Split - Capitalism, Marxism, Etc.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by joeyjojoe
I'm sick of people expressing their MS hatred. We get it. You bought a mac because you don't like Microsoft (well some of you anyway). Microsoft is only powerful because you or consumers like you choose to purchase their products ... end of story (yes I believe in Lassiez Faire, thanks for asking).

well if you're gonna use big words, at least spell/type it correctly: it's 'laissez faire. '

Secondly, you obviously don't understand much about 'free' markets and anti-trust laws.

Microsoft is a monopoly. It used its position as a monopoly to stifle competition. They've engaged in illegal activities, and this kind of anti-competitive behavior is partly why they are where they are now.

I think even the diehard laissez faire advocates will say that monopoly behavior is bad in most cases.

[xDANx]

Originally posted by dongmin
well if you're gonna use big words, at least spell/type it correctly: it's 'laissez faire. '

Secondly, you obviously don't understand much about 'free' markets and anti-trust laws.

Microsoft is a monopoly. It used its position as a monopoly to stifle competition. They've engaged in illegal activities, and this kind of anti-competitive behavior is partly why they are where they are now.

I think even the diehard laissez faire advocates will say that monopoly behavior is bad in most cases.

but what many diehard laissez faire advocates won't admit is that it's the very act of competition that leads to monopoly and oligopoly situations. see 'capital' vol. I...it's full of all sorts of fun stuff...;)

[Phil Of Mac]

And how many diehard Marxists will admit that Marxism has utterly failed as an economic theory?

[xDANx]

Originally posted by dongmin
you should be referencing Adam Smith, if you're talking about diehard laissez faire advocates.

the very point is that the ideas of adam smith and the invisible hand (hey, that's a great name for a band...), those shining gods of the laissez faire pantheon, fail to explain why 150 years of competitive economic markets on a global scale have resulted in such intense concentration and centralization of capital and wealth. microsoft is just one example in a long list of corporations that dwarf the economic (and political) power of many of the world's countries. adam smith probably wouldn't be happy with that state of capitalism today...but he'd also be hard pressed to explain why it developed this way.

[xDANx]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
And how many diehard Marxists will admit that Marxism has utterly failed as an economic theory?

well...based on your own defintions...none. they are diehard marxists after all. i find it interesting though that the collapse of that great misnomer called 'communism' (which can be much more accurately described as a form of capitalism dominated by the state as opposed to a true capitalist class) is somehow supposed to imply that marxism has absolutely no value as a economic and political theory. it should be immediately obvious to anyone who's studied marx at all that the inner workings of stalinist russia (mao's china, castro's cuba, etc.) and marx's critiques of capitalism have little to do with each other.

what does this have to do with patent lawsuits against microsoft in europe you might ask? good question. pretty much nothing...so i'll shut up.

[3.1416]

Originally posted by xDANx
those shining gods of the laissez faire pantheon, fail to explain why 150 years of competitive economic markets on a global scale have resulted in such intense concentration and centralization of capital and wealth.

Not this again. Yes, there is disparity of wealth under capitalism. Would you prefer that everyone is equally miserable, as in North Korea? You can look at the extravagance of some rich people and be outraged, or you can observe that the "poor" in capitalist countries are vastly better off than they were 150 years ago.

[Phil Of Mac]

It's not that hard to explain.

We haven't had true laissez-faire capitalism for quite awhile, if ever. Governments have always been paid off by various corporations to help them and hurt their competitors.

In any case, the supposed concentration of wealth is not what you make it out to be. Why are some corporations richer than entire nations? Because some nations are incredibly small and poor due to plundering dictators, while other nations, like the US, can become rich enough that even one corporation can amass a lot of wealth. In either case, let us compare a capitalist country to a communist country in terms of wealth centralization.

The US GDP is 10.4 trillion dollars. (CIA World Factbook) The richest man in the U.S., William H. Gates, owns 46.0 billion dollars. (Forbes.com). The richest American owns less than one half of one percent of the wealth in the United States.

In Cuba, the richest man is Fidel Castro, who has at least 110 million dollars, roughly 10% of Cuba's GDP. (Forbes) Saddam Hussein had about 2 billion dollars (Forbes), which is almost 3.5% of Iraq's GDP of 58 billion.

What about corporations? The world's largest corporation isn't Microsoft by a long stretch. It's Wal-Mart, with 244 billion dollars worth of revenue in 2003...almost 2.4% of the US economy. Of course, Wal-Mart is utterly flattened compared to our 2 trillion dollar federal government, but not even Wal-Mart has as much of our economy as Fidel Castro has of Cuba's economy, nor even Saddam Hussein.

