As traders you guys know, that the problem with capitalism is not so much the word capital, but the word system. All systems at one point stop working. I thought it would be interesting to hold a discussion examining REAL problems the system has and how to overcome them. There are many to discuss. One of them, is naturally the idea that the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. But is this really true ? History indicates otherwise. Any comments ?
The American Institute for Economic Research recently put out a Bulletin on this subject written by Dr. Young Back Choi, professor of economics at Michigan State. The booklet is quite dense with information and I can't do it justice in one post, but let me quickly summarize: 1. From 1967-1993, there has been rising income inequality. Since 1993 onward, income inequality has been flat. 2. Regarding income mobility: "A study based on US income tax returns in 1979 and 1988 - a nine year interval, also suggests a high degree of intergenerational mobility. ...Over 85% of those in the poorest quintile in 1979 moved to a higher quintile by 1988, and 40% moved into the top two quintiles. Indeed, the chance of someone in the poorest quintile in 1979 remaining there after 9 years is the same as the chance of joining the highest quintile." p.11 3. Poverty rates have fallen from about 18% in 1958 to 9% in 2002 as per the US census data. Poverty rates also fail to account for noncash benefits such as subsidized housing, medicaid, childcare, foodstamps, etc... 4. Income inequality has come about because of a disproportionate rise in the rate of increase in wealth between the highest 20% and the lowest 20%. However, the lowest 20% of earners still have higher real incomes in the 1990's than they had in the 1970's. (p.24) The rest of the book does have a certain "you're rich, you're OK" tone, but the facts behind its premises are certainly there. http://www.aier.org/ If anyone else knows this organization & has any opinions on it, post.
To start with I belive that capitalism is the best economic system ever devised. However one weakness that it has is that areas with natural resources often often end up impoverished. This is why I feel that we are obligated in the west to "waste" money on aid.
Capitalism, in its pure form, is one of the worst forms of economic systems known to man. Capitalism by itself is a manic depressive. Wild swings of mood from giddy prosperity to the deepest, darkest depressions. Unrestrained monopolies corner markets, leading to inefficient concentrations of wealth. Companies exploit labor to its utmost. We've tried pure capitalism on this planet before; it really didn't work that well. The best form of economic system used to exist in the United States: the mixed economy. Capitalism, when regulated by government and taxed to fund a limited degree of socialism, yields all the benefits and none of the drawbacks. It's the perfect feedback loop: government spends during recessions to keep demand up; taxation and regulations during the good times keeps things from getting overheated. Santayana's often repeated quote about reliving history is coming true. It's no coincidence that the United States was at its most prosperous when the mixed economy was in full flower. Now, many politicians are chasing rainbows thinking that if they tear down regulation, cut taxes and starve the government that the economy will improve. It's sad that we are being led down a path to a place we've been before: from a mixed economy and back towards unregulated capitalism. The end result will not be pretty.
Are you talking about the '70s or the '60s or even earlier? I think that before the advent of technology things weren't much different, if not worse...
Where did you get such an idea? I concur fully. laissez faire Capitalism left to itself is a recipe for social disaster. How do you define "limited socialism"?
LIMITED SOCIALISM is the only form of socialism ever put into practice. The application of its 'tenets' is LIMITED to the formerly by capitalism exploited masses. The socialist illuminati themselves are immune to and left bereft of its benefits. As Orwell put it: "All are equal but some are more equal than others." Under LIMITED SOCIALISM, any form of even limited criticism is eradicated in the most absolute sense. How? Extermination of the asocial elements. Examples? Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Ulbricht, Mao, Pol Pot and smaller fry. Future development? Today, practically ALL Western regimes passing themselves off as DEMOCRACIES are in fact CONTROLLED by occult, internationally operating secret & criminal brotherhoods posturing to the masses as practicing LIMITED SOCIALISM. In fact historically no regime of LIMITED SOCIALISM has ever failed to stress its inherent DEMOCRATIC nature. This is truly the great accomplishment of Westerm civilization which took about 250+ years to refine into its present final & terminal state.
Get rid of legal largesse...get a 10-15% flat tax... Make deficits illegal... Make alt energy paticularly solar a primary governmental focus... Equal trade = equal laws...other countries not equal...then trade will never be on a level playing field.. The government will be run by the people ...on the internet... All out in the open....