conception of ownership of property, then you'd be calling nearly every single economic theory 'capitalism', including many theories intrinsically opposed to capitalism.
Andaluciae
30-06-2008, 00:40
Look around. Look at America. There are a lot of Americans with socialist views (even though they'll never call themselves socialists). Socialized medicine a serious possibility in America, and has already been implemented in most industrialized states. Poor and working-class Americans are angry over high taxes for them and tax cuts for the wealthy. No matter who is elected, wealth will be redistributed. I don't know about you, but those things sure do sound like socialism to me.

A vast oversimplification, but that's a different story. Mixed-market capitalism has been the predominant mode of the operation of the industrialized West since the interwar years. Even though certain services have been absorbed by the state, these states have remained overwhelmingly capitalist. If the US were to nationalize its healthcare system, or even to merely develop an alternative state-run insurance option, it would hardly alter America's capitalist credentials.
Free Soviets
30-06-2008, 00:40
Unless of course, you don't believe the earth is that old...

but anybody that lost is rather unlikely to have much useful to say on most topics, including those involving worldwide cross-cultural human history.
Abdju
30-06-2008, 00:55
Capitalism, in the sense of large scale multi or inter-national, privately owned bodies are unlikely to be a permanent fixture of society. Most of them grew up in an age when one nation held an almost absolute sway over the world militarily, but was relatively weak within it's own territory (The US government being unwilling to dominate it's own economy). Historically, that is quite an unusual situation. IN addition the way it harvested resources is unlikely to be possible in the future, so I think there will be a change.

I suspect we'll see more, not so much for profit, but for possession harvesting of resources by quasi-governmental agencies in the coming centuries, as governments seek to secure the resources they need for their own national interests. We see this with China's exploration of oil fields through government linked entities, whilst Russia has consolidated state control over it's own energy reserves. Venezuela is attempting something similar, and Egypt has had a lot of internal debate over similar moves, and has already more deeply entrenched state control of water.



Originally Posted by Yootopia
Ancient Egypt was feudal for the plebs and capitalist for the rest, albeit very stratified.

Actually they now think the pyramid building was a form of welfare for farmers.

during the off season the farmers would go to work the pyramid for money to supplant their income from farming.

you see this in that several pharaohs built an additional pyramid when they lived longed then was expected.

In expressed ideology, Egypt couldn't be regarded as a capitalist society in the modern western sense, since the entirety of Egypt (land, produce, mineral wealth, livestock and people) all were the property of the Pharaoh. Ergo, private property couldn't legally exist, except to one person, anyway.

In reality, of course, this could get kind of impractical, so a compromise existed. All mining, quarrying, international trade (except in the Late Period when the government issued rights to private merchants), high end craftsmanship and the like were state monopolies. In addition the irrigation infrastructure was also state operated.

Farmland was a mixed-economy situation. Large amounts of it were either state or temple owned. The produce of these estates belonged to the state or temple (in effect, the same thing) after the needs of the workers themselves was met (ie. tenant farmers). There was no noble intermediaries in this case.

Nobles also owned significant amounts of land, and had tenant farmers. They paid taxes on their estates profits. Middle class state workers (scribes, craftsmen, military etc) also held small estates, with hired labour. Large scale government operated silos, bakeries and breweries also existed, and it seems these had a monopoly (beyond what people prepared at home for themselves) as well.

Most craftsmen were employed by the state and worked in state workshops (which gave rise to the first use of mass production) although some of these workers also offered their services privately to the public in addition to their official duties.

The government was also involved in housing, health care and a degree of social security though handouts from state granaries in times of shortage. There is dispute as to whether or not a pension system existed for certain workers, but certain texts infer this.

The pyramids had the effect of a welfare net, providing work during the inundation, and regular supplies. However, they were not conceived of as such. Also, these were only constructed during the Old and Middle Kingdoms. After Ahmose I, no additional royal pyramids were constructed, despite the same need still existing, and resources being available. Neither did they exist before the 3rd Dynasty.
Conserative Morality
30-06-2008, 01:27
but anybody that lost is rather unlikely to have much useful to say on most topics, including those involving worldwide cross-cultural human history.
:rolleyes:
Andaluciae
30-06-2008, 01:31
Capitalism, in the sense of large scale multi or inter-national, privately owned bodies are unlikely to be a permanent fixture of society. Most of them grew up in an age when one nation held an almost absolute sway over the world militarily, but was relatively weak within it's own territory (The US government being unwilling to dominate it's own economy). Historically, that is quite an unusual situation. IN addition the way it harvested resources is unlikely to be possible in the future, so I think there will be a change.

I suspect we'll see more, not so much for profit, but for possession harvesting of resources by quasi-governmental agencies in the coming centuries, as governments seek to secure the resources they need for their own national interests. We see this with China's exploration of oil fields through government linked entities, whilst Russia has consolidated state control over it's own energy reserves. Venezuela is attempting something similar, and Egypt has had a lot of internal debate over similar moves, and has already more deeply entrenched state control of water.



Neo-mercantilism with an internal bent?
Abdju
30-06-2008, 01:45
Neo-mercantilism with an internal bent?

Look around us today... I think it's the way things are going...
Jello Biafra
30-06-2008, 01:46
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/16/SPACE.TMP
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30796.html
http://www.spacedev.com/

I don't think that's gonna stop anyone.For a while it will. There haven't been any serious moves to colonize or harvest resources from space, but as newly industrialized nations begin using up resources at an exponentially growing pace, it isn't inconceivable that supplies of some resources could dwindle to the point that instability is caused.

Look around. Look at America. There are a lot of Americans with socialist views (even though they'll never call themselves socialists). Socialized medicine a serious possibility in America, and has already been implemented in most industrialized states. Poor and working-class Americans are angry over high taxes for them and tax cuts for the wealthy. No matter who is elected, wealth will be redistributed. I don't know about you, but those things sure do sound like socialism to me.They aren't socialism. (Socialism is not equal to wealth redistribution.) At best, they're social democracy, but social democracy is a form of capitalism.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-06-2008, 01:50
Is capitalism here to stay?

Wanna buy some? :)
Skyland Mt
30-06-2008, 01:52
In some form, it'll probably stay. Depending on how bad the mix of climate change, peak oil, the resulting environmental disasters and depression, and most likely widespread warfare hit us, it may temporarily die out. I think we'll see a rise in totalitarian states with command economies during the next few decades, but once things improve I expect to see capitalism reimerge, due to its supposed efficiancy.
Ninuzrinath
30-06-2008, 02:10
I think we'll see a rise in totalitarian states with command economies during the next few decades, but once things improve I expect to see capitalism reimerge, due to its supposed efficiancy.

'supposed efficiency'? You can make any number of arguments against capitalism, but inefficiency isn't one of them. There is no better system for getting the most bang for your buck. Efficiency is capitalism's main strength; people attacking it generally point to its inequal distribution of wealth, instability, inability to address long-term threats, and encouragement of a soul-suckingly materialist mindset, but not inefficiency.

---------------------------------------------------------

To contribute, I define 'capitalism' broadly as any system which includes the free market in any significant way; property rights needn't be absolutely protected or enshrined in any sort of constitution, so long as they're generally acknowledged to the point that government confiscation of land or assets would be seen as unusual. Under this definition, capitalism has been with us since the first hunters began exchanging their catch for a bushel of the first farmers' crop. It's the default human economic system, really.

The only change I could foresee would be supercomputer-directed socialism or communism--no human has the brainpower or personal morality to properly administer such a system on any sort of realistic national scale, but it does promise something better than 'another day, another dollar', which is all the vast majority ever see of capitalism.
Skyland Mt
30-06-2008, 02:29
Exactly. Capitalism is efficient. Which is why I said it will remain. I suspect however that it will survive in a more regulated form, since its so efficient that its using up this planet's resources far to quickly.
Neu Leonstein
30-06-2008, 02:30
Neo-mercantilism with an internal bent?
It's the single biggest threat to capitalism. Not only does it have great appeal to governments who aren't that fussed with democracy but think they have a great mission, but its effects can also be felt in other countries (for example with inflation all over the globe, in part caused by reckless state capitalism and the associated loose lending and monetary policy).

Exactly. Capitalism is efficient. Which is why I said it will remain. I suspect however that it will survive in a more regulated form, since its so efficient that its using up this planet's resources far to quickly.
Efficiency means doing as well as possible with the resources available. If capitalism is efficient, it won't use up resources too quickly, it will use them just right.

Of course, it may not necessarily be 100% efficient, and that's where some well-designed regulations can bring improvements. That doesn't mean more regulations than there are now (because there already are lots), but better ones.
Glen-Rhodes
30-06-2008, 03:26
They aren't socialism. (Socialism is not equal to wealth redistribution.) At best, they're social democracy, but social democracy is a form of capitalism.
I disagree. I think that a lot of industrialized nations -- at least America -- are heading towards democratic socialism. I don't know if they can be considered social democracies at this moment. But, I think this thread is to discuss the future, rather than the present. And I think that democratic socialism is the future.