Therefore, compared to non-capitalist economic and political systems, capitalism doesn't consolidate wealth. It does create people who happen to be richer, but that's because capitalism tends to make *everyone* richer.

[reedm007]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Therefore, compared to non-capitalist economic and political systems, capitalism doesn't consolidate wealth. It does create people who happen to be richer, but that's because capitalism tends to make *everyone* richer.

You make some great points, Mr. Phil Of Mac. The one flaw though is concentrating on individuals (and concentrating on extreme examples: Cuba and Iraq). Let's look at, for example, the total yearly earnings of the top 10% of this country:

$20,803,000,000,000

according to the US Bureau of Census. Now compare this with the total earnings for ALL of the rest of the country, combined (the remaining 90%):

$2,229,500,000,000

If that's not concentration of wealth, I don't know what is. :) When 10% of the population makes almost 10 times more than the rest of the country combined, that is definitely high concentration of wealth.

That said, dictatorship, such as the two you mentioned, can certainly lead to immense concentration of power to one individual, something that won't happen as easily in a capitalist society. So believe me, I'm not arguing for that. I'm just saying that capitalism, like very form of government (at least as far as we know!), has its flaws too...

edit: btw, shouldn't you look at total net worth of a company, not its annual revenues?? What you quoted above was annual revenue. Walmart is only worth some 98 billion, which would have made a better number for your point. Of course, it also means that AOL TimeWarner is a much bigger company than Walmart, at around 140 billion. I could be wrong here, maybe you should look at annual revenue when comparing to GDP (I'm no economist). But if that's the case, wouldn't you then need to look at the annual revenue of Saddam and Castro, not their net worth?

[Phil Of Mac]

1. Why is concentration of wealth a bad thing?
2. Even if it is, pseudo-capitalism (our current economic system) has less of it if you do a side-to-side comparison.
3. Even then, generally people in our pseudo-capitalist system get all that wealth either because they're geniuses who've earned it, or their parents or grandparents were geniuses who earned it. That sort of thing is good. If it wasn't for Steve Jobs being a genius and earning his billion dollars, we wouldn't be as well off as we are now.

Even when you have inherited, stagnant wealth, that wealth gets invested somewhere, somehow. And investments go a great deal to help us all out, by getting firms off the ground to deliver even better products and services.

All in all, I'd rather have the disparity. Sure, maybe they're richer than I am, but if it wasn't for them (or their parents or grandparents), *I* wouldn't be as well-off as I am now.

I also like to think that since Howard Hughes didn't have a PowerBook, I'm in a way richer than Howard Hughes :)

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by reedm007
edit: btw, shouldn't you look at total net worth of a company, not its annual revenues?? What you quoted above was annual revenue. Walmart is only worth some 98 billion, which would have made a better number for your point. Of course, it also means that AOL TimeWarner is a much bigger company than Walmart, at around 140 billion. I could be wrong here, maybe you should look at annual revenue when comparing to GDP (I'm no economist). But if that's the case, wouldn't you then need to look at the annual revenue of Saddam and Castro, not their net worth?

You make a valuable critique. But I'm too lazy to go back and do all that. And yes, it would be a better figure to use, AFAIK (I'm no economist either.)

[MacViolinist]

Let's be honest here people. Capitalism in the true Laissez Faire sense has never been tried. Neither has Marxism. As far as any of us know, each of them might result in exactly the idyllic paradigm that the theories claim. Yes? Also, Mac User Canada: I'm with you all the way. Eric Frank Russel and John W. Campbell are the real Sci-Fi authors.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by MacViolinist
Let's be honest here people. Capitalism in the true Laissez Faire sense has never been tried. Neither has Marxism. As far as any of us know, each of them might result in exactly the idyllic paradigm that the theories claim. Yes?

I'm going to patent capitalism.

[yamabushi]

Marx was a big advocate of capitalism. He thought it was a great way to generate wealth and raise living standards before moving on to more advanced systems such as socialism and communism. Capitalism was seen as a replacement for feudalism in his framework.

However nobody ever really used the systems he suggested. The usual pattern was to go from feudalism, skip over capitalism, stop hard at socialism, make a U-turn and go back to feudalism.

BTW- In his framework socialism was always a kind of representitive democracy and communism a true democracy.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
1. Why is concentration of wealth a bad thing?


