This thread will be closed. It has turned into another exercise of futility, most arguments brought forth has been tite, and I can also not see why the situation in Iraq should be worth mentioning.
Perhaps I should have known better than to try to initiate a debate about something serious, but at least there has been some valuable contributions, and this is addressed below. Unfortunately I also had to comment on a not exactly stellar post, the other mentioned here must have me excused for that.
When you set rules like that, the discussion is already a failure.
Not at all.
Establishing certain principles for a civil debate, especially when you know your Pappenheimers, is just sensible.
Its really increidble. I would imagine so many people around the world would have no idea of this, seeing only the side of the US on Tv which is showcased by Paris Hilton, tatooed billion-dollar rock stars etc...
Unfortunately, yes.
to me it shows a massive, inherent flaw in (at the very least the US version of) capitalism. there are several sides to capitalism; it tends to lend itself to freedom of the press, it does enrich somepeople and it encourages innovation in a way no other system does.
Capitalism can very well do without any freedom of press; indeed the domination of corporate media in so-called democratic countries is a serious threat to real freedom of press, and capitalists has never been shy of dictators.
Of course, in a historic perspective, capitalism has been a progressive force, but so was feudalism and even slave societies.
However, thats the side most people concentrate on and ignore the other sides to it, such as war for territory and resources, people working three jobs to stay alive, and the above. I'm a Marxist, so I dont claim to be totally unbiased on this topic, I dont think anyone really can. but when I see people defending this type of inequality as a good thing it just blows my mind. some people lose all sense of humanity and compassion when they turn to defending accumulation of wealth, they really do become total social darwinists. I've seen it on this site. anyone whose poor: Its their fault. anyone whose homeless: Its their fault. No circumstances taken into account.
It boggles my mind too that people don't understand the serious consequences of huge societal inequality. Or how life is on the bottom of the societal ladder.
I just find it hard to understand how some people can defend a system that leads to the above, and actually become aggressive when they have even a Scandinavian style capitalism suggested to them.
A big part of why humans were and are so successful was because we looked after eachother when injured, put ourselves in the line of fire for eachother etc... that seems to be gradually being eroded by game theorists, etc... I really hope this isnt an irreversible trend. Sorry I got a bit OT.
Oh I don't think it is a reversible trend. For someone who remember the rebellion of the privileged during the 80s and the wasted decennium that was the 90s, I seem to register that some good changes are about to make an impacts. But it will be a slow process and there will be plenty to repair.
It's annoying indeed. There must be something wrong with the system, but I don't think it's an occasion to get ideological and say the whole system is bad, it produced the wealth in the first place.
Hunger issues (but also health and education issues) is a minimum a society should provide to everybody. They have to be financed, remove free market and those issues wouldn't even be addressed. If your demonstration and facts are valid when pointing out the redistribution is a failure, we still lack a demonstration and facts that a non capitalist economy would produce enough of the wealth you need to redistribute.
Sorry, but I am going "ideological".
I already admitted that capitalism is not pure evil, and that it had a historical mission, but that one is fullfilled and we need something better.
Considering what wealth really is, I see no reason why socialism shouldn't be just as productive and probably more so.
That might be a bit strong. First of all, why group all of society together like that? What of the people who are working hard to fight poverty, even the rich people? Surely they aren't failed, are they?
I think it is not so simple. First of all, if there is hunger and poverty, there must be somebody, being it individua or classes, who are working hard to preserve it. It would really be to underestimate people to assume that everybody was fighting a societal ill and still it would exist in a considerable amount.
Secondly, one think is to want to solve a problem, quite another matter is to find a good solution.
Thirdly, a society might very well be a failure even if not everything is malfunctiong or even if some people want to reform it.
Not the richest, but still the most powerful. By a lot.
I think it is defendable to say the richest. And the most powerful indeed. For a little while more.
Well, that's a bit pessimistic. But yes, capitalism does not fix poverty. Perhaps it does in the very, very long run, just by increasing affluence.
No it doesn't and increasing affluence is not an authomatical fix. The problem with capitalism is that it is an exploitative system.
Socialism, of course, also does not fix poverty. You probably could fix some short-term poverty by seizing assets, but I don't see what gives you that right.
