[Todd D.]

Like in the USA where inequality in wealth and income is the worst in the world?

I'm not entirely sure that this is Bullshit, but my spidey sense is tingling pretty hard. I'd like to see some proof that it is, as you said, the "Worst in the world".

For the military, because more than 70% of scientists work for the military in the world.

For the record, the only long term military innovation that could even remotely be considered Capitalist were the cutting age innovations developed during the Cold War, since the two superpowers were COMPETING with each other to provide the absolute best. Other than that, could you enlighten me on how government subsidized and state run monopolies over research in the military could be considered anything remotely close to "Capitalism"?

American companies make higher profits than inother countries, and yet the USA pollutes more than any other nation and it's increasing while company tax is reducing.

Before its collapse, the USSR was far worse on the environment than the USA was, if only because of Chyrnoble. I don't dispute the claim that the US is the worst polluter in the world (at least for greenhouse gasses), but I do dispute that Capitalism is the cause of that. The US Government is the worst polluter in this country, and they have sovereign immunity, they can't be held liable for the damage to property that they cause. That's completely contrary to a capitalist ideal.

[redcarpet]

Inequality in wealth and income, take the Lorenz Curve measurement if you wish, is the worst in the world. The USA is the most inequal society. Everybody with good general knowledge.

[Mecha]

Pros: Healthy economy, better living standard for all, no coercion

I would disagree: it allows for economic coercion. Whether or not this happens, or how, is based on the individuals (collective and personal) and precise situations involved.

Cons: While it provides, in my view, a satisfactory general level of happiness, it may not maximize happiness. The poor are made economically better off, but their inequality may hurt them socially

Which then, according to some's beliefs, result in noticeable classes forming. This is supported by the recent study showing children of rich people are significantly more likely to be better off through life (I forget the exact study). Advantages accumulate, and in many situatitions detriment the probability of a lower class person rising/taking the position/opportunity in question. Practically speaking (because, frankly, you have to deal with capitalism in the concrete) this can be put to use and offset by taxing the rich greater amounts, and funding health care, social insurance, less tax burden on lower classes, ect. "Social Democracy", basically. While there may be claims of "state coercion" or "stealing", it is not unreasonable to charge the rich more for the simple reason that they benefit the most from social cohesion, a well run society, ect. While it is not necessary without return as it allows those with talent and initiative in the lower classes a greater chance to succeed.

All of this is debatable, with varying axioms, so the author must choose which axioms/facts to accept. This would then logically lead you to which set of pros/cons apply, and how to what degree and which are acceptable. What I am getting at: (lets see if I got this straight)

Free Market-ists believe that the market is not only justified by its own merit (you have money because you have managed to earn it), but it results in a market/socioeconomic arena that has very high productivity, some would say by definition it would evolve/develop toward the highest state of productivity (and thus for the welfare) of the constituents that work in the system.
"Free Market" is defined as no state intervention concerning labor (pay, working conditions, unions, ect) ownership/trade or the selling/buying of commodities. Any and only voluntary transactions/contracts are good.
No public property, regulations, and so forth. Normally there is a minimalist state for a court system to seek damages and enforce contracts (ie if a product harms the user in a way it was not supposed to [I personally find that difficult to find a way to articulate]).


Social Democracy, in which the government to some degree (a democracy/republic of some kind) has regulations of some kind. There is government intervention, particularly justified by the supposed "general welfare".
This is anything from minimum wage, drug safety agencies having the authority to prevent drugs from being sold/advertised/ect, non-flat taxation (as in, taxing some people/things more than others) all the way to environmental regulations.
Some of the goals of "social democracy" as a ideology of sorts is the reduction/elimination of the boom/bust cycle, evening the "playing field" between rich and poor (education and health being the two biggest factors worked upon), bettering the well being of "the people" (lower classes). The questions posed in a "social democracy" environment is the degree and what kind of regulation, methods/amount of taxation and fiscal policy, and the expenditures of the state. In this respect, capitalism's short comes are supposed to be curb at least somewhat, even if at the expense of curbing the positives. However, proponents of social democracy may claim that redistribution/regulations/uneven taxation result in a more ideal environment for productivity than alternative socioeconomic systems.

Are there any other real basic models? Would a command-economy fit? If not, what degree of "freedom" is required for the nomer "capitalism" to be descripive of the socioeconomic system?

~Mecha

[era o divertimento]

We pay our maid about $125 (US) a month to work six days a week. And we pay well in comparison to others. We pay the minimum wage plus 10% or something.