Well inflation, crime, and civil war are a few potential problems.:)

[jywv8]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Even then, generally people in our pseudo-capitalist system get all that wealth either because they're geniuses who've earned it, or their parents or grandparents were geniuses who earned it. That sort of thing is good. If it wasn't for Steve Jobs being a genius and earning his billion dollars, we wouldn't be as well off as we are now.

You're saying that, generally, a rich person is either a genius or the descendant of a genius? I find that really hard to believe. A lot of people get rich by other means, namely, crime or dumb luck. And, on the flip side, there are plenty of extraordinary people who are not rich, although I suppose one could argue that if they were so extraordinary and wanted to be rich then they would be rich by now.

I don't think the concentration of wealth is an inherently bad thing either (at least it wouldn't be if we lived in a meritocracy...and we don't). However, historically, extreme inequality of wealth has been a harbinger of economic instability and social unrest, which leads to demagoguery and war.

[frozenstar]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
1. Why is concentration of wealth a bad thing?

2. Even if it is, pseudo-capitalism (our current economic system) has less of it if you do a side-to-side comparison.

3. Even then, generally people in our pseudo-capitalist system get all that wealth either because they're geniuses who've earned it, or their parents or grandparents were geniuses who earned it. That sort of thing is good. If it wasn't for Steve Jobs being a genius and earning his billion dollars, we wouldn't be as well off as we are now.

1. Only because it means that some people starve while others eat for two.

2. Not true. Wealth is distributed more evenly in every European and Asian country in the world.

3. So, the CEO of every company that has revenues of, say...at least $500M, is a genius?
Come to think of it... all the geniuses I know are broke, and all the CEOs I read about are idiots.


Every day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Capitalism in America has run its course, and unless we make some drastic changes soon, the economy as we know it will collapse.

[Lonestar1]

Originally posted by dongmin
Microsoft is a monopoly. It used its position as a monopoly to stifle competition. They've engaged in illegal activities, and this kind of anti-competitive behavior is partly why they are where they are now.

Microsoft is not a monopoly. (The fact that a lawyer says so doesn't make it true.) A monopoly is a firm that faces 100% of demand for a product or service. If Microsoft were a monopoly, there would be no OSX, Linux, etc.

As for "where we are today" -- vastly increased computing power, available to more people, at lower prices -- most people would not consider that bad.

Now, compare that to any government program run by the politicians and lawyers who are so concerned about the Microsoft "monopoly"? How many government services have improved as much as computers in the last 20 years? So, tell me, who has harmed the consumer more, the "monopoly" that isn't a monopoly, or the politicians who want to control the economy and pick which companies and technologies should succeed and fail?

[mgardner]

We dont actually hate Microsoft... We just think they suck compared to Apple. Another thing about Microsoft is that they try to make money on everything possible... I mean think, they were the ones to try and invent the porta-potties with friggin internet access in them.. Atleast when apple makes something its been well thought of and designed.. For example, take a look at the amount of bug fixes in XP compared to OS X

[tristan]

To all you capitalism detractors out there - think Steve jobs would have been able to create Apple computer in a communist country? Yeah right.

He would have gone to the "central peoples production committee" and said "hey, I have an idea to create personal computers for everyone." And they would have said "yeah, whatever, you owe us 8 hours in factory work every day, from each according to his ability, buddy."

And then even if he had made a computer, the commies wouldn't have let him market it. "How can you build computers while some people don't have enough to eat? The people need you to work overtime in the farm this weekend."

Capitalism promotes individual initiative and freedom while communism destroys it. In a capitalist country, you even have the freedom to be unemployed and starve if you like. Nobody's forcing you to work, or anyone else to hire you.

Would you really want an alternative system were firms are forced to hire people they don't need for jobs the people don't want to do? Sounds like the disaster that was the USSR/China/Cuba/Vietnam to me.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Lonestar1
Microsoft is not a monopoly. (The fact that a lawyer says so doesn't make it true.) A monopoly is a firm that faces 100% of demand for a product or service. If Microsoft were a monopoly, there would be no OSX, Linux, etc.

As for "where we are today" -- vastly increased computing power, available to more people, at lower prices -- most people would not consider that bad.

Now, compare that to any government program run by the politicians and lawyers who are so concerned about the Microsoft "monopoly"? How many government services have improved as much as computers in the last 20 years? So, tell me, who has harmed the consumer more, the "monopoly" that isn't a monopoly, or the politicians who want to control the economy and pick which companies and technologies should succeed and fail?


