Political & Elections

Abyss · Senior Member

RE: Socialism vs. Capitalism: The Showdown

Billy · Senior Member

Abyss wrote:

Billy wrote:

A government should strive for the the highest median standard of living for its current citizens. The US is extraordinarily successful in that regard. I believe that capitalism is extremely good at getting to that result - however in recent years the system has been stacked against our median citizen.
Why just the median citizen? It is best when a government strives for the best life for the least of its citizens.

Because I don't agree with that at all. It's not "best". You are merely sharing you're opinion, as I was. I couldn't care less about our least well off. They add virtually nothing to our country (or any other country).

Getting the best life for the median is closer to the socially optimal, highest wealth achieving state for the country - it's also sustainable in democracy.

-- Edited by Abyss on Saturday 20th of November 2010 11:51:57 AM

How can you both advocate democracy and claim that a country shouldn't care about the least well-off of its citizens and that those people don't contribute? Isn't the idea of democracy empowering the people, and not just some of the people? Is not a democratic economy superior to an economic oligarchy of the rich, if you wish to advance democratic ideals?

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

I go to Canada and think, wow, life is better here. (And that is not just because I'm a hockey fan.)

Really? Everyone in my industry that works in Canada wants to go to the US!

... And that's why interpersonal utility comparisons are silly...

:D

longprime · Guru

Canada, certainly has enough different cultures.

Abyss · Senior Member

longprime wrote:

Really? Everyone in my industry that works in Canada wants to go to the US!

may be the oil fields in Canada colder than the fields in the USA, excepting AK.

No, it has nothing to do with that. People generally like to live in their own culture - with what they know.

longprime · Guru

Really? Everyone in my industry that works in Canada wants to go to the US!

may be the oil fields in Canadian oil fields are colder than the fields in the USA, excepting AK.

DS, would like to work in Canada. People tend to be more worldly and food is much better.

-- Edited by longprime on Saturday 20th of November 2010 04:14:06 PM

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

I'm not sure why we're arguing about capitalism versus other systems, since capitalism is clearly better. But I don't share Abyss' view that life in the US is so clearly better than life in other countries. I go to Canada and think, wow, life is better here. (And that is not just because I'm a hockey fan.)

Really? Everyone in my industry that works in Canada wants to go to the US!

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

I'm not sure why we're arguing about capitalism versus other systems, since capitalism is clearly better. But I don't share Abyss' view that life in the US is so clearly better than life in other countries. I go to Canada and think, wow, life is better here. (And that is not just because I'm a hockey fan.)

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Maternal/neonatal death rates are rolled up into life expectancy (actually, is that true for neonatal? neonatal counts stillbirths) but neither in the US nor in other comparator countries do they make a significant difference. I couldn't find Life Expectancy at age 5 comparative data, but I'm willing to bet that the US will be about the same rank

I don't even know why we are talking about this.

US standard of living is absolutely incredible. I go to visit friends in other countries and am simply blown away by how little they get paid and how expensive everything is. The US has high salaries, low taxes, and cheap goods. Under the most widely used income metric (PPP) we are so far above everyone else it's a joke.

Comparing us to Norway is pretty laughable as well. That's like comparing us to the Massachussets of Europe. Why not simply compare Massachussets to Norway? Doing something well for 10M people is a bit different than doing something well for 300M.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Maternal/neonatal death rates are rolled up into life expectancy (actually, is that true for neonatal? neonatal counts stillbirths) but neither in the US nor in other comparator countries do they make a significant difference. I couldn't find Life Expectancy at age 5 comparative data, but I'm willing to bet that the US will be about the same rank

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

US median income is one of the highest in the world, but one has to look at Purchasing Power Parity to actually compare. But even then, under most measures we'd come out well.

As to health care statistics, it's not just life expectancy where we lag. We're also lousy in maternal mortality and neonatal mortality.

I suspect that if we looked at median child standard of living, we wouldn't look so rosy.

You do realize those mortality rates are rolled up into life expectancy, right?

I suspect median child standard of living wouldn't look so rosy either. Pretty soon we'll be comparing our demographic statistics to that of Brazil, not Norway. Just give ourselves 40 years.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

US median income is one of the highest in the world, but one has to look at Purchasing Power Parity to actually compare. But even then, under most measures we'd come out well.

As to health care statistics, it's not just life expectancy where we lag. We're also lousy in maternal mortality and neonatal mortality.

I suspect that if we looked at median child standard of living, we wouldn't look so rosy.

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

A government should strive for the the highest median standard of living for its current citizens.

In that case, the US is failing epically compared to the Nordic countries.