She's doing Ok, though. Luckily there is some sort of squatting law that will enable her to take legal possession of the place she lives in, where she's been squatting for the past several years, using pirated electricity.

But don't mind me. I don't understand the Lorenz curve. I'm sure people in the U.S. that I never had the chance to meet while living there for 37 years have it much worse.

I need to get my graduate degree, I think. That's where the truth lies.

[Paradigm]

Perhaps it is not socialism fault but the adminstrations fault, those kinda of things happen when you can recall crappy leaders.

Politicians ARE crappy leaders. Just about every damn one of them. The only ones who are even half-way decent are the ones who let people lead themselves. The essential underlying flaw of socialism(or any authoritarian ideology for that matter) is the assumption that their leaders will actually know what's good for them.

[redcarpet]

Socialism is not an authoritarian ideology. If the entire nation has taken over the state and industrial democracy is introduced to the running of businesses and industry, that's a pretty de-centralised management system.

Leninism is authoritarian, because of it's conception of 'democratic centralism', etc.

[Paradigm]

De-centralized doesn't mean shit. If I'm being told what to do, what to buy, who to buy from, how much money I can make, etc., it's still authoritarianism, regardless of whether it's one person or a billion. Democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. The individual is not free.

[redcarpet]

So you belelive in lawlessness?

[Paradigm]

No, I believe in self-government, just like the founding fathers did.

[redcarpet]

Just like the founding fathers belelived in creating a structure and heirarchy to protect "the opulant against the majoraty" and "The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots"?

[Paradigm]

[redcarpet]

If you don't recognise these quotes, I suggest you read the transript of the US constitutional convention.

They're very enlightening on why the USA was established as a oligarchy, and not a democracy.

[Paradigm]

Actually, it was established as a Constitutional Republic, because it was understood that limiting the powers of government, even a popularly elected one, would be the best way of protecting individual rights. Despite popular opinion, democracy is not synonymous with freedom. Democracy means that 51% of the population can vote away the rights of 49% of the population. Basically, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.

[Paradigm]

Oh, and just a reminder: The majority voted for Bush last election. That's one majority that I'm not gonna trust to protect my rights.

[Todd D.]

Socialism is not an authoritarian ideology. If the entire nation has taken over the state and industrial democracy is introduced to the running of businesses and industry, that's a pretty de-centralised management system.

Unlimited Democracy IS Authoritarian, it's just tyranny of the majority over the minority. For all you welfare staters and socialists that hate social conservatives, its DEMOCRACY that is keeping gay marraige illegal in the United States. You think that's right?

As Paradigm said, one person telling me what to do, 5 people telling me what to do, or 10 million people telling me what to do doesn't change the fact that I'm not making my own choices.

[redcarpet]

Ever looked up the word authoritain in the dictionary?

[Todd D.]

Courtesy of Wordreference.com

characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime"; "autocratic government"; "despotic rulers"; "a dictatorial rule that lasted for the duration of the war"; "a tyrannical government"

If that absolute ruler is "the people", with no checks or balances on just over one half of those peoples' desires, then you have an authoritarian regime.

[redcarpet]

Precisely. In a democracy the people rule, not an insitution or regime. So democracy is not authoriitarian, because there's no government, or ruling goup, or individual.

[Todd D.]

You don't get it. 51 percent of the population IS a ruling group, especially if they are infringing upon your rights.

A hypothetical: I believe 1 in 6 people are left handed. What if there was a vote under pure Democracy for the proposition of "Only left handers have to pay taxes". There's a damn good chance that proposition could pass, and left handers would be fucked. Are you telling me that from a left hander's point of view, that sort of "mob rule" isn't authoritarian?

More modern example: gay marraige. A vast majority of Americans feel that homosexual marraige should be illegal. Does that mean that it's the right decision? Under pure democracy, you must say that it is, because the majority says that it is.

Every system needs limits, and every system needs checks and balances. Without it, there is the potential to become authoritarian, regardless of the number of people who happen to make the decision.

[redcarpet]

System means heirarchy. In a democracy there is equality of power. You're talking outside that concept so I'm afraid you're being irrelevant.

Also, people can hold whatever views that want. You say a majoraty of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. But what about civil unions? And plus, remember, therre hasn't been a national referendum, so you can only make judgements based on polls and state referendums.

And last time I looked a majoraty of Americans are in favour of civil unions.