If Microsoft is not a monopoly then the word has no meaning. No, a company does not have to control 100% of a particular product or service to be a monopoly. And if you haven't seen what harm Microsoft's monopoly power has done to the computing industry you haven't been paying attention. Exculsive contracts that leave no place in the market for innovative products are Microsoft's mode of operation. Using monopoly power in the OS market to destroy competing browsers is all a fact of history. Wake up and smell the coffee!

[lmalave]

Originally posted by xDANx
the very point is that the ideas of adam smith and the invisible hand (hey, that's a great name for a band...), those shining gods of the laissez faire pantheon, fail to explain why 150 years of competitive economic markets on a global scale have resulted in such intense concentration and centralization of capital and wealth. microsoft is just one example in a long list of corporations that dwarf the economic (and political) power of many of the world's countries. adam smith probably wouldn't be happy with that state of capitalism today...but he'd also be hard pressed to explain why it developed this way.

Adam Smith is misunderstood. When he talked about the "Invisible Hand", the meant that the market, left to its own devices, could set the quantity and price of each good produced without any government intervention. That is all. Smith's theory said *nothing* about taxation or distribution of wealth, environmental regulations, etc. Actually, Adam Smith did not trust businessmen because he thought they did not have the best interests of society in mind.

Keep in mind Adam Smith was writing his ideas in reaction to Mercantilism, where governments strictly controlled imports and exports, and also the power of the Craft Guilds, which controlled how much of each product was produced and at what price.

*******

As for socialism/communism, they simply do not work because they run so counter to human nature. Even if all money and property were abolished, the new currency would become some other form of power. Keep in mind, money is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. That's why in communist countries you have insane levels of corruption. When people lose the ability to trade currency and goods, they just start trading political favors.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by Lonestar1
As for "where we are today" -- vastly increased computing power, available to more people, at lower prices -- most people would not consider that bad. So you're suggesting that we have Microsoft to thank for all that 'progress'? The question is not where we are now but where we could be if MS hasn't been such a singularly dominant force in the software business.

[Lonestar1]

Originally posted by dongmin
So you're suggesting that we have Microsoft to thank for all that 'progress'?

No. You are misquoting me.

Originally posted by dongmin
The question is not where we are now but where we could be if MS hasn't been such a singularly dominant force in the software business.

Exactly. The tone of your post implies that things would surely be better if the government had not allowed Microsoft to compete. That isn't obvious at all.

There are many examples of industries where the government, rather than the market, made decisions like that -- Soviet agriculture, American public education, airlines and telecommunications prior to deregulation. Where, in that sorry history, do you find any indication that government control would lead to greater progress than the computer industry has achieved under the alleged "domination" of Microsoft? Don't let your envy of a few people blind you to the far worse failings of the alternative you propose.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
And how many diehard Marxists will admit that Marxism has utterly failed as an economic theory?

None. They keep trying to get socialism in America.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by xDANx
the very point is that the ideas of adam smith and the invisible hand (hey, that's a great name for a band...), those shining gods of the laissez faire pantheon, fail to explain why 150 years of competitive economic markets on a global scale have resulted in such intense concentration and centralization of capital and wealth. microsoft is just one example in a long list of corporations that dwarf the economic (and political) power of many of the world's countries. adam smith probably wouldn't be happy with that state of capitalism today...but he'd also be hard pressed to explain why it developed this way.

Um... prior to the advent of personal computers, Microsoft did not exist. 150 years?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Therefore, compared to non-capitalist economic and political systems, capitalism doesn't consolidate wealth. It does create people who happen to be richer, but that's because capitalism tends to make *everyone* richer.

Nope. Not *everyone*. Only the ones that work hard, or are elected into office (usually by the lazy ones because they were promised goodies). :p

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by frozenstar
1. Only because it means that some people starve while others eat for two.

Every day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Capitalism in America has run its course, and unless we make some drastic changes soon, the economy as we know it will collapse.

Whats wrong with starving or eating for two? Sounds fair to me. If I don't pay, should I eat. If I pay twice as much, shouldn't I get twice as much?

Maybe the rich get richer because they work harder, or have their money work for them. Maybe its because the rich can move their money into untaxable places such as municipal bonds and stuff.

Maybe its because the poor do not work as hard. Maybe its because the poor are taxed too high, and they can't hide their money into untaxable places. Maybe its because the poor are out of work because living wage laws made the rich guy fire 50% of his workers to pay the other 50% the minimum wage.

Bear with me in this minimum wage hypothesis.