Under what metrics? I can only think of one. Life expectancy. And I suspect a lot of the difference has to do with citizen behavior than anything else.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

A government should strive for the the highest median standard of living for its current citizens.

In that case, the US is failing epically compared to the Nordic countries.

Abyss · Senior Member

Billy wrote:

A government should strive for the the highest median standard of living for its current citizens. The US is extraordinarily successful in that regard. I believe that capitalism is extremely good at getting to that result - however in recent years the system has been stacked against our median citizen.
Why just the median citizen? It is best when a government strives for the best life for the least of its citizens.

Because I don't agree with that at all. It's not "best". You are merely sharing you're opinion, as I was. I couldn't care less about our least well off. They add virtually nothing to our country (or any other country).

Getting the best life for the median is closer to the socially optimal, highest wealth achieving state for the country - it's also sustainable in democracy.

-- Edited by Abyss on Saturday 20th of November 2010 11:51:57 AM

Billy · Senior Member

A government should strive for the the highest median standard of living for its current citizens. The US is extraordinarily successful in that regard. I believe that capitalism is extremely good at getting to that result - however in recent years the system has been stacked against our median citizen.
Why just the median citizen? It is best when a government strives for the best life for the least of its citizens.

Abyss · Senior Member

A government should strive for the the highest median standard of living for its current citizens. The US is extraordinarily successful in that regard. I believe that capitalism is extremely good at getting to that result - however in recent years the system has been stacked against our median citizen.

1) Uncontrolled immigration into the country.
2) A net outflow of jobs via crap "free trade" with countries. Primarily to China (whose currency manipulation might possibly be the worst thing for employment in the US).
3) An education system which doesn't train each to their potential.
4) A financial elite that essentially runs the show - sucking value from all parts of the American economy like a shop vac.
5) An elected group of government officials which in no way represents America at large (ie: the massive over-representation by lawyers in our elected positions).

-- Edited by Abyss on Friday 19th of November 2010 09:38:28 PM

longprime · Guru

Its not about the economic system but the Power.

When you want Power, you come up with an alternative solution and blame the old guard for the woes of the population.

Billy · Senior Member

Oh, let me tell you...

busdriver11 · Guru

I can certainly see the point. I mean, they'd definitely bring the vodka!

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

I think Billy's just in Marxist Communism for the parties, but so be it. More power to him, I say. :P

busdriver11 · Guru

Well, sometimes opposites can keep things interesting. Life would be boring if we were married/or dating ourselves, wouldn't it?

Still waiting for Billy to answer anarchist's post....studying, I hope?

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Bahaha. Nah, but I'll give you this- why don't you adopt my fiance? Not a huge fan of my future family-in-law (in fairness, he doesn't like them either).

And as for set-ups... nah, we're much more the kind to marry exactly the opposite of what our parents want. Imagine my great-grandparents' surprise when my prim and proper British grandmother who played in the London Symphony Orchestra brought home a Hungarian Gypsy who was so dark that they thought he was African. Or the other side where my Jewish great-grandmother married a man in Hitler's Youth. It's kind of been downhill from there lol.

busdriver11 · Guru

That is great you are covering both bases. Can I set you up with my older son? Oh, just kidding, I know you kids don't let parents match you up anymore, not like the good old days.
Unfortunately.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

It's hard to explain. No matter how many times you shower, there's a faint scent that just doesn't go away lol. And your hands get discolored pretty easily, too. Not bad for someone with olive-colored skin like my dad, but for a pasty Brit like me- it kinda makes me look diseased.

Anyway, no, it's not a bad option. But as for right now, I want to finish up with my degrees. No one in my family has graduated college and I'm on track to do it. Plumbing is something I can always come back to if I wanted. It's a nice fall-back option. I want to work with people though... and not just fixing their sinks :p!

busdriver11 · Guru

Yes, I'd bet you'd like the color scheme!

Would a master plumber be such a bad option? Just take a shower when you get home from work, see, no odor. I manage not to smell like deicing fluid, bad coffee and JP-4 after a short time. Just bathe at night instead of the morning. Nothing wrong with good money!

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

busdriver11 wrote:

I have friends that will probably tell you that doing all the work to be a vet is too much, unless you really love it. And you have to have the right sort of direction to be an engineer. A master plumber probably makes alot of $$ and has some freedom in working schedule, so that might just be the right way to go!

I love, love, love animals, but I could NEVER put one down. There goes vet.

Engineering- it's just boring IMO.