Democratic socialism is not capitalism. The very definition of democratic socialism is a socialist approach to economics and a democratic approach to government. Nearly all socialist countries became socialist countries because the Have-Nots were in the majority, and the Haves pretended that they weren't there. The main goal was to take money away from the wealthy and give to the poor.

Therefore, I do not at all think that capitalism is here to say.

(For those of you that are confused about "democratic socialism" and "social democracy": there is a different. Wiki: social democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy), democratic socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism).)
Ninuzrinath
30-06-2008, 12:59
I disagree. I think that a lot of industrialized nations -- at least America -- are heading towards democratic socialism. I don't know if they can be considered social democracies at this moment. But, I think this thread is to discuss the future, rather than the present. And I think that democratic socialism is the future.

Democratic socialism is not capitalism. The very definition of democratic socialism is a socialist approach to economics and a democratic approach to government. Nearly all socialist countries became socialist countries because the Have-Nots were in the majority, and the Haves pretended that they weren't there. The main goal was to take money away from the wealthy and give to the poor.

Therefore, I do not at all think that capitalism is here to say.

(For those of you that are confused about "democratic socialism" and "social democracy": there is a different. Wiki: social democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy), democratic socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism).)

You do realize that the only countries that appear to be currently headed toward democratic socialism are Bolivia and Venezuela, right? And even then perhaps only Venezuela, as I think Morales has only talked about nationalizing the major industries such as oil and coca, while socialism requires the people's full control over all the means of production.

Well, that leaves Venezuela, alone in steaming full speed ahead with democratic socialism:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801240.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060604410.html

Please tell me how you came to the conclusion that democratic socialism is the next big thing. If I'm missing something, I'd love to know.
Tsrill
30-06-2008, 13:19
What we see today is that unrestricted capitalism may implode by itself, because it tends to evolve into corporate dictatorships. Corporations have found out that the best way to secure market share and profit is by cooperation (acquisition or merger) with competitors instead of actually competing them. Striving for monopolies is pretty much inherent to capitalism and todays corporate giants have the means to make this happen, thereby eliminating the free market which is one of the pillars on which capitalism is built. I've started to think lately that the outlawing corporate mergers or acquisitions might be the only way to maintain healthy competition levels.
Hotwife
30-06-2008, 13:41
Well, is it? For all the kudos it gets for its freedom and liberty and such, I cannot think of any reason capitalism is a more stable economic system for any given society. It made sense in the late 18th/early 19th century, and I believe it still makes sense today, but the world two-hundred years from now is bound to be different. Will the mixed economy of most industrialized nations be replaced by something new?

No.
Aleos
30-06-2008, 13:45
What we see today is that unrestricted capitalism may implode by itself, because it tends to evolve into corporate dictatorships. Corporations have found out that the best way to secure market share and profit is by cooperation (acquisition or merger) with competitors instead of actually competing them. Striving for monopolies is pretty much inherent to capitalism and todays corporate giants have the means to make this happen, thereby eliminating the free market which is one of the pillars on which capitalism is built. I've started to think lately that the outlawing corporate mergers or acquisitions might be the only way to maintain healthy competition levels.

Indeed, it's quite interesting to follow that trend. It's enabled by capitalism but the end result is not exactly pleasant since optimization of profits for a mega corporation =/= efficiency. Without competition, which enables optimal usage of resources barring obvious issues, we don't exactly have much.
Renner20
30-06-2008, 14:15
You're British. I doubt you own a gun, and if you did, what the fuck would you do about it were capitalism to go?

Seeing as you've never been in the army, not much. Its a phrase, like 'rather dead than red' and the like. And yes, I’ve got a gun. And would be more than happy to use it against any commie that tried to control my life, business and country.
Andaras
30-06-2008, 14:19
You are probably correct about that, after all capitalism has only existed for about 300 years, and it's predecessor feudalism lasted many hundreds of years longer. It's usually periods of crisis and collapse in an economic system that it changes, just like in the Great Depression the world's first socialist revolution was born. If anyone follows events over the last year, the credit and finance markets are becoming increasingly unstable, food supply is becoming unstable, runaway inflation is also becoming dangerous, and all this will most likely result in acute economic breakdown over the next decade, most likely specifically in complete breakdown of employment.

It's also important to remember that the old 'middle' classes are basically are very quickly being wiped out and forced into the mainstream working class to sell their labor at an increasingly competitive rate. Most interesting aspect of how capitalism is changed is it has centralized capital so massively in such a short period of time since the 70's and the deregulation of labor in the 80's.


So, the important question, what will happen in the United States? My prediction is basically the same as the Great Depression, a shift to the 'left', and by 'left' I mean 'controlled capitalism' and Democratic populism, what will be different is that I think those who say that the anarchy and destructive instability of capitalism can be tamed will of course come to be completely discredited.

It should importantly be noted that the aim which the reformist 'leftists' propose are pursuing arose out of the economic troubles, out of the economic crisis. The leftists want to rid themselves of the crisis on the basis of private capitalist activity without changing the economic basis. They are trying to reduce to a minimum the ruin, the losses caused by the existing economic system. Here, however, as you know, in place of the old destroyed economic basis an entirely different, a new economic basis has been created.

Even if the left-wing governments partly achieve their aim, i.e., reduce these losses to a minimum, they will not destroy the roots of the anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system. They are preserving the economic system which must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to anarchy in production. Thus, at best, it will be a matter, not of the reorganization of society, not of abolishing the old social system which gives rise to anarchy and crises, but of restricting certain of its bad features, restricting certain of its excesses. Subjectively, perhaps, these 'leftists' think they are reorganizing society; objectively, however, they are preserving the present basis of society. That is why, objectively, there will be no reorganization of society.
Free Soviets
30-06-2008, 15:08
:rolleyes:

just stating an obvious fact. young earthers are, by definition, either very very very ignorant, quite stupid, or selling something. i would frankly find it amazing if one had even the slightest amount of true beliefs on the subject of cross-cultural human history.
Ninuzrinath
30-06-2008, 18:52
just stating an obvious fact. young earthers are, by definition, either very very very ignorant, quite stupid, or selling something. i would frankly find it amazing if one had even the slightest amount of true beliefs on the subject of cross-cultural human history.

It's actually quite a convenient little intelligence filter. If they're YEC, bam, no more investigation needed, we now know they're incredibly ignorant or incredibly stupid.

Another good one is the Barack HUSSEIN Obama card--if someone ostensibly criticizing Obama on substance repeatedly throws the middle name out there, everything they say becomes tainted.
Glen-Rhodes
01-07-2008, 05:23
Please tell me how you came to the conclusion that democratic socialism is the next big thing. If I'm missing something, I'd love to know.

Look around! There are angry workers that can't even afford to pay for gas to drive to work or drive their children to school. The government isn't doing anything to stop it; although, one can argue if the government even can do something to lower gas prices. Workers in Ohio and across the rust belt have hard times finding and keeping jobs: big corporations are sending jobs overseas for cheap labor.

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy only deepen the already deep wound to the working class. Thanks to his agendas and policies, the middle class is virtually non-existent. We are literally heading for a state in which there are only Haves and Have-nots; there will be no in-between.

If you passed 10th grade history, then the above should sound familiar. When a country is filled with working class citizens that can't afford to do anything, and the rich that don't care (aka big corporations), then it's just a matter of waiting for socialism to start appearing in that country's government.

I believe that the United States is in the very, very early stages of this. Gas prices are serving as a catalyst for problems that have been boiling since 2001. In 8 years, we saw the United States go from a successful economic program to a complete, utter failure. We're in a recession, and we're being told that things are only going to get worse.

I'll tell you what, democratic socialism is looking good to me right about now. We may not ever reach true socialism, but you'd have to be blind to think that socialist principles aren't emerging throughout our government. Socialized medicine, government-regulated business, wealth redistribution (which is what taxes are for, if you're not Bush), nationalized energy. Can anybody really say that we're staying solidly capitalistic?
Jello Biafra
01-07-2008, 11:55
'supposed efficiency'? You can make any number of arguments against capitalism, but inefficiency isn't one of them. There is no better system for getting the most bang for your buck. Efficiency is capitalism's main strength; people attacking it generally point to its inequal distribution of wealth, instability, inability to address long-term threats, and encouragement of a soul-suckingly materialist mindset, but not inefficiency.It's inefficient in the sense that competition means largely repeating the same product over and over again with slight differences and also using resources in advertising these slightly different products to consumers.

I disagree. I think that a lot of industrialized nations -- at least America -- are heading towards democratic socialism. I don't know if they can be considered social democracies at this moment. But, I think this thread is to discuss the future, rather than the present. And I think that democratic socialism is the future.