Lets say you are an unskilled worker working for an agreed-too wage (wage you and the employer agreed to). You are working, you are getting paid for your efforts, pay that is both fair to you and to your employer. If one of you does not think your pay is fair, lets say you know how to make a widget better but your boss doesn't want to give you a raise, then you can go work for someone else that values your skill. If your boss doesn't think you are worth your wage, lets say you go to work late, or take too long of a break all the time, he can fire you, or cut your pay.

Now, comes Mr Congressman, who tells you that everyone should be paid a living wage, that he will decree it by law that everyone is paid a minimum amount of money.

The employer now has to pay the worker, more money, but the worker doesn't do enough to justify the increased wages. So, the employer lays off the unskilled worker, and contracts out overseas the unskilled labor that you used to do.

Overseas, someone takes a guy off the farm where he works 18 hours days to feed his family, puts him to work for 12 hours a day, but enough to feed his family, doing what the unskilled guy used to do.

Now, you have just moved jobs overseas. Jobs that were taxed as income previously.

Overseas, they don't have these minimum wage laws, but the people there can learn how to do their jobs better. Eventually, the unskilled worker becomes skilled at doing their work, but its still for less money because they don't have minimum wage laws overseas.

Now, the guy outsources even more work to the guy overseas. Since its cheaper to do the work, there goes more jobs, but now, its skilled labor!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by dongmin
So you're suggesting that we have Microsoft to thank for all that 'progress'? The question is not where we are now but where we could be if MS hasn't been such a singularly dominant force in the software business.

We would have less anti-virus software. :p :D

[applewhore]

There isn't one type of genius.

if you're contributing to this post (against current economic system), you are part of the guilty conscience who indulges consumer comforts while conflicted over the idea that makes it possible to buy stuff. the same lazy generation who in the past years has bought just enough to borderline bad feelings threshold therefore not having the feeling to "do anything." keep rationalizing. holes in the G5 allow dust to enter more eaily. conflict is good. yes, it's concentrated.

"Capitalism in America has run its course, and unless we make some drastic changes (greed) soon, the economy as we know it will collapse." - Greed

[Frohickey]

Um... err...

Wow... that post started to make sense, then quickly went rambling on... are you sure you are not an artificial intelligence program run amock, freed from a Defense Department experiment called Skynet that created a cyborg with an Austrian accent that is the governor-elect of California? :p

[yamabushi]

Just to set the record straight, I do not support socialism, communism, or marxism. Real world economies that have tried these have failed, largely because they have used one of these idealogies as justification for dictatorship or other political systems that lack basic freedoms.

I just want people to understand that ideas based upon providing for the best interests of a people are not contradictory to a capitalist model. However, capitalism does not provide for the best interests of people without some extra controls built in.

Frohickey's point about minimum wage can help me to demonstrate my point further. I would agree that a minimum wage is a clumsy way to attempt to eliminate severe poverty within a country. This does not mean that other efforts can and should be made. I would argue that both employees and employers have little control over wages in the long run. This is because various macroeconomic forces will have a far greater impact than a minor increase or decrease in wages. Inflation, currency markets, and purchasing power exert an influence that can make a person richer or poorer regardless of their actual wage or how hard a person works each day.

However,the relative difference between the highest and lowest wages can make a difference in the overall health of an economy and the standard of living for most people. Efforts to maximize employment and minimize inflation help to maximize production and maximize the benefits gained from excess production.

[applewhore]

That was rough. I live in California, dude. No need to rub in the bleak future.:cool:

[kristianm]

Originally posted by yamabushi Just to set the record straight, I do not support socialism, communism, or marxism.

Don't mix socialism with communism. Socialism like it is in most of Europe today aims to give every individual a decent chance at success. This is what was once called the american dream.

This opportunity is slowly disappearing in the US today. The CIA factbook which is so often quoted in this thread shows that almost only the richest 10% has enjoyed improved living standards since 1970. It it very hard to do something today without an education, and they do not come cheap.

As for jobs disappearing overseas, the right way to fight this is to export respect for workers and working conditions, not import slavery back again.

The great thing about the US is that you, the people, can change this if you want. But it will not happen all by itself. In every election you are shaping the US future, even when you are sitting at home.

[edit] change capitalism with communism

[bwintx]

Originally posted by mgardner
We dont actually hate Microsoft...

Permit me to be excused from your "we," there, mgardner. ;)

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by bwintx
Permit me to be excused from your "we," there, mgardner. ;)

me too!