Plumber- my dad's a master plumber (although he can't work any more). I have my journeyman's license (I was the only female in the room when I went to go take the test. The registration guy had the balls to ask me if I was in the right place, in a very condescending tone). I like working as a plumber, but I have lived with my dad long enough to know that the odor that follows a lot of plumbers around is just not worth it sometimes :p. But, as a woman with a master's license in plumbing... I could make more than decent money. Haven't ruled it out yet, but I'll get my two bachelors first and then go from there lol.

PS: Love the color scheme with your dogs :p.

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Wednesday 17th of November 2010 10:15:51 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

I have friends that will probably tell you that doing all the work to be a vet is too much, unless you really love it. And you have to have the right sort of direction to be an engineer. A master plumber probably makes alot of $$ and has some freedom in working schedule, so that might just be the right way to go!

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

busdriver11 wrote:

Okay, nonanti, or should we now call you anarchist, or I'mso. Time to get offa here and get to work!

I'm voting for your double major to be logic and computation/economics. It is so obvious, but then again, what do we parents know?h

If my parents had their way, I'd be either a vet or an engineer. bleh

Or a master plumber. But hey, I'm halfway to that one.

busdriver11 · Guru

Okay, nonanti, or should we now call you anarchist, or I'mso. Time to get offa here and get to work!

I'm voting for your double major to be logic and computation/economics. It is so obvious, but then again, what do we parents know?h

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Okay, okay. Jeez, you don't have to yell...

FFF · Veteran Member

romanigypsyeyes wrote:

However, I believe in imposing stricter fines and regulations to those who want to "outsource" our jobs. This is doing more harm to the economy (losing our jobs) than good (providing cheaper products).

In theory that sounds fine, but how would you expect the American company to compete in the global economy if they are not allowed to use cheaper labor? Look at a company like Cisco. They are an American success story and employ many thousands of Americans. Yet, they, like virtually every electronics company, have outsourced their manufacturing as well as other parts of their business to China and other developing countries. Suppose the US clamped down on their outsourcing and they were forced to do all of their manufacturing in the US, at US wages and benefits (like mandatory health care). How long do you think that they would be able to stay in business with that kind of regulation keeping them back, when their competitors still had access to cheap manufacturing? How many of the thousands of US employees that Cisco currently employs would then lose their jobs because of Cisco's ultimate demise?

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

poetgrl wrote:

What are you guys majoring in?

No. No. Let me guess.

"psych" or "soc" for Romani

and polisci or econ for anarchist.

Bahaha... close. I am getting a BA in "Residential College in the Arts and Humanities" http://rcah.msu.edu/ (just look at that home page and you'll know why it's my major lol). I am getting a BS in anthropology.

Very close guys, very close.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Dammit, Anarchist. Go do your work.

I mean it.

Go on. Get good grades and make us all proud!

poetgrl · Senior Member

Get to work! NOW.

Make yourself some peppermint tea or coffee and just write.

We expect big things from you around here. biggrin

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Philosophy for me. Maybe minor in econ, but I doubt it.

We can be your moms and dads bugging you to do work, if you want.

I so desperately need this >.< It's 12:03 am, and I'm just starting my 15 page paper due in... 8 hours...

Help me!

poetgrl · Senior Member

What are you guys majoring in?

No. No. Let me guess.

"psych" or "soc" for Romani

and polisci or econ for anarchist.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Seriously, college kiddos, do we have to make you do your homework, first, before you come out and play? We can be your moms and dads bugging you to do work, if you want.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Papers... ugh.
I did so little procrastinating last night when I was P&E less. I managed to get two 10 page papers knocked out in a night. Tonight... I have drank a pepsi..

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

It's okay. I have a paper to write anyway :P

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I'm not particularly into this discussion. I feel like whatever I say will just be repeating myself and debating theoretical economic systems isn't necessarily my cup of tea. I like smaller, centralized issues :).

I will go back to my point- we live in neither a fully capitalistic nor a socialistic society. We live in a mix and since nothing exists in pure form, we will ALWAYS be a mix. That is why I selected "a combination of the two".

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Wednesday 17th of November 2010 08:23:47 PM

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Wednesday 17th of November 2010 08:24:12 PM

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

As I said, there are limits. If you wanna be lazy and get nothing, well then that's what you'll get. If you're doing fine on your own, then you're doing fine on your own.

This is so vague. Is socialism under your definition simply a policy of wealth redistribution, then?

Capitalistic "organizations" are free to exist in a socialist society, provided that that society is not a totalitarian society.

You seem to be assuming that ALL socialistic societies are totalitarian. That is blatantly false.

Socialism is widely regarded as state owned means of production. That means, if I want to open a business, the socialist state will prevent me from doing so with force. I know my terms correctly; I'm not speaking of totalitarianism.

I am NOT a fan of complete socialism [...]

Oh, this clears things up.