Democratic socialism is not capitalism. The very definition of democratic socialism is a socialist approach to economics and a democratic approach to government. Nearly all socialist countries became socialist countries because the Have-Nots were in the majority, and the Haves pretended that they weren't there. The main goal was to take money away from the wealthy and give to the poor.

Therefore, I do not at all think that capitalism is here to say.

(For those of you that are confused about "democratic socialism" and "social democracy": there is a different. Wiki: social democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy), democratic socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism).)Yes, 'democratic socialism' and 'social democracy' are different. Countries like Sweden, Norway, and perhaps France are social democracies. No countries are democratic socialist.
New Limacon
02-07-2008, 02:38
But let's not get off topic. Tell me, where did I say "Enforced by law"? Hmm?


When you started discussing capitalism.

If you want to say that capitalism is equatable to any conception of ownership of property, then you'd be calling nearly every single economic theory 'capitalism', including many theories intrinsically opposed to capitalism.
I'm not sure it's just property rights, because there have always been some sort of laws that say "Governor Lucius gets a, b, and c," or "Serf Cyril gets x." What makes a society capitalist, I think, is that there is privately owned property and people think that's a good thing. There is a, what's the word, normative, as well as postive, bent to the system.
New Limacon
02-07-2008, 02:43
You are probably correct about that, after all capitalism has only existed for about 300 years, and it's predecessor feudalism lasted many hundreds of years longer. It's usually periods of crisis and collapse in an economic system that it changes, just like in the Great Depression the world's first socialist revolution was born.

Are you speaking of the Great Depression of the 1930s? I can think of many more socialist revolutions before then (albeit in similar circumstances).
South Lorenya
02-07-2008, 03:02
If you own a farm, the harder you work the more food you'll have to sell.

If you work on someone else's farm, your pay will be roughly the same whetehr you work hard or not, Yes, harder work means slightly better pay, but nowhere near what it will be if you own the land.
Glen-Rhodes
02-07-2008, 05:42
I really think that socialism is unavoidable. While the types of socialism countries adopt will vary, I believe that all countries will -- sooner or later -- adopt socialism. This is because capitalism is fundamentally flawed. There is a limit to how much a country can prosper with capitalism.

The way I understand capitalism, it's a Darwinian economic system; survival of the fittest. While these countries prosper in the early ages of capitalism, failure is inevitable. Large corporations will just grow larger, and small businesses will continue to fail as large corporations continue to grow larger. In the end, you have very few corporations for each category, which means little to no competition. Without competition, the supply-and-demand model fails. With the failure of supply-and-demand, the economy inevitably fails. From there, socialism is born.

Call it extreme, but I'm looking at capitalism in its basics, and this is what I see.
Vetalia
02-07-2008, 07:36
The way I understand capitalism, it's a Darwinian economic system; survival of the fittest. While these countries prosper in the early ages of capitalism, failure is inevitable. Large corporations will just grow larger, and small businesses will continue to fail as large corporations continue to grow larger. In the end, you have very few corporations for each category, which means little to no competition. Without competition, the supply-and-demand model fails. With the failure of supply-and-demand, the economy inevitably fails. From there, socialism is born.

Supply and demand only break down in the context of infinite supply; even in the most ruthless monopoly the two sides are still in balance, even if that balance is far from what might be considered optimal. It would take the elimination of scarcity itself to truly destroy the fundamental power of market forces, and the elimination of scarcity itself would require at a minimum an infinite supply of all factors of production, let alone the world of intangible goods (which arguably will utterly outstrip the tangible sectors in a matter of years thanks to the rise of the information economy).

Perhaps socialism is the working system in a post-scarcity world, although it's hard to imagine whether such a thing could ever truly exist.
Neu Leonstein
02-07-2008, 08:50
Perhaps socialism is the working system in a post-scarcity world, although it's hard to imagine whether such a thing could ever truly exist.
It wouldn't be. Socialism is just another way of allocating resources, from private to public control in some way, and would as such be just as pointless as capitalism in a post-scarcity world. In such a world, there would be no economy, and hence no economic system.

Though I agree, it's never gonna happen completely. The prices for some things may be driven towards zero, but not the prices for all things.
Cameroi
02-07-2008, 09:03
while its demise has been greatly exagerated in the past, NOTHING is forever, and it IS creating more problems then its solving, especially for the future survival, and yes more then survival, gratification and even freedom, of the entire human species and EVERY segment of it.

and it IS NOT and DOES NOT bring, let alone insure freedom in any sense of the word. its one redeaming value has been its stimulus of inovation and invention, but even that has reached a point of diminishing returns. not inovation and invention, but capitolisms historic stimulation of them.

i'd love to live in a free country, if there ever comes to be such a thing, but capitolism IS highly over rated, and has NOT created one.

=^^=
.../\...
Glen-Rhodes
02-07-2008, 09:07
Supply and demand only break down in the context of infinite supply; even in the most ruthless monopoly the two sides are still in balance, even if that balance is far from what might be considered optimal. It would take the elimination of scarcity itself to truly destroy the fundamental power of market forces, and the elimination of scarcity itself would require at a minimum an infinite supply of all factors of production, let alone the world of intangible goods (which arguably will utterly outstrip the tangible sectors in a matter of years thanks to the rise of the information economy).

Perhaps socialism is the working system in a post-scarcity world, although it's hard to imagine whether such a thing could ever truly exist.

But, we have to remember that socialism wouldn't emerge from the lack of supply-and-demand, but rather the consequences of dire economic failure that is born from the lack of competition. Supply-and-demand may still exist in my scenario, one way or another, but as you said, it would not exist in a way considered optimal. What happens is that large businesses that have no competition to base their prices on. If a single group of businesses control bread sales, then it is they who decide the prices, and they alone. While it's extremely unlikely that something like that would happen, we can apply this to a current issue: gas.

In a world of growing oil prices, smaller oil companies will not be able to afford to exist. After a while, you have a very small group of giant oil companies. If they were to merge, or to even come up with an agreement, then there would be nothing to stop them from raising gas prices. When a country is literally run on oil and gas, this is a very dangerous situation. This is why capitalism is fundamentally flawed: sooner or later, it is inevitable that the single fittest will be the only survivor.

A crumbling economy mixed with widespread monopoly. You have the poor and rich (no middle-class), and the rich not doing anything to help the poor. That breeds anti-high class sentiment. A government that cannot control the markets and bring them back to stability will not be liked by the majority (which is inevitably the poor) -- no matter if the government simply cannot do anything about it. These are the classic prerequisites to socialist reform.

Of course, my example is extreme. But, all I'm trying to do is illustrate how capitalism is flawed, and when the breaking point is reached, socialism is the next natural step.
Neu Leonstein
02-07-2008, 09:24
Of course, my example is extreme. But, all I'm trying to do is illustrate how capitalism is flawed, and when the breaking point is reached, socialism is the next natural step.
You wouldn't have read a fellow by the name of Schumpeter by any chance, would you?

The question is whether his fear - that corporatism and governments would destroy innovation (which is usually the safety valve that tends to reshuffle the cards every so often, bringing down monopoly positions...google v microsoft comes to mind) - is coming true or not.

Capitalism without innovation is doomed, but that's not exactly new. But high oil prices by themselves would, if anything, just create more incentives for the development for new technologies that would reshape market structures.
Cameroi
02-07-2008, 09:44
You wouldn't have read a fellow by the name of Schumpeter by any chance, would you?

The question is whether his fear - that corporatism and governments would destroy innovation (which is usually the safety valve that tends to reshuffle the cards every so often, bringing down monopoly positions...google v microsoft comes to mind) - is coming true or not.

Capitalism without innovation is doomed, but that's not exactly new. But high oil prices by themselves would, if anything, just create more incentives for the development for new technologies that would reshape market structures.

never heard of the guy myself. what i see as being among the main weaknessess/problems, is that too many things are done just because someone can make a buck off of it, without asking whether or not its a good idea to do them, and too many things that would be bennificial, or even neccessary, aren't, because there isn't enough fat hog in the ass for anyone to stab by doing them. things like public transportation and health care come to mind in the latter catigory, i mean in the ways that would be most useful and bennificial, and as for the first, humanity's future threatening problems with environment and population ought to be obvious.

=^^=
.../\...
Abdju
02-07-2008, 12:49
If you passed 10th grade history, then the above should sound familiar. When a country is filled with working class citizens that can't afford to do anything, and the rich that don't care (aka big corporations), then it's just a matter of waiting for socialism to start appearing in that country's government.

I believe that the United States is in the very, very early stages of this. Gas prices are serving as a catalyst for problems that have been boiling since 2001. In 8 years, we saw the United States go from a successful economic program to a complete, utter failure. We're in a recession, and we're being told that things are only going to get worse.

I'll tell you what, democratic socialism is looking good to me right about now.