[yamabushi]

Originally posted by kristianm
Don't mix socialism with communism. Socialism like it is in most of Europe today aims to give every individual a decent chance at success. This is what was once called the american dream.

This opportunity is slowly disappearing in the US today. ...

Yes, both socialism and communism are both greatly misunderstood, especially here in the US. Both are usually lumped together as being he same thing, which they are not. These two terms are seen as being synonymous with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They thus cause fear and confusion just like the "red scare" of old. Socialism and communism as known in the USSR was not either - it was a lie. Socialism as it is in Europe now is much closer to the original idea which I support. Communism as it was orignially conceived of has only had limilted success on a small scale(communes, some tribal cultures). Several countries have claimed to be communist, when in reality none of them are. This has created a very negative attitude towards communism since it is associated with the lies perpetuated by those countries.

[Machead III]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
And how many diehard Marxists will admit that Marxism has utterly failed as an economic theory?

I'm guessing not many because most diehard Marxists prefer to express the truth about it rather than the regurgitated ************ of the media :rolleyes:

[markiv810]

First and foremost Marxism would fail as human beings are inherently selfish, jealous, corrupt, and petty. Don't ask me how I know it, I am a human being. It was too much of idealism, that thing is bound to fail. Socialism on the other hand can prove to be beneficial at earlier stages of a growing economy, but after the jumpstart it's has to be capitalism all the way. I could be wrong, but that's just my opinion.

[the_dalex]

The main weakness in our political system is that people are able to vote themselves money from the public coffers.

Why do you think the Democrats go so heavily after the poorer members of our society, promising to give them more for doing less? Easy votes.

[kristianm]

Originally posted by the_dalex
The main weakness in our political system is that people are able to vote themselves money from the public coffers.

I have seen this statement many times, but at least in the US it is not true. That would make it impossible for a rich minority (less than 10%) to get richer while the majority stays the same or get poorer.

And this is not really a weakness, better redistribution of wealth happens with voting than with guns.

[wrylachlan]

"Whats wrong with starving or eating for two? Sounds fair to me. If I don't pay, should I eat. If I pay twice as much, shouldn't I get twice as much?"

What's wrong with that is that in this society the difference between the man who is broke and the man who is rich is not always dependant on the traits of that man. The man who is broke may be broke because his parents were too poor to send him to a good school, or he had to work extra jobs during high school just to make ends meet, while the rich man might be rich because daddy paid the big bucks to get him all the right tutors, and into the right school, etc. etc. The two men might have exactly the same level of talent, and the same work ethic, but end up in wildly disparate economic situations based on the amount of capital amassed by the previous generation. I personally don't think that is particularly fair.

My idea of fair - whether it is generally shared or not I don't know - is that two people of the same talent (genetically speaking) and the same work ethic should end up making about the same amount of money. Now obviously this doesn't work on a case by case basis, as things like making connections, and luck play a great deal in how someone's career advances. But STATISTICALLY SPEAKING if you surveyed 10,000 people in one group and compared it to 10,000 people in another group of the same talent and work ethic, the average incomes should be the same whether one group is white and the other black, or one group is from a poor family and the other rich. That would in my book be fair.

But not only would it be fair, it would also be a healthier economy since you would always have the best man for the job at the level you are willing to pay. The "help from daddy" factor would be taken out of the equation.

Of course the only way to get there is to heavily subsidize the education of poorer students, including subsidizing their families to a point where their home life does not adversely effect their studies (they have time for homework instead of working a part time job to put food on the table).

This is a very socialist concept, but it is not really at odds with capitalism at all. The idea of capitalism, as I understand it is that the market chooses the pricing of products, not the government. It is totally possible to have a socialist capitalist society. In fact we are already one, though not fully on either count.

As for Microsoft and this idea that the government regulating monopolies is a socialist idea... hogwash. Government regulation of monopolistic practices is 100% necessary to create a healthy economy. And those of you who say that will stifle Microsoft's ability to inovate are nuts. Has microsoft innovated on a number of different fronts? Sure. But there is absolutely no evidence that it was their OEM agreements or bundling of explorer that enabled any of those innovations.

[Paladin]

I'm not rich by any means, but I'm 24 years old and I have a college education. In the U.S., I have the opportunity to make something of myself. Our somewhat-Capitalist economy makes it possible for me to get rich, whether it be through hard work or dumb luck.

In a socialist economy, I would have the opportunity to make as much money as the next guy. But usually no more or no less. How is that comparable to the American Dream?