If wealth is unequally redistributed from the rich (who tend to be capitalists; investors; creators of wealth) to the less rich, how do you expect production and capital investment to be affected? As lower income individuals tend to have higher consumption rates, will not production be exhausted by overconsumption and under-investment? How is this sustainable?

However, it is ridiculous that a country that is supposed to be one of the wealthiest in the world has great health care (that most people can't necessarily afford), kids going home with empty stomachs, an educational system that is falling ridiculously far behind, and an unemployment rate in the double digits and yet a "wealthy" population that just keeps getting wealthier. Sorry, but that just seems wrong to me.

We do not have free-markets, so to condemn free-markets for these results is fallacious.

-- Edited by ImSoAnarchist on Wednesday 17th of November 2010 08:16:08 PM

-- Edited by ImSoAnarchist on Wednesday 17th of November 2010 08:17:11 PM

Billy · Senior Member

Furthermore,

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

RE: Socialism vs. Capitalism: The Showdown

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

True, there are certain things that aren't as free as could be.

But I know kids in European countries who don't have a chance for an education because of their exam scores.

I know families that have fled dictators, started all over again and still kiss the ground we live on, because it was better than back home.

There is always room for improvement.

Cartera · Guru

After much thought, I picked socialism/communism. I am a socialist at heart - in the best way of course. The bottom line for me is that we have enough in this country for everyone. I just don't know what the answer is to the widening divide between the haves and have nots but it makes me sad. I will give up a lot for others to have something.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

To be fair, I don't think we're a lot more "free" than a lot of the countries that we're comparing ourselves to. Perhaps in some areas, but we are not the home of the free that a lot of people make us out to be.

As I said, those are my views. We need a gray area.

And, as much as I loved Costa Rica, I know it is not really doable on a scale of 300 million + people like we have here. However, it is ridiculous that a country that is supposed to be one of the wealthiest in the world has great health care (that most people can't necessarily afford), kids going home with empty stomachs, an educational system that is falling ridiculously far behind, and an unemployment rate in the double digits and yet a "wealthy" population that just keeps getting wealthier. Sorry, but that just seems wrong to me.

Billy · Senior Member

Interesting take, Billy, but I think I like romani's version better, I actually agree with some of her ideas. Unfortunately the version you put out seems to me that it would either require mass brainwashing or drugs, to control all of human nature, including the desire to excel, and the lack of motivation to take care of oneself if everything is taken care of for you. And very little freedom, with complete government control. Might work if you have an all powerful God, micromanaging what people think and do constantly, but would be pretty ugly if you require an all powerful government....people with unlimited power to control the masses. Which seems along the same line of the billionaires and huge corporations, that you don't like.
Actually, the idea is to have the individual people control it, when it ultimately comes to Communism. When you start out with Socialism, a strong government is required, but diffused to the point where no one has too much. However, Communism wouldn't need much government, being a stateless, classless, world system where everyone owned the means of production. Government would just be needed to set goals and keep order when needed, as the system would have providing for everyone's rights built in.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Costa Rica is a nice example, but many of us think of countries that have appropriated the means of production and private property and it's workers aren't better off, when it comes to communistic and socialistic economies.

Think Cuba. Are you aware of what has happened in recent months? They don't have enough jobs to go around.

Venezuela has been hijacking private property and factories for government use.

Perhaps it's about degrees - whether it is a dictatorial government, or not. But I think it's always easier for things to head down the dictator path when you have a country controlling the means of production.

There may be a gray area that is workable, but I am not convinced it's replicable in the US.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

What if I don't want the government to attempt to "ensure a decent quality of life" for myself?

As I said, there are limits. If you wanna be lazy and get nothing, well then that's what you'll get. If you're doing fine on your own, then you're doing fine on your own.

Socialist organization is free to exist in a capitalist society (one of the most successful grouping methods in history, the family, is a socialistic one), but is capitalism free to exist for those who prefer it in a socialist society?

Capitalistic "organizations" are free to exist in a socialist society, provided that that society is not a totalitarian society.

You seem to be assuming that ALL socialistic societies are totalitarian. That is blatantly false.

As I said, I think the government's main goal should be to ensure a decent quality of life so that people get "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" * provided that they contribute something to that. As I said, no reward for lazy or irresponsible behavior.

I am NOT a fan of complete socialism nor complete capitalism. We currently live in a MIX of the two and I just want to see us move further to the socialistic side and away from the things that our current "capitalistic" society wastes money on. We need to get rid of the waste and redistribute that money to bettering our country. I also think we need to stop doing things that are hurting us like shipping out all of our jobs.

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Wednesday 17th of November 2010 07:18:31 PM