The rich are getting richer

Post Reply New Topic

That Saxon myth is plagiarism of Celtic faerie folklore, androbot2084 have you ever hear of Robin Goodfellow?
It's another name of a hobgoblin.

Robin Hood, Robin Hood robbing through the glen
Robin Hood, Robin Hood with his thieving men
Loathed by the bad, feared by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood.

ruveyn

Fairness is worth fighting for.

And there are very few instances where socialism has been tried in the past where the conditions of the experiment didn't doom it to failure. Basically anytime a revolution is involved it will fail, because revolutions almost always fail not matter what form of government they institute. There have been attempts to implement it that have focused too much on the beurocracy, so it is no surprise that those ones failed. There were a few attempts at democratic socialism that were overthrown by American backed coups. They could well have worked if there wasn't American interference. There are many, complex reasons why the gradualist form of socialism found in Western Europe failed in the '80s--in my mind it had far more to do with misplaced priorities than a fundamental flaw in the system itself.

Yes, they are. Just out of curiosity, what are you going to do about it?

You don't have to look at the past. Socialism is alive and well. In fact, most Western countries have implemented socialized welfare and health care systems, and many of those countries are currently economically better off than the USA (less debt, less poverty, lower unemployment, cheaper health care etc.), because everyone pays their fair share of the tax burden and a great deal of the public wealth ends up in the pockets of the working class, which creates jobs.



Capitalism and socialism can coexist. The either/or choice is a false dichotomy. Capitalism is necessary to provide incentives, stimulate economic growth and remain competitive on the world market, and socialism is necessary to combat poverty and provide social security and affordable health care to everyone.

Capitalism and Socialism can coexist as long as Capitalists are willing to be plundered, ravaged and plucked featherless clean by the socialists. About the only advantage socialism has for the capitalists is that business losses can be socialized by the tax payers and profits can remain private but subject to some taxation. You will notice in the recent financial crisis that the banks were covered completely by the taxpayers. Their foolishness did not cost them a cent.

ruveyn

What you're talking about there is a mixed market, and I agree with you - neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism is a good idea, you've got to have a healthy mix between the two. As you've stated, much of Europe does this well.

I get tired of the ridiculous "Just world fallacy" thinking you guys like to peddle. In most cases, with regards to markets, "deserve" has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Capitalism is far from being a meritocracy as you seem to think.

Also, even the idea that some poor person suffering is getting "what they deserve" is quite insulting. If you're going to apply that notion to the first world, logically, you must apply the same sentiment to the entire global economy. Those people born into third world slums with no access to any public infrastructure, indoor plumbing, education, healthcare, etc... must also "deserve" their lot in life. The whole thing is so hopelessly naive and insulting.

Yes, you are talking about the social democratic mixed economy. Although I admire the more extreme forms of it (ie: Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries), I still envision more. I like the idea of a society where the "commanding heights" of the economy are all state owned (just a more extreme version of pre-Thatcher Britain) while the smaller parts are made up of cooperatives and small businesses. Perhaps it wouldn't work, but I still dare to dream.

Here's an article I think exemplifies the level of avarice this country is steeped in.

Mega Millions winners are rich, but not THAT rich

Here is one capitalist who would disagree with you:
[quote]The legacy of Social Democratic Party governance in Sweden is widely regarded as increasing the quality of life, naturally among those who benefit directly from an affluent, low-inequality society, but even among the wealthy. One Volvo executive admitted that a strong social welfare state, like the Swedish, helps finance a quality of life that low individual taxes cannot. When faced with the question, "Why don't you leave (Sweden)? Certainly, you would pay a lot lower taxes and probably also have a higher salary in the U.S.", he responded, "Yes, of course, I would have a lot more money in my pocket. But I would also almost never get home before 7 o'clock and I certainly would not have the vacations everyone has a right to here... and you know what else, I would have to spend a lot more money on insurance, college for my kids, and travel back home to my family. In the end, I'm not really sure I would be any better off."[quote]
Source: Swedish Social Democratic Party

About the social effects of economic inequality.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw[/youtube]

Ideally they have the opportunity to get it, but in real life that does not always happen, in fact it commonly doesn't.

Unfortunately, not using money really only works in small communities.

It is arguable who does the plundering and ravaging in a capitalist economy. From where I'm sitting, it appears to be corporations that benefit from the public infrastructure and education system of a country, but fail to pay their fair share for the upkeep and improvement of this infrastructure, don't adjust their workers' wages to the inflation rate, destroy jobs by outsourcing labor to developing countries, and act against majority interests by bribing politicians to legislate in their favor.

The enormous profits of the CEOs and shareholders of these corporations -- i.e., of those who do the least amount of work -- are not fairly deserved, and neither is the poverty of their underpaid workers, or former workers who have been laid off in favor of cheap overseas labor.



That was the result of unregulated capitalism. Social market capitalism has regulations in place that prevent banks from recklessly gambling the public wealth away, as well as regulations which seek to prevent mega-corporations and monopolies that are too big to fail.

Socialism offers many advantages for capitalists btw. Better state-financed public education and easily affordable university programs result in a more qualified workforce. A better public infrastructure and public transportation system leave more money in the pockets of middle class consumers, which is spent on products and services. (Whereas in the USA, the average middle class family spends almost 52% of their income on transportation and housing, according to a 2009 Department of Labor survey. Together with the high costs of education, that doesn't leave much disposable income). Even the welfare system benefits the economy, since it turns people that would otherwise live under a bridge into active consumers. Public wealth creates more jobs than concentrated wealth in the hands of a small minority.

I don't if they made a stupid choice when they picked their degree. Anyone can tell you that certain degrees have a much larger market than other degrees. I'm a fan of knowledge, I believe that it is in the best interest to have historians, philosophers and so on, but there is a limit to how many can be effectively utilized at a time.