I think it does, given that it is implemented in an advanced industrial country.
As for the right, since wealth is created by labour, that is productive and dead labour, it is simply reclaiming the right of said labour.
The United States has a variety of very impressive institutions. The infrastructure is on the whole excellent, although it lags behind some nations, such as Hong Kong, which are far more capitalistic.
Really? Then either Jim Hightower is lying his face blue:
George W insists that he has made America "strong and safe," referring to the hundreds of billions of dollars he has dumped into Iraq and homeland security. Actually, he has failed the strength and safety test even on his foreign watch. But internally--where such essential physical networks as schools, dams, water systems, libraries, power lines, rails, parks, and airports are the vertebrae of our nation's backbone--the no-tax/no-government mantra of Bushite ideologues (with the complicity of spineless Democrats in Congress) has left America a fragile and vulnerable nation.
Last year, ASCE compared the conditions in 12 categories of our nation's infrastructure to conditions in 2001. From wastewater to the power grid, schools to airports, the 2005 overall grade had slipped down to a D from the D+ it got four years earlier. Of the 12 categories, only 2 had a slightly improved grade, 3 stayed the same, and 7 grew worse. No category rated either an A or B – only C's (mediocre) and D's (poor). The highest grade for any category was a C+. ASCE president William Henry blamed this pathetic, Third World level of performance directly on our current "patch and pray" approach to America's crucial infrastructure.
link:
http://www.alternet.org/story/44851/?page=entire
Or your definition of excellent is different from mine. Or you are speculating in my supposed ignorance in the topic.
As for which country is more or less capitalist, I think that is debatable as well.
The United States can easily afford universal health-care, it's just been deemed too costly too raise taxes to collect.
That seems to be a bit contradictory. If one can easily afford something, how can it be too costly?
Perhaps we should fill it out a bit and ask: to costly for whom?
I have written for the Cato Institute. The renowned modern socialist Robert Wolffe has also written for the Cato Institute. They are a classically liberal institution, but a respected one. Especially respected is their Supreme Court Review. You should not dismiss an opinion because you disagree with it.
I will comment on Cato below when addressing WillJ. I am also sorry, I don't know any "renowned"(renowned where?)
"modern" (I guess that that is supposed to mean that he rejects most of what usually is associated with socialism) Robert Wolffe. And I would care if Lenin himself had written for them, I still refuse to take them seriously, as would probably any classic liberal.
Finally I don't generally dismiss opinions I disagree with, but that doesn't mean that I have to respect any opinion brought forth disregading of form and content.
I wouldn't call you any of those things. The only thing un-American about your post was your dismissal of an opposing viewpoint without argument.
If you read carefully you will see that there is plenty of room for discussion.
Or do you mean to say that the only way one can debate is through disinformation, sloganeering, rudeness, trolling or dodging? Sorry, but I am no free speech-fundie, I think that any exchange of ideas should have minimum standards to merit wasting one's time.
In a word: Charity. Do what I do. Give your money to help the poor. Don't use force to make others do it; lead by example.
No. As I said, the Victorian era is over, at least for most people where I live. Except for the appalling aspects of charity, it can never replace the benefits of a solidaric society.
I also must say I wonder how one should expect from people who live in a society where competition and greed are ideals, and where it is usual to behave like a nun in a military camp when the word taxes are mentioned, that those same people should voluntarily open their vallets for the benefit of the poor.
I am a pacifist. I don't believe in using the coercive force of the state any more than is absolutely necessary. On issues like these it is best to express your desire for change in a robust, immediate way. The Red Cross is a good start.
I'll give it a shot. I don't think poverty is the fault of the victim, and I am deeply supportive of charity. I also don't approve of the use of force, almost ever. If you seize assets (in the form of a tax) you do so with force; ultimately you do it on the might of the federal government. I really want to solve poverty, but I don't permit those kinds of means. I'll defend minarchism for exactly that reason and urge you to do exactly as I do: donate heavily to charity.
When I hear the word coercive and use of force addressed solely to the government, I know that further discussion is futile. There simply is no common ground, and the only propretarians I can take seriously are those who want to privatize the police and military as well. That is a horrid ideology, but at least an honest one.
