fyi: You guys have probably already taken not, but Dean is on the hot seat: http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=democratic_party
Here are my questions then: 1. Why is it that China, India, etc. have opened their economies and are finally prospering in an unprecedented way economically? Are you denying that this is the work of an increasingly free market society? 2. Western Europe with a more moderate form of socialism is, overall, a lower growth, more stagnant economy. Are you suggesting that we go to a western-european-style of socialism? 3. Surf is right - everywhere you look - China, India, Western Europe, Russia - socialism has either failed or paralyzed the economy. What do you suggest as a solution? In other words, how would you change socialism to make it work? You can't expect the majority of the people on this board to go for any kind of socialism unless you can explain this most basic issues.
The experiment in unbridled capitalism is less than 200 years old, and is based on exploitation of the poor at home and abroad, raping the environment and exhausting natural resouces, and disproportionate distribution of wealth. It's very nature disallows fairness and opportunity in society for all. What allows this lack of fairness to continue unabated is the power that the wealthy have to finance politicians, finance lobby groups, and work the system with unfair economic and political advantage. Add to that the brainwashing that anyone can become wealthy and powerful in this country, and it presents a very controlling view of capitalists. Sure, there are a few selective success stories, but mostly failures, many of these failures are built into the system. This is akin to telling a high school basketball player not to study becaues he can be the next Michael Jordan, even though he is only 5 foot 2 with no vertical leap. Distribution of Wealth Capitalist economies have shown an uneven distribution of wealth. Typically between 0.5% and 1% of people own more than half of productive capacity, if not half of all wealth. Various studies have shown distributions with the peak in the distribution at or near zero with fewer people owning progressively higher wealth. Common mathematical models of such distributions include power-law distributions, exponential distributions, and mixtures of the two. In these distributions some people own hundreds of thousands, or sometimes millions of times more than average. The distribution of wealth in captialist economies is one of its most contentious issues. To properly visualise the shape of these distributions it is useful to imagine what it would be like if some other commonly known characteristic of people were to be distributed this way. If height were distributed in the same way as wealth with the same average height as now, most people would be under 1 meter (3 feet) tall, but you would still see people 100 kilometers (60 miles) tall, if you could see up that far, and the wealthiest would rise well into space.
You speak in strictly economic and material terms, and it is proven that materialism and economic status do not necessarily enhance mental health or a sense of well being. The quality of life is not measured in number of years or accumulation of wealth. Many of the Indian tribes in America lived lives that produced greater harmony with the environment and more well being and simplicity of existence. Who is to say our lifestyles are better now? It is a balance between pure capitalism and pure socialism that will ultimately serve society, and that is what I favor. Abraham Maslow spoke of a hierarchy of needs that change as a person evolves from the primitive to the cultured, from the purely selfish absorbed materialist to the spiritual. We have seen people amass fortunes, then give it away, others clutch it until death. Class struggle, and ultimately wars are born of economic unfairness. When the society's members are allowed the fair chance to grow and prosper equally, that is great. When the leaders of any society, either capitalists, fascists, kings, emperors, socialists, democrats, republicans, dictators, communists, control a society as to restrict the human potential and evolution of the members of that society....conflict is sure to result. Most Americans have no vision of history, and as a result will not learn from it. We look to our experiment in representative democracy and capitalism and think we can handle anything that comes our way, but we have not faced the type of struggles that have always presented themselves to cultures as their rate of expansion begin to slow. We think this time is different, that we are special, but our human evolution in many ways puts us no higher on a plane of moral development than other advanced cultures and civilizations. I favor a blend of socialism and capitalism, where people are free to acquire capital, and if unwilling to give back to society effectively are taxed into it. It is for the good of society that any social structure and economic system should exist, not for the sole purpose of a few to gain control of the system. Using the example of China and India, over such a brief period of history is wrong in my opinion. These things take hundreds of years or more to effectively change a culture. We will certainly see changes in India and China, but will we also see an increase in the levels of depression, drug and alcohol abuse, mental and physical health issues, etc. Time will tell.
When comparing economic models, the only comparison that matters is standard of living. An economic system is an economic system, not a mental health system or a sense of well being system. The higher the standard of living, the more time and resources that are available for the pursuing of mental health and well being.
exploitation, raping, disproportionate, fairness. Quite a litany of hot-button words. If you think the USA is an experiment in unbridled capitalism, you don't know what the word "unbridled" means. And as to fairness, how is slavery more fair than self-determination? Socialism turns its citizens into slaves by forcing them to work for the state without allowing them to share in the fruits of their innovation, hard work, productivity. By taking away the effect of their personal productivity and giving it to someone who didn't earn it, socialism robs personal initiative, discriminates against aptitude and puts limits on how far a citizen may advance. Socialism turns its citizens into slaves, robots and drones who have no incentive for excellence and no way to improve their situations short of escaping this stifling society for one that allows for personal progress.
I admire the fact that you are concerned for the welfare of the poor - I wish everyone had the same concern. I'm just saying that from all we've seen on planet earth, forced or semi-forced redistribution of wealth simply does not work. Example: I know a fair number of Indian guys and I can tell you that they would argue to the death with you if you tried to convince them that the Gandhi dynasty's socialist policies helped the poor and the middle class. It just works the opposite of wha t you might expect. There are now HUGE numbers of poor rising to the middle class through a free market society. I just don't see how you can argue that socialism is the answer...
You know, I think I just figured it out. I think I know why ART feels the way he does. He is a failed trader. No seriously think about it. I know a lot of guys that try to live the dream that ART refers to that is capitalism. And many people believe trading to be the answer. It is only after they fail at trading do they realize that not only is trading difficult but so is being successful in any kind of capitalistic society. After reading some of ART's recent posts and seeing how he talks about capitalism as some kind of an illusion that most people will never realize it has suddenly hit me. This hippie 60's wild child has tried to trade for a living and has failed. He now is denouncing capitalism as a whole and calling it a dream. Everything is starting to make sense now. Look, I know a lot of guys that have blown out their trading accounts that use to be all about being entrepreneurial and being self employed but are now very much socialists. They are this way because they think its just too hard to make it on their own. I'm telling you I know tons of people like this and ART is fitting the mold quite nicely. Otherwise I really don't know how ART can call capitalism a dream. Where else can a chicago cab driver work in the pits of chicago and make millions a year trading euro dollars. What dream is ART talking about?
In fact guys who are starving in Africa come here and are thrilled just to be driving taxis. BTW Mav, there's a Vietnamese boat lift refugee trading in the Soy Meal pit and doing very well.
Absolutely. I went to Czechoslovakia pre-fall and I have never seen anything like it. I was there for several days and did not see anyone smile until the last day I was there. The houses were grey and falling apart. I remember going to a gift shop window to buy something and the person at the window of a campground simply would NOT help me. She just kept talking to her co-worker! I cleared my throat and stood there for several minutes and eventually just left. I know this is an extreme case, but this is socialism taken to it's logical extreme. I mean, if forced redistribution is such a great idea, then why doesn't communism work?? I would love to go back and see how things have changed...