Because it sounds good, however, doesn't mean it will happen. At the end of the day there are too many powerful people in the US with an interest in maintaining their position to even consider implementing any socialist or redistributive changes to the economy. It doesn't matter what the masses want. The US electoral system is a brilliantly designed system, and is well able to disperse any pressures a left wing drive among st the general populace might place upon it, without having to surredner any wealth.

We may not ever reach true socialism, but you'd have to be blind to think that socialist principles aren't emerging throughout our government. Socialized medicine, government-regulated business, wealth redistribution (which is what taxes are for, if you're not Bush), nationalized energy. Can anybody really say that we're staying solidly capitalistic?

Taxes in the US are not redistributive in any meaningful way. The existing tax regime is mainly aimed at scraping together the bare minimum needed to keep the country able to defend it's interests internally and externally.

The idea the the US has "socialised" medicine is really a bit of a joke compared to most of the world.

Just because the US is becoming less modernly capitalist doesn't mean it's going to become socialist. There are more than two economic systems. As I said earlier, I think the US, and other major economies, will adopt increasingly mercantile systems. Whilst some of the surface features of this system may appear as socialist, they really aren't.
Glen-Rhodes
02-07-2008, 20:21
But high oil prices by themselves would, if anything, just create more incentives for the development for new technologies that would reshape market structures.

Assuming, in the event that oil prices become outrageous ($300+/barrel), new technologies will have enough time to be made. The technology for electric cars has existed since 1835 (in its most crude form; source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#History)). In 173 years, the idea of an affordable, 100% electric car still isn't feasible. American corn-ethanol isn't sufficient, and creates more problems then it solves; there is no popular 100% ethanol car, and using corn to create ethanol would raise corn prices. The same problem plagues hydrogen fueled cars: they simply aren't affordable right now, and won't be for a long time. In all honesty, it will most likely take the complete downfall of oil to actually get an electric, ethanol, or hydrogen vehicle to the masses.

Because it sounds good, however, doesn't mean it will happen. At the end of the day there are too many powerful people in the US with an interest in maintaining their position to even consider implementing any socialist or redistributive changes to the economy. It doesn't matter what the masses want. The US electoral system is a brilliantly designed system, and is well able to disperse any pressures a left wing drive among st the general populace might place upon it, without having to surredner any wealth.
You should never say that revolution is impossible. :)

Taxes in the US are not redistributive in any meaningful way. The existing tax regime is mainly aimed at scraping together the bare minimum needed to keep the country able to defend it's interests internally and externally.
I disagree completely. In a prosperous America, taxes for the wealthy are high, and taxes for the poor are low. If the goal was simply to keep the government afloat, there would be a flat tax.

The idea the the US has "socialised" medicine is really a bit of a joke compared to most of the world.

Just because the US is becoming less modernly capitalist doesn't mean it's going to become socialist. There are more than two economic systems. As I said earlier, I think the US, and other major economies, will adopt increasingly mercantile systems. Whilst some of the surface features of this system may appear as socialist, they really aren't.
You've misunderstood me. All those things I've listed are ideas that have emerged in Congress and from the populous. Nowhere did I say that any of things were implemented.

I also don't believe that the United States will become completely socialist. I do believe, however, that if things keep going the way they are right now, then the US becoming a democratic socialist country is not far-fetched. We're at a state right now where we don't trust the government, we aren't patriotic (like we were in the Great Depression regarding WWII), and we're more educated. The glass ceiling of reformation is broken. There is nothing short of military force that can stop Americans from changing their own government.
Geniasis
02-07-2008, 23:09
You're British. I doubt you own a gun, and if you did, what the fuck would you do about it were capitalism to go?

Seeing as you've never been in the army, not much.

"My name is gunman Stan McKurt. And I shoot Communism in the face."

+10 points to whoever gets the modified reference.
Shining Ys
02-07-2008, 23:14
Please, any higher power that exists, let the answer to that question be "no".
Neu Leonstein
02-07-2008, 23:17
never heard of the guy myself.
Which is a pity. Read him up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumpeter), if he hadn't been overshadowed by Keynes, he would rightfully be acknowledged as one of the greatest economists of all time.

what i see as being among the main weaknessess/problems, is that too many things are done just because someone can make a buck off of it, without asking whether or not its a good idea to do them...
If a buck can be made, at least someone must find them beneficial enough to pay for them. But if both those people are unaware that their action is bad for society as a whole, and this is not reflected in the market place, then that's a case of market failure.

And if (and that may be a big if) the government is aware of this and knows a better solution, there is a case for regulations to be implemented. But ultimately you get the same problem in a state socialist system, for example. The only difference is that instead of one party being private consumers and producers and the other being a regulatory authority, in the socialist system the two parties are different departments of the same government. That doesn't mean they'll do it any better, with any greater regard for society or the environment, or that they'll get along.

...and too many things that would be bennificial, or even neccessary, aren't, because there isn't enough fat hog in the ass for anyone to stab by doing them. things like public transportation and health care come to mind in the latter catigory...
I'm not sure that transportation or health care wouldn't be done at all by private providers. It's just that there may be an undersupply, because demand for them doesn't accurately reflect the real benefit they provide to society. Again, a case of a lack of information causing market failure, and again a case for governments to intervene, if they are in fact able to do so properly.

But that doesn't have to exclude entrepreneurs and private enterprise. It just has to develop and provide new price- or demand signals that more accurately reflect the true state of affairs. Then the market mechanism can do the rest.

...i mean in the ways that would be most useful and bennificial, and as for the first, humanity's future threatening problems with environment and population ought to be obvious.
I think if you look, the places where the environment is suffering the most isn't in capitalist economies, but in the third world. Those are countries with no environmental regulations, small private firms that nobody checks up on and large state-owned firms that are usually treated like their own property by politicians. If property rights are reasonably far-reaching, that already makes pollution more difficult because the person downstream will likely sue you in some way if you pump poisons in his direction. And other less obvious pollution, like greenhouse gas emissions, can be controlled by good regulation (which no government in the world seems to have been able to write yet).

As for population, I'm not convinced there is a problem. There is in some regions, like the Horn of Africa, but overall, the Malthusians have been proven wrong every time.

Assuming, in the event that oil prices become outrageous ($300+/barrel), new technologies will have enough time to be made.
They're already being made. Renewable energies are improving all the time, and even large European countries like Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany) are getting significant and growing proportions of their power from those. Electric cars are being developed and will be on the market in a few years, while combustion engines are also set for a revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesotto). The big thing about oil is plastics, and I'm not enough of a scientist to know in what direction the research is going right now.

But yeah, the development and innovation is occuring, and the beautiful thing about capitalism is that it provides more incentive to invent the greater the need for the invention becomes.

The technology for electric cars has existed since 1835 (in its most crude form; source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#History)). In 173 years, the idea of an affordable, 100% electric car still isn't feasible.
But its most crude form isn't actually what people want from a car. Of course there was enough to build a fashion statement, concept car or laboratory experiment, but not enough to build a car people would buy and rely on for a few years. Not to mention that the development costs just weren't financially justifiable. Combustion engines had no noticable drawbacks for the majority of their existence.

That is now changing with the new developments in batteries. And, accordingly, the cars are following (http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11332425).

American corn-ethanol isn't sufficient, and creates more problems then it solves; there is no popular 100% ethanol car, and using corn to create ethanol would raise corn prices.
In Brazil meanwhile, ethanol produced from sugar cane (much more efficient apparently than corn, which is just a way to send subsidies the way of the farm lobby) is doing quite well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil).

The same problem plagues hydrogen fueled cars: they simply aren't affordable right now, and won't be for a long time. In all honesty, it will most likely take the complete downfall of oil to actually get an electric, ethanol, or hydrogen vehicle to the masses.
I don't know, they're getting there. Car companies may have reacted with too little foresight, but now that they got the message they're putting considerable resources to it. Affordability is a concern for the first few years, but these technologies tend to trickle down to the lesser models reasonably quickly.

Anyways, Reykjavik's public transport system apparently has hydrogen-powered buses, everyone's got fuel cell hybrids now and the first full hydrogen cars (http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/FCX/) are getting close to production.
Conserative Morality
02-07-2008, 23:25
Please, any higher power that exists, let the answer to that question be "no".

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk294/Tombombadil9/gilliamholygrail2.gif
Glen-Rhodes
03-07-2008, 00:06
All of that is great, Neu Leonstein, but none of that is in the United States. We are, after all, talking about United States socialism. Sugar ethanol is not possible in the United States. We'd have to import it, and then we'd be in the same position we're in with oil. Ethanol is not a feasible renewable resource. It takes crops, and using crops to create gas only causes world food prices to go higher.

The United States will continue to use oil until there is no more to use. What incentive will there be in the future that isn't here now? We have high prices. We have pollution. Those things will just get worse. But, as long as oil and coal exist, alternative fuel will not be in the spotlight. Keep in mind that the "alternative" that's being discussed most is creating oil from coal. Therefore, there will be no extra incentive. American capitalism only provides an incentive for innovation when the old ways of doing things no longer exist.