An equal distribution of wealth leads to an equal distribution of misery. What incentive do you have to work harder? What incentive do you have to innovate?

I look at the U.S. and I see a high standard of living, the richest country in the world and, most importantly, people flocking from all over the world to find the same opportunities I have.

I don't envy the rich, and I don't seek to take away what they have earned. I'd rather spend my time trying to join them.

[kristianm]

Originally posted by Paladin
I'm not rich by any means, but I'm 24 years old and I have a college education. In the U.S., I have the opportunity to make something of myself. Our somewhat-Capitalist economy makes it possible for me to get rich, whether it be through hard work or dumb luck.

In a socialist economy, I would have the opportunity to make as much money as the next guy. But usually no more or no less. How is that comparable to the American Dream?

An equal distribution of wealth leads to an equal distribution of misery. What incentive do you have to work harder? What incentive do you have to innovate?


I think you are missing my point. Socialism is not the same as communism. Most people who live here consider themself socialists and yet we have very rich people (with billions of dollars) and quite poor people.

Socialism is not trying to achive equal distribution of wealth (although most people think there should be a certain minimum), but rather equal opportunities.

I hope you can see the difference.

As an example the best schools, universities and hospitals are run by the government here and are free.

[edit] Again substituting capitalism with communism. Maybe my brain is telling me something :-)

[etoiles]

Originally posted by Paladin

I look at the U.S. and I see a high standard of living, the richest country in the world and, most importantly, people flocking from all over the world to find the same opportunities I have.


The US 'only' ranks No. 5 when it comes to GNI per capita (after Luxembourg, Switzerland, Japan and Norway). And it ranks 25th when it comes to external debt per capita. Oh, and 13% are estimated to live below the poverty line...

There is room for improvement.

[bwintx]

Originally posted by kristianm
Socialism is not trying to achive equal distribution of wealth (although most people think there should be a certain minimum), but rather equal opportunities.

From http://www.webster.com:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Of those three, the latter definition seems to fit your comment most closely, FWIW.

[JesseJames]

This is how I see the two main political parties in this country.

Democrats: What about us?

Republicans: Well what about you?

Over-simplification? Sure. But it holds some truth. :D

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by applewhore
That was rough. I live in California, dude. No need to rub in the bleak future.:cool:

Rub in the bleak future? Hey... I live in Kalifornia too. Ahnuld is a RINO, but we digress. :o

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by kristianm
[B]Don't mix socialism with communism. Socialism like it is in most of Europe today aims to give every individual a decent chance at success. This is what was once called the american dream.

As for jobs disappearing overseas, the right way to fight this is to export respect for workers and working conditions, not import slavery back again.


American dream never included welfare and socialist programs intended to punish the rich. You need to look back at history. If anything, previous generations were very loathe to accept charity. They would rather keep their pride than accept charity.

Remember the Bonus Army? They were not looking for a handout. They just wanted what was promised to them earlier in time, when they needed it.

[the_dalex]

Originally posted by kristianm
I have seen this statement many times, but at least in the US it is not true. That would make it impossible for a rich minority (less than 10%) to get richer while the majority stays the same or get poorer.

And this is not really a weakness, better redistribution of wealth happens with voting than with guns.


It is entirely true. People can vote for candidates who promise to create or expand social entitlement programs, therefore voting themselves money and assistance. This is a redistribution of wealth that is basically driven by the people who will benefit from that distribution (and the politicians who created the redistribution benefit by being elected into office). I don't see how you can say that statement isn't true, it dates back to a French political observer who was sent to America to watch our government's creation. This isn't necessarily true in practice, as you point out, because the majority of voters are middle class or upper class, and people below the poverty line really don't show up at the polls in significant numbers no matter what they are promised. No, they aren't disenfranchised, they just aren't concerned.

I won't say that voting with guns is better, but there are more than just those two options here.

If anything, poorer people should be thankful for the wealthiest 10% of the country, because those folks pay 50% of the taxes that keep this bloated government running. The people in the lower 50% pay virtually nothing in taxes, and they still complain about sales tax being unfair.

People in America feel that they are owed things by the government, not realizing that they ARE the government. I deal with students every day who expect everything for free, just because they are poor. Nobody thinks that money is coming out of someone else's pocket; it's been laundered by the US government so people think it's free.