There are two indexes you probably should see. One of them is the Human Development Index. Produced by the UN, it measure (roughly) quality of life. The other is the Economic Freedom Index. Produced by worryingly conservative think-tanks, it ranks Economic Liberalism (and is robust enough to be cited in journals of political science). The Heritage Foundation uses the EFI for it's own reasons. I care instead only about this one:
Economic freedom is a problematic term. Freedom for whom? Freedom to what?
The EFI and the HDI correlate. The more liberal the economy, the higher the quality of life. That's not a causal relationship, but it is something you have to face.
I don't think so.
I don't have the time to go through all this right now, but as far as I remember my country was on top on the HDI, and I think that we do well on quite a lot of relevant sectors.
Incidentally, what's the 'American Style' of Capitalism? They didn't cover that in my economics courses.
I am not him, but a not to qualified guess (I am not an economist, but I have some years behind me in politics and I am married to one) would be a sort of military Keynesianism. Extensive corporate welfare with the military as an engine in the economy. incindentally is the Golden Flece award still existing?
Isn't the irony juicy here? Here you have a liberal comes in with some ridiculous opening post, that basically says, "I'm closed minded, don't provide me any evidence to the contrary of what I believe. This is a closed debate about how horrible America and capitalism is." And then another person from the same set comes out and says "Ain't it funny how you always want things looked further into when it makes your outlook look bad?" Seriously guys, this is just too much. Come out with something that makes "our real world view look bad." Say that it's so. And then close the door for counter-arguments. Intellectual integrity is just boiling over in this thread.
First of all, boy, never again insult me by calling me a liberal. I have never been, and I am certainly not a liberal. take a 101 course in political ideology.
Secondly, and I repeat, the rues I was setting does not exclude a serious, mature and nuanced debate. it was only an attempt to let the trolls remain under their bridges.
Thirdly, the irony is overflowing when somebody is taking the big words of "intellectual integrity" in their mouth and then proceeds with this:
Let's go further: Who's fattest in America? POOR PEOPLE! Poor people have the highest caloric intake of any socioeconomic bracket in America and significantly higher obesity rates.
Actually it is completely possible to be fat and hungry.
Just consider this garbage that you call "fast food" and which for good reasons are consumed aplenty by the poor.
Now real food can be ingested in really high quantities, without the same rate of weight gain . You see, things like salt, MSG, higher caloric content per gram, chemical additives, processing makes a lot of the food go straight to fat or more easily processed rather than flowing through the body unabsorbed.
And so to ice the cake:
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.
I'd put in a link, but then I'd be breaking the rules of the thread
You really got the nerve to present me this trash from Heritage Foundation? Do you think I am a complete imbecile?
Actually this is a good illustration why I don't take corporate think-tanks seriously. The following is admittedly an old critic, but it points of the "methodology" well enough, I think:
http://www.fair.org/extra/9901/rector.html
Also have a look at this:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9781
What exactly is wrong with the Cato Institute, besides their views being different from yours? Are there any right-of-economic-center think thanks that you approve of?
Regarding the CATO-institute; here is an excellent page from that good man Mike Huben:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/cato.html
In general, corporate think-tanks represent a threat to democracy, as they exercise too much influence compared to the numbers they represent. Furthermore, I think more tanking than thinking is going on. And finally, there is a practical moment to consider. Whenever somebody presents a "study" from one of these showing how good it is to be poor and how bad it is to be rich, I simply haven't the time to jockey around on the net to find some criticism and debunking. I am just an individual, not bloody FAIR or something similar.
As for any think-tanks I approve of; I don't trust any which are mouthpieces for corporations.
Not that this isn't an important issue that needs to be addressed, but I have reservations about the specific study cited. Under its criteria, I would qualify as "food insecure"
I don't understand why that is a laughing matter.
And I agree with the people who say the foodstamp program is broken. I have a friend from HS who will buy people stuff with his foodstamps for coke money. Lots of people in college do that: they get cheap food, and their druggy friends get their drugs. Everybody wins!!!
Not the taxpayers, I suppose.