The things that Germany, Brazil, and Iceland are doing do not affect the United States. Germany has been researching these things for decades. Brazil has been using sugar ethanol for decades. The United States, aware of the danger of relying on the Middle East for oil, hasn't done anything regarding alternative fuel. One could argue that it's actually the fault of capitalism. Big Oil is the most profitable company -- it is the top dog. If somebody wants to make money, they would be smart to invest in Big Oil (that is, until oil is no longer available). Keep in mind that oil is not going to run out soon. We will still have oil 50 years from now. As long as we can pump it and refine it, the United States will continue to use it.

But, now I've gone and turned this in to a fossil fuel discussion, when it's supposed to be a discussion about the demise of capitalism.
Abdju
03-07-2008, 00:49
You should never say that revolution is impossible. :)

I wouldn't say impossible, but I would say the odds are stacked against it. These are the people who brought you a truly excellent propaganda system that people actually enjoy watching. It's pretty neat.

I disagree completely. In a prosperous America, taxes for the wealthy are high, and taxes for the poor are low. If the goal was simply to keep the government afloat, there would be a flat tax.

If it were being introduced now in the states, I think that is how they would do it. However when the tax system was introduced progressive taxes were the standard model world wide, and this was simply in keeping with how things were at the time.

You've misunderstood me. All those things I've listed are ideas that have emerged in Congress and from the populous. Nowhere did I say that any of things were implemented.

My bad. Question is, how many will pass, and on what reasoning?

There is nothing short of military force that can stop Americans from changing their own government.

I'm not convinced that there is much public appetite for significant reform, or certainly not in a way that transforms into serious pressure on the existing system. I can see why certain groups are desperate for some change an would like to see more redistributive ideas and proposals put forward, but I just don't think the existing mindset of the system permits it to become a significant party of the political thinking of the US government, which is very good at getting those who ebnefit least from the system to be it's most ardent supporters.
Diezhoffen
03-07-2008, 00:56
Capitalism has never been here. It's an ideal state like communism that doesn't correspond to reality. Man can and therefore has/does/will fight for wealth instead of gaining by contract and trade.
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2008, 01:00
All of that is great, Neu Leonstein, but none of that is in the United States. We are, after all, talking about United States socialism.
But just because it's not done right now in the US doesn't mean that it can't. California for example is making a lot of headway into setting up the legal and physical infrastructure for a renewable energy industry.

Sugar ethanol is not possible in the United States. We'd have to import it, and then we'd be in the same position we're in with oil. Ethanol is not a feasible renewable resource. It takes crops, and using crops to create gas only causes world food prices to go higher.
I actually agree with you. I don't think ethanol is anything but a stopgap, or something to reduce the cost at the pump for a few people. Brazil can use it because of their climate conditions, and that's fine by me. But I didn't buy into the whole biofuel hype at the start and I'm not gonna do it now. If it is a good idea, there will be a market equilibrium sustainable without the current subsidies.

But I was merely making the point that it's not a priori impossible. Oh, and I don't think there is anything wrong about importing your fuel. There is no reason for why the US government has to like everything the Saudi royal family is doing - any Saudi government (apart from some radical Islamist one) would be happily selling oil to the US. The reasons for the friendship are more likely personal ties between the ruling strata, as it were, from the 50s, 60s and 70s when the oil was being found and developed.

The United States will continue to use oil until there is no more to use. What incentive will there be in the future that isn't here now? We have high prices. We have pollution. Those things will just get worse.
It's not an on/off switch. Everyone faces different costs and benefits for developing alternatives, and it depends on those specific details when it will become worthwhile to go ahead. Governments can accelerate the process, as Germany, Brazil and California are doing, but only up to a point. It's difficult to pick winners, and the Federal Government thought it might have one with biofuel with corn, which turned out not to be it.

In short, the US will continue to use oil until it's not worth using oil anymore. That point is not yet here, but since the trend for prices is gonna be upwards, we'll get there. And as we approach it, development of alternatives will continue to accelerate proportionally.

Keep in mind that the "alternative" that's being discussed most is creating oil from coal. Therefore, there will be no extra incentive. American capitalism only provides an incentive for innovation when the old ways of doing things no longer exist.
That's silly. American capitalism is no different from any other capitalism as far as innovation is concerned, and the US still spends a lot more on R&D per capita than Europe, for example. Many of the technologies developed in the US are powering the changes made in Europe.

As for why they aren't also being implemented as quickly in the US, the reason is simply that the government there hasn't acted in the same way (taxes on petrol, Kyoto-inspired changes etc) to bolster incentives.

But that's just a question of one liberal, democratic, capitalist country doing something slightly differently from another liberal, democratic, capitalist country. It's not fundamental to capitalism itself. What we'll see is the next president coming into office with a strong mandate to "do something", and then a few turbulent years in which American entrepreneurs and corporations catch up with those in other countries. The resources are there, afterall.

One could argue that it's actually the fault of capitalism. Big Oil is the most profitable company -- it is the top dog. If somebody wants to make money, they would be smart to invest in Big Oil (that is, until oil is no longer available). Keep in mind that oil is not going to run out soon. We will still have oil 50 years from now. As long as we can pump it and refine it, the United States will continue to use it.
I think you have it the wrong way round. No one will pump and refine it if no one is using it. Oil companies don't create demand for oil, you and me do. And the more expensive oil gets, the more likely we are to switch our spending to something else.

What we're seeing now with the big oil companies (and that of course includes the state-owned ones) is them cashing in because demand for oil is so inelastic. But the more we pay, the more we don't want to, the more attractive alternatives appear, the less inelastic the demand becomes. Believe it or not, there is going to be a point at which oil prices stabilise because any fall in supply quantity is about matched by a fall in demand. We're not there yet, but we will be. And just like quarry owners and lumberjacks, oil companies will still be around, but the time of big profits will be over.

But, now I've gone and turned this in to a fossil fuel discussion, when it's supposed to be a discussion about the demise of capitalism.
Hey, those that are hoping for it currently seem to think that ecological reasons and peak oil are their best bet (the central message of marxism never quite dies, you see). So in 2008, I'd say it's hard to properly discuss one without the other.
Chumblywumbly
03-07-2008, 01:05
I'm not sure it's just property rights, because there have always been some sort of laws that say "Governor Lucius gets a, b, and c," or "Serf Cyril gets x."
Always?

Conservative Morality claimed that "since the dawn of Man" (around 100,000 years ago) there had been capitalism. This is not the case. I'd agree that capitalism is not 'just' property rights, and that other economic systems hold dear property rights, but to say "there have always been some sort of [property] laws" is, at best, a lazy generalisation.

What makes a society capitalist, I think, is that there is privately owned property and people think that's a good thing
What people? How many?


All of that is great, Neu Leonstein, but none of that is in the United States. We are, after all, talking about United States socialism.
But with the world and globalised economy as it is, we can't afford to be reductionist; to isolate the US' economic system (with the effects of, say, its mass imports and exports) from other countries', and ultimately the world's.

The things that Germany, Brazil, and Iceland are doing do not affect the United States.
Again, that's rather naive.
Glen-Rhodes
03-07-2008, 02:54
"The point is not yet here". The thing is, there's no telling when oil won't be used anymore, or when the oil market will stabilize. There is no telling when the market, as a whole, will stabilize. As a lower-class American, I hear a lot of "everything will be OK; the market will stabilize itself". But, I've got to say: I don't believe it.

As you say, the oil market will stabilize because of supply-and-demand. However, demand will not decrease unless supply becomes nonexistent. I don't know why anybody thinks it will. We need oil to power our cars. We need our cars to get to work. My mother is paying 80 dollars a week just going back-and-forth from work (in Arizona). For somebody who makes less than $35,000 a year, that is a lot of money to spend on a necessity. She can't NOT spend that money, because she needs to work. She also can't afford to go out and buy a hybrid vehicle, or an electric one for that matter. So, no matter how high gas prices get, she simply HAS TO pay that amount. No matter what alternatives there are, as long as they're not CHEAP, oil will reign supreme.

That is the story for most of America, sadly. That is why I say that the oil market is not likely to stabilize. The President of OPEC is saying that oil prices could hit $170/barrel. As long as the American dollar continues to inflate, that price will just go higher and higher (admittedly, the Pres. of OPEC doubts that they'll hit $200 any time soon). Right now, the value of the American dollar is affecting oil prices worldwide. If I'm not mistaken, OPEC only trades oil in USD. When the US dollar's value drops so much, they'll likely convert to euros. Then, we'll have to pay even MORE.

I don't think anybody can deny that oil prices affect nearly the entire economy of the United States. It affects everything from oil prices, to airfares, to local taxes, to product and produce prices. Oil is a dangerous game.