It's hard to look at the system and assume everyone taking advantage of it is being honest. I've offered jobs to people who have turned them down because they were still getting unemployment benefits. They would rather sit on their butt and earn less than work hard and earn more. I have personally seen this, it happens more than people know. I don't support entitlements anymore, and I'm sick of people getting free rides and turning around and asking for more. It never stops, and once a social program is in place, it's practically impossible to kill.

[kristianm]

Originally posted by the_dalex It is entirely true.
Well, it isn't happening in any place with democracy that I know of.


If anything, poorer people should be thankful for the wealthiest 10% of the country, because those folks pay 50% of the taxes that keep this bloated government running.
As other people have stated, they have 90% of the wealth. You say they pay 50% of the tax. They are not even pulling their own share.


People in America feel that they are owed things by the government, not realizing that they ARE the government. I deal with students every day who expect everything for free, just because they are poor. Nobody thinks that money is coming out of someone else's pocket; it's been laundered by the US government so people think it's free.
I just think that the chance should be free. Isn't it in the countrys best interest to reward the brilliant and hard working with university instead of the rich? Maybe we would have had 10 more Einsteins by now if everyone could attend university.


It's hard to look at the system and assume everyone taking advantage of it is being honest.
Guilty until proven innocent? I rather like it the other way round.

[asphalt-proof]

Phil of mac: I don't think that anyone has adequately responded to your chanllenge: Why is concentration fo wealth a bad thing?

The same reason that concentration of media is a bad thing. If it were just 'money' and only money then no, its not a bad thing but money (and distribution of information) is POWER. Microsoft was able to tell companies what they had to do in order to ship PCs (the heart of the anti-trust case). What would happen if Microsoft bought a media companyy? Would we hear bad news about Microsoft or just a lot of propoganda about how great life is with MS? They have there own online magazine and how often does that mag, rip on MS or shoddy products or even report critical patches? Can you imagine if MS owned a conglomerate like TimeWarner? We all know the adage about power. It may be a homily but there is a grain of truth: Once someone or entity has power it is very unlikely to give it up. They will fight to keep that power. A company with a lot of money can buy a lot of influence.
I think that we shold be upset with MS because they stifled competition by saying to Dell "you cannot ship computers with any OS but MS." There was no incentive for anyone to build an radically diffferent OS because there was no market for it. Linux got off the ground purely by volunteer programmers. It was only later that businesses got wind of profitability. Yet we still see stories of MS offering to pay governments to use their products, or commissioning studies to show the superiority of MS, or firing people FROM OTHER COMPANIES who write a bad review of MS and their products. This an abuse of power and use of their concentrated wealth to hold that power.

That's why concentration of power is scary.
(now if I could only harness the power of my child's temper tantrums... I would be a GOD!!)

[asphalt-proof]

By the way...
I usaully shy away from the Political Forums because I don't like to see discussion devolve into soundbites. This is refreshing.
Thanks to all for civility.

[J-Ray1000]

It's worth mentioning that Marx never believed Communism could be "forced" -- meaning, artificially caused to happen. He believed economic states were the result of something else -- capitalism from the problems with feudalism, for example.

Marx proclaimed that the proletariat, subjugated by the business owners, would rise up and take control of the means of production. For Marx, this wasn't an "if" but a "when" -- a natural evolution of economic cycles, something that would happen on its own. He called it the "synthesis moment" when a new economy would come into being.

What Marx failed to understand was that the machines which the blue-collar workers were subjugated to would evolve faster than the rate at which the working class grew. Meaning, as technological innovation forced jobs away from the factories, new jobs were created in the white collar sectors. Jobs lost to the cotton gin were absorbed by the need to sell cotton and so forth. (from British history, not southern US)

The synthesis moment was always a matter of debate. Lenin created a "false synthesis" to jump-start the communist revolution. All through the Soviet Union's history, communist scholars debated whether the true synthesis had already happened and, if not, when it would come. Gorbechof (sp?) ended that debate and today in first world countries the white collar workers dwarf the number of blue collar workers.

Just a little background for y'all.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by asphalt-proof
The same reason that concentration of media is a bad thing. If it were just 'money' and only money then no, its not a bad thing but money (and distribution of information) is POWER. Microsoft was able to tell companies what they had to do in order to ship PCs (the heart of the anti-trust case). What would happen if Microsoft bought a media companyy?

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that media is a limited resource. It is not. Sure, a large corporation intent on hiding its flaws could buy up multiple media outlets, but that does not do anything to the underlying flaws that are still there. Same with media. People live their lives in the real world, and the media could make up stories, but that would still not make it true, at least to the ones that have direct knowledge of the facts.