As for my comment being naive, Chumblywumbly, I beg to differ. While we import a lot from Germany, Germany's energy policy doesn't affect the policies of the United States. If it does, please explain how, because I do not know.
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2008, 03:21
"The point is not yet here". The thing is, there's no telling when oil won't be used anymore, or when the oil market will stabilize. There is no telling when the market, as a whole, will stabilize.
We'll know when it happens, won't we?

As a lower-class American, I hear a lot of "everything will be OK; the market will stabilize itself". But, I've got to say: I don't believe it.
I'm not saying it'll happen this year, or this decade, or even until decades from now. It's a gradual process, with the changing demand for oil beginning to cut into the effect of diminishing supply. There is no other way for it to happen.

As you say, the oil market will stabilize because of supply-and-demand. However, demand will not decrease unless supply becomes nonexistent. I don't know why anybody thinks it will. We need oil to power our cars.
Didn't we just talk about electric cars, ethanol and hydrogen fuel cells? In a few years time, we don't need oil to power our cars at all.

My mother is paying 80 dollars a week just going back-and-forth from work (in Arizona). For somebody who makes less than $35,000 a year, that is a lot of money to spend on a necessity. She can't NOT spend that money, because she needs to work.
Hey, I deliver pizzas, I know of the difficulties involved with all this.

She also can't afford to go out and buy a hybrid vehicle, or an electric one for that matter. So, no matter how high gas prices get, she simply HAS TO pay that amount. No matter what alternatives there are, as long as they're not CHEAP, oil will reign supreme.
As I said, it's a gradual process. But eventually, the savings from avoiding petrol will be greater than the cost of buying the car. And at that point, she can either try and get a loan, which will pay for itself through the savings, assuming the bank agrees, or many other people will make the switch and petrol stations themselves will become rare to the point where she has no choice. Hell, for all we know eager governments might even subsidise the purchase of new green cars.

And think of the killing Toyota or Honda or whoever could make with all these people begging for a cheap car that doesn't use petrol.

That is the story for most of America, sadly. That is why I say that the oil market is not likely to stabilize. The President of OPEC is saying that oil prices could hit $170/barrel. As long as the American dollar continues to inflate, that price will just go higher and higher (admittedly, the Pres. of OPEC doubts that they'll hit $200 any time soon). Right now, the value of the American dollar is affecting oil prices worldwide. If I'm not mistaken, OPEC only trades oil in USD. When the US dollar's value drops so much, they'll likely convert to euros. Then, we'll have to pay even MORE.
Yeah, but that's not an issue of capitalism, but rather of the structure of economic activity within the US. You guys spend more than you save, and have done so for decades now - eventually that's gonna be noticed and your currency (which you can think of as something of an IOU for your foreign creditors) is going to start dropping. But that's a general trend, the current low levels are due to specific and temporary circumstances. Once credit markets get going again and economic activity starts to normalise, Bernanke will raise interest rates back up and you'll see the dollar appreciate.

I don't think anybody can deny that oil prices affect nearly the entire economy of the United States. It affects everything from oil prices, to airfares, to local taxes, to product and produce prices. Oil is a dangerous game.
I don't think anyone is denying it. But even though oil is so central to the economy, its use is still the result of millions of individual decisions about cost and benefit. And the higher the cost, the more of these decisions will go the other way. Precisely because capitalist economies are so decentralised are they better able to deal with something like this than centrally directed ones. North Korea reacts by not having any petrol left in the country, and African command economies react by falling into (pedal-powered) civil war. That's somewhat worse.

As for my comment being naive, Chumblywumbly, I beg to differ. While we import a lot from Germany, Germany's energy policy doesn't affect the policies of the United States. If it does, please explain how, because I do not know.
If things work, there is no reason why the US government wouldn't implement the same policies. It's quite common. The point is that in a globalised world, when something done somewhere turns out to obviously be the best practice, there are going to be a lot of calls for it to be done everywhere. I think that regardless of who wins this presidential race, by the end of the next term you'll see federal energy policies similar or even surpassing the ones Arnie put in place in California (and he was arguably influenced quite a lot by those developed in continental Europe).
Glen-Rhodes
03-07-2008, 03:40
Wait, you aren't American? How can argue about these things with somebody who isn't American?

Ethanol, hydrogen, and electric vehicles will not be affordable any time soon. Not in the coming years, if not in the coming decade. Not in America, at least. We are focused on oil. Not alternative fuels. We're researching ways of getting oil cheaper, not how to make more efficient ethanol. We're searching for new oil fields, not new car batteries. We're arguing over drilling in ANWR, not about whether or not to use hydrogen or electric vehicles. The only way the government will put a lot of effort in to alternative fuels is if we can no longer get oil. When oil simply becomes too high, we'll start trying to get alternatives to the masses. That will take years. Most people will not be able to afford new cars, so we cannot completely get rid of oil (unless the government buys cars for people who can't afford it).

I find it really horrible that you say that people will have no choice; that they'll be left stranded. My mother has horrible credit. She cannot get a new car, much less a loan. Even with dealers that specialize in people with credit problems, she can only afford to get a used car.

As oil prices increase, her electricity bill will get higher. She can barely afford to have the air conditioner at 82 degrees. She struggles paying her rent already. She cannot afford higher oil prices. She cannot afford a failing economy, and a government failing to revive it.

Those are the things that breed social revolution. Those things aren't going disappear anytime soon. I agree with Schumpeter. "There will not be a [loud] revolution, but merely a trend in parliaments to elect social democratic parties of one stripe or another." It's already happening, only on an incredibly small scale.
Chumblywumbly
03-07-2008, 03:43
As for my comment being naive, Chumblywumbly, I beg to differ. While we import a lot from Germany, Germany's energy policy doesn't affect the policies of the United States. If it does, please explain how, because I do not know.
For a start, Germany is a big player in the EU, an organisation applying a lot of pressure onto the US government to enact certain energy policies.
Ferrous Oxide
03-07-2008, 03:52
Hahahah! Oh, this is gold. No capitalism? What are you gonna replace it with? Socialism? Mate, when my uncle came out from Ukraine a few years ago, and we told him we could get whatever we wanted from the shops, he thought we were LYING. In Ukraine, when you go to a chemist, they sell you tablets in singles; they can't mentally grasp the concept of buying an entire packet. This is the system you're going to push? This is the system of the future?
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2008, 04:17
Wait, you aren't American? How can argue about these things with somebody who isn't American?
My passport says I'm German, with a permanent residency in Australia. I prefer to think of myself as 'me'.

Seriously though, I'm informed enough to weigh in on these issues, particularly since they're not nearly as domestic to the US as you paint them.

Ethanol, hydrogen, and electric vehicles will not be affordable any time soon. Not in the coming years, if not in the coming decade. Not in America, at least.
Nissan, Honda et al seem to disagree with you.

We are focused on oil. Not alternative fuels. We're researching ways of getting oil cheaper, not how to make more efficient ethanol. We're searching for new oil fields, not new car batteries. We're arguing over drilling in ANWR, not about whether or not to use hydrogen or electric vehicles.
And isn't it possible that you can do both? I mean, there are firms in the US working on trying to produce ethanol more efficiently (I know, because I wrote an assignment about an Australian biofuel firm that was doing business in the US). There are firms working on better batteries for cars (for example the whole thing about the Tesla Roadster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster) - an American invention). And didn't McCain recently announce a cash prize for someone who could make a battery with certain specifications?

That's what I was trying to get across before: capitalism always does lots of different things at the same time. The whole idea of competition is that the best way wins in the end.

The only way the government will put a lot of effort in to alternative fuels is if we can no longer get oil. When oil simply becomes too high, we'll start trying to get alternatives to the masses. That will take years. Most people will not be able to afford new cars, so we cannot completely get rid of oil (unless the government buys cars for people who can't afford it).
The government will do whatever gets it votes, for better or for worse. The more Americans now realise the seriousness of things like the global oil supply and climate change, the more they will expect their government to do something about it. That wasn't the case before, because Americans didn't care.

So you have two parallel developments: the more expensive oil gets, the more commercial sense it makes to invest in and develop alternatives. And at the same time, the more people pay at the pump or hear about stuff happening in the news, the more action they'll demand from governments.

I find it really horrible that you say that people will have no choice; that they'll be left stranded. My mother has horrible credit. She cannot get a new car, much less a loan. Even with dealers that specialize in people with credit problems, she can only afford to get a used car.
That too is capitalism. I'm not saying I particularly like people being put in difficult situations, but that's the process by which it works. That's what makes them change and improve, since the beginning of time. There are other reasons too, but this one is particularly prominent. And the lack of it has been a difficulty so-called communist countries had to deal with.

As oil prices increase, her electricity bill will get higher. She can barely afford to have the air conditioner at 82 degrees. She struggles paying her rent already. She cannot afford higher oil prices. She cannot afford a failing economy, and a government failing to revive it.

Those are the things that breed social revolution. Those things aren't going disappear anytime soon. I agree with Schumpeter. "There will not be a [loud] revolution, but merely a trend in parliaments to elect social democratic parties of one stripe or another." It's already happening, only on an incredibly small scale.
The question is: haven't there always been people in the US who have struggled? The US doesn't have a big welfare state, and when people don't have the skills that are in demand in the workplace, they find themselves in difficult positions. So far the US hasn't become a social democratic country as such.

And indeed, the European countries that did in some form follow Schumpeter's predictions have since moved back towards more free market policies as it came out that social democracy doesn't hold a whole lot of answers either, and just tends to provide too little bang for your buck. So even if there is a political trend towards it, it also seems to reverse after a while. It may be unrealistic to imagine there being one "final" state of things at all.
Aggretia
03-07-2008, 04:38
My intuition is that when robotics and artificial intelligence advance to the point that human labor in most forms is no longer necessary or desirable there will be a major shift in the way goods are distributed. People aren't going to sit back and let the class of people who own robots control the world's resources. There will have to be some sort of socialist authority, probably worldwide, that controls the robots and distributes the fruits of their labor. Hopefully that distribution will be just and relatively equal.

Until that happens a liberal, free market capitalist system will continue to be the optimal way to organise economic activity.
Conserative Morality
03-07-2008, 04:39
My intuition is that when robotics and artificial intelligence advance to the point that human labor in most forms is no longer necessary or desirable there will be a major shift in the way goods are distributed. People aren't going to sit back and let the class of people who own robots control the world's resources. There will have to be some sort of socialist authority, probably worldwide, that controls the robots and distributes the fruits of their labor. Hopefully that distribution will be just and relatively equal.

Unless that happens a liberal, free market capitalist system will continue to be the optimal way to organise economic activity.
Fixed.
Glen-Rhodes
03-07-2008, 06:23
Yes, it's true that there have always been struggling people in the United States. However, my point is that there are more people struggling now more than in the past 50 years. It's a huge culture shock. During the Clinton administration, things were so much better. My mother didn't have horrible credit. We owned a home. She had a good job as a medical transcriptionist. Fast forward 12 years, and she's a General Manager at a grocery store, renting a home she cannot afford, deciding which bills to pay now and which to let go overdue, and struggling to get to work each day. I'm not saying this is because of capitalism. I'm saying that it's things like these that bring around socialism.

My question about you being American wasn't a shot at how much you were informed. I said it because you couldn't possibly know what it's like to live in America. I've lived here all my life, and only these past 8 years have been absolutely horrible. It's such a dramatic change, and dramatic change only breeds more dramatic change. Socialized medicine is one of these changed I'm wholly looking forward to. I can actually go to the dentist; I haven't been to the dentist for well over 10 years, because I cannot afford to go. I can go to a good podiatrist and get the care I need, instead of going to one in the middle of the Arizona ghetto just because they offer the lowest price.

I would give anything to live in a country like Germany. Germany cares about it's citizens enough to help them, financially, through life. If things haven't changed since I talked to my German language teacher, if you pass the Abitur, then you can get in to college for free. There's nothing like that in the United States, aside from a few states that offer full rides if you're an excelling student.

Back to the car discussion though. I haven't seen any report of alternative fuel vehicles coming down in price. Hybrids have slightly gone down, but still aren't affordable. The car companies have to lower prices at a time when Americans can still affording to allocate money for a car. If things continue the way they are now, they'll miss their chance. No matter how expensive oil gets, people that can't afford a car before that breaking point will be stuck paying outrageous gas prices. It's cold-hearted to dismiss that, just because "that's how capitalism works". Capitalism is the economic policy of the cold-hearted. It's Darwinian. The losers aren't taken of. Not in America, at least.

@Ferrous Oxide: That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Nobody is suggesting that the United States will become a socialist country. I'm saying, at least, that it may become a democratic socialist country. There's a huge difference between straight-up socialism and democratic socialism.
Ferrous Oxide
03-07-2008, 06:29
@Ferrous Oxide: That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Nobody is suggesting that the United States will become a socialist country. I'm saying, at least, that it may become a democratic socialist country. There's a huge difference between straight-up socialism and democratic socialism.

Well, the operative difference, I'd imagine, is that "democratic socialism" is a stupid term, and people are stupid for using it. It's not a form of socialism, it has nothing to do with socialism, it's a dumb term.
Glen-Rhodes
03-07-2008, 06:40
It has a lot to do with socialism. :confused: It's a democratic approach to government, and a socialist approach to economics. It's not a stupid term. I'd say it's a pretty descriptive term. It almost defines itself.
Setavia
03-07-2008, 06:42
capitalism is not only here to stay; it's growing (and i don't mean spreading). and not necessarily in a good way. people are starting to be consumed by consumerism (a better word for capitalism). they are defining who they are by the things they can buy. people can't help it; they like stuff. consumerism makes getting stuff easy. and there's so much stuff, that it's easy to judge by what stuff people have. there's enough stuff for "individuality" and few enough landmark items to compare and define people.
Ferrous Oxide
03-07-2008, 06:47
No! It is not a socialist approach to economics! Can I still start my own business? Own my own house? Sell my own crops? Earn more for brain surgery than for garbage collection? Then it's just goddamn capitalism.
Glen-Rhodes
03-07-2008, 07:24
I don't know what to say, to be honest. It's dictionary definition is a socialist economy and democratic government.

It is socialism. It's socialism brought about through democracy and governed through democracy. That's different (I'm assuming) from the Ukraine and all other former Soviet Union members.
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2008, 07:34
Yes, it's true that there have always been struggling people in the United States. However, my point is that there are more people struggling now more than in the past 50 years. It's a huge culture shock. During the Clinton administration, things were so much better. My mother didn't have horrible credit. We owned a home. She had a good job as a medical transcriptionist. Fast forward 12 years, and she's a General Manager at a grocery store, renting a home she cannot afford, deciding which bills to pay now and which to let go overdue, and struggling to get to work each day.
I think it's dangerous to extrapolate from your own experience to those of everyone. Remember, Clinton's welfare reforms also made a lot of people worse off. And before Reagan, poor people might have had it even easier.

But by the same token, throughout those periods a lot of people have also improved their lot, rich and poor alike.

I'm not saying this is because of capitalism. I'm saying that it's things like these that bring around socialism.
They can be a reason, but only if they translate into people voting accordingly. It may well be that your mother for example would not vote for a socialist, regardless of what that person stands for or how much she could use government handouts. There are a lot of poor people in the US who would never consider voting for even a Democrat, let alone a real social democrat of any sort. So American political culture also comes into it.

My question about you being American wasn't a shot at how much you were informed. I said it because you couldn't possibly know what it's like to live in America. I've lived here all my life, and only these past 8 years have been absolutely horrible. It's such a dramatic change, and dramatic change only breeds more dramatic change.
Yes, but the aggregate figures don't look nearly as dramatic as your own personal experiences were. A great many people have also improved their lot during those 8 years, and that includes poor people (for example those who were able to secure home loans thanks to securitisation).

Socialized medicine is one of these changed I'm wholly looking forward to. I can actually go to the dentist; I haven't been to the dentist for well over 10 years, because I cannot afford to go. I can go to a good podiatrist and get the care I need, instead of going to one in the middle of the Arizona ghetto just because they offer the lowest price.
That all depends on how things work out. And even more importantly, you may be one of those people for whom socialised medicine is designed. But many people aren't, and they could well end up worse off under this program. And once they realise it, they may not vote for it, and what the final result will be is open.

And that's not mentioning the questions about whether either option is any more just than another - without it, you go without dentistry, with it government-sponsored violence is used against innocent people to allow you to go to the dentist. Neither is particularly appealing from a neutral point of view.

I would give anything to live in a country like Germany. Germany cares about it's citizens enough to help them, financially, through life.
Hmmm, I've spent enough time there and I continue reading the news. Let's just say it's not quite that great. A lot of people are doing things the hard way, unemployment is still way higher than in the US (especially long-term unemployment and forced early retirement), your parents' income (and ethnicity) has a huge impact on your future (moreso than in the US, I believe) and so on and so forth.

If you want, you can add http://www.spiegel.de/international/ to your collection of news sources. They'll occasionally run articles translated from German about the way the economy and the state are failing poor people. Like these:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,442990,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,416429,00.html

If things haven't changed since I talked to my German language teacher, if you pass the Abitur, then you can get in to college for free. There's nothing like that in the United States, aside from a few states that offer full rides if you're an excelling student.
In a few states, they now introduced low student fees (though everyone's bitching about it). Personally, I don't think too low prices make a lot of sense, and I am a student. In Germany the average time students take to finish their degrees is significantly longer than that in the US or Australia, for example. It's not hard to see that the reason is likely to be the fact that in Germany it doesn't cost you anything to occupy educational resources, while in the US it most certainly does. Plus, universities in the US are a lot better than German ones.

The best option might be something like the HECS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HECS) system here in Australia.

Back to the car discussion though. I haven't seen any report of alternative fuel vehicles coming down in price. Hybrids have slightly gone down, but still aren't affordable. The car companies have to lower prices at a time when Americans can still affording to allocate money for a car. If things continue the way they are now, they'll miss their chance. No matter how expensive oil gets, people that can't afford a car before that breaking point will be stuck paying outrageous gas prices.
I don't think so. The US consumers are still the largest and wealthiest body of potential customers around. And the more of something (for example a hybrid engine) gets built, the cheaper each unit is. It'll get there.

And remember that petrol prices in other countries are still significantly higher than in the US.

http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/35799/Graph%20-%20International%20-%202007-12.jpg

It's cold-hearted to dismiss that, just because "that's how capitalism works". Capitalism is the economic policy of the cold-hearted. It's Darwinian. The losers aren't taken of. Not in America, at least.
Well, first let's say that my views reflect my own and not capitalists or capitalism in general. There are many different arguments for capitalism, and sometimes they are almost incompatible.

So if you asked me, it's not so much Darwinian as it is two things:
1) Questioning whether or not someone can have the right to something that is unearned on the basis of need.
2) A realisation that more important than the outcome is the way one gets there.

If you want, you can call that cold-hearted, though as you can imagine, if one really is, it doesn't work well as an insult. Rest assured that as a person, I'm not cold-hearted or Darwinian in the least, and I help and give where I find it possible and appropriate (which is almost all the time, it seems). But that doesn't refute either 1) or 2) and doesn't change my conviction that capitalism, for all its faults, is the most effective and morally justifiable economic system out there.
Ferrous Oxide
03-07-2008, 07:46
I don't know what to say, to be honest. It's dictionary definition is a socialist economy and democratic government.

It is socialism. It's socialism brought about through democracy and governed through democracy. That's different (I'm assuming) from the Ukraine and all other former Soviet Union members.

Well, the dictionaries are goddamn idiots. There's only one socialism, and it's the moronic system utilised in the Soviet Union from the end of the Russian Civil War until the collapse of the USSR. Bar the NEP period, of course.
Glen-Rhodes
03-07-2008, 08:03
Socialism is a broad term. There are many types of socialist systems: communism, Marxism, Leninism, De Leonism, guild socialism. The Soviet Union was ruled by communists. Communism is an extreme form of socialism; a form that I detest completely.
Ferrous Oxide
03-07-2008, 08:35
Socialism is a broad term. There are many types of socialist systems: communism, Marxism, Leninism, De Leonism, guild socialism. The Soviet Union was ruled by communists. Communism is an extreme form of socialism; a form that I detest completely.

Actually, communism is a different system from socialism, and it's not actually feasible.
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2008, 08:43
Socialism is a broad term. There are many types of socialist systems: communism, Marxism, Leninism, De Leonism, guild socialism. The Soviet Union was ruled by communists. Communism is an extreme form of socialism; a form that I detest completely.
Actually, communism is a different system from socialism, and it's not actually feasible.
You know what? This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552527).
Glen-Rhodes
03-07-2008, 08:54
I really don't understand what this guy is thinking. He's completely ignoring all official definitions. How can I argue with that? It's incredible. I think I'll do that next time I debate.

So... Neu Leonstein, is that topic supposed to contain an answer, or did you want to know what "my socialism" is?
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2008, 09:02
So... Neu Leonstein, is that topic supposed to contain an answer, or did you want to know what "my socialism" is?
No, answering in that thread would be gravedigging, since no one has posted in it for so long. Nor do I think we'd really learn a lot as far as this debate is concerned.

No, I just posted it as an illustration of the difficulties associated with pinning down what "socialism" is. If you look at the responses in there, most of these people wouldn't protest at being called "socialists", but some flatly contradict each other on vital issues, and really no two people are answering the questions quite the same way.

So debating about what "socialism" really means is a pointless exercise. The most commonly, and perhaps most rigid, definition is the marxist one (and the ones flowing from it), but if you use it, you're bound to get into disagreement. Socialists are freedom-loving and rebellious people (usually), and they have a hard time fitting neatly into molds.
Ferrous Oxide
03-07-2008, 11:08
You know what? This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552527).

No thanks, I'd rather stick to the facts. You know, the ones I learnt in school?

I really don't understand what this guy is thinking. He's completely ignoring all official definitions. How can I argue with that? It's incredible. I think I'll do that next time I debate.

So... Neu Leonstein, is that topic supposed to contain an answer, or did you want to know what "my socialism" is?

*sigh*

Socialism - state property, redistribution of wealth and land, dictatorship of the proletariat, all that crap

Communism - the ultimate outcome of socialism, classless society, no government, everybody lives in harmony, a crock of shit

"Democratic socialism" - a lie, it's just capitalism with a welfare slant
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2008, 11:40
No thanks, I'd rather stick to the facts. You know, the ones I learnt in school?
If I were you, I'd have a talk with my teacher. It's not that what you're saying is wrong, it's just that it's not the whole story. You're talking about a strict, straight marxist set of definitions.

But that's not the only one. It's not even the first one. It just happens to be the most well-known one.
Ferrous Oxide
03-07-2008, 11:44
If I were you, I'd have a talk with my teacher. It's not that what you're saying is wrong, it's just that it's not the whole story. You're talking about a strict, straight marxist set of definitions.

But that's not the only one. It's not even the first one. It just happens to be the most well-known one.

No, I'm happy with what I got now. Why argue with Marx? He's the captain, isn't he?
Jello Biafra
03-07-2008, 11:55
Hahahah! Oh, this is gold. No capitalism? What are you gonna replace it with? Socialism? Mate, when my uncle came out from Ukraine a few years ago, and we told him we could get whatever we wanted from the shops, he thought we were LYING. You were. Unless of course, the shops really were giving things away for free.

No, I'm happy with what I got now. Why argue with Marx? He's the captain, isn't he?Not hardly.
Ferrous Oxide
03-07-2008, 12:05
You were. Unless of course, the shops really were giving things away for free.

I meant "buy whatever we want", as opposed to in Ukraine, where if you manage to find a roll of toilet paper on store shelves, that's a good day for you.
The Smiling Frogs
03-07-2008, 12:39
Because it rewards those who don't suck, and punishes those who do.

Indeed. Any economic system that does not take into account merit is doomed to fail. I know it ain't popular to say here but the rich, as a whole, are rich because they worked harder and had better ideas.
Xenotrop
03-07-2008, 13:01
Well, is it? For all the kudos it gets for its freedom and liberty and such, I cannot think of any reason capitalism is a more stable economic system for any given society. It made sense in the late 18th/early 19th century, and I believe it still makes sense today, but the world two-hundred years from now is bound to be different. Will the mixed economy of most industrialized nations be replaced by something new?

If our world is to ever achieve peace, if our society is to ever become truly liberal, and if people want prosperity at an equal level for every capable, or once capable, person in this world, we must rid this world of capitalism.

Though a free market is considered to be part of a liberal's likings; in my opinion, it is fine to own and operate your own business, even becoming a tycoon is fine, but all things must be strictly watched by the government, and if the nation/country needs the money for a dire situation, the government shall have the right to take part of their subsidies for the greater good.

I call my self a socialist/communist, though I am thoroughly liberal, I guess I'm in the center of things.
Celdonia
03-07-2008, 17:47
Indeed. Any economic system that does not take into account merit is doomed to fail. I know it ain't popular to say here but the rich, as a whole, are rich because they worked harder and had better ideas.

Having better ideas might help you to get rich but working hard won't make you rich. Never has and never will. If it did we'd have millionaire factory workers and single parents working three jobs would be hoarding money in off-shore tax havens.

There are other factors, like risk taking, as well of course. Just don't get caught up in the idea that you'll become wealthy just by working hard.
Nerotika
03-07-2008, 17:53
Well, is it? For all the kudos it gets for its freedom and liberty and such, I cannot think of any reason capitalism is a more stable economic system for any given society. It made sense in the late 18th/early 19th century, and I believe it still makes sense today, but the world two-hundred years from now is bound to be different. Will the mixed economy of most industrialized nations be replaced by something new?

Although it may sound funny it seems like Capitalism 200 years from now will replace religion. Notice for instance the way people almost worship money and the means to getting it, people are slowly forgetting religious views as life gets futher on and they are forced to concentrate more on getting money and supporting their lifes. One day, combined with commercials which are capitalist propaganda, we'll be so brainwashed by the idea of money and privatised capitalist industries that we'll worship them as our higher beings.

Either that or we'll all just become blankfaced zombies for the giant industries of the future capitalist dictatorship society.
Jello Biafra
03-07-2008, 18:09
I meant "buy whatever we want", as opposed to in Ukraine, where if you manage to find a roll of toilet paper on store shelves, that's a good day for you.I assume you mean "buy whatever we want as long as we can afford it"?