Why is capitalism 'freer' than socialism?

[BasketCase]

Brazil's population is two thirds that of the US, so a 2% economic growth in the US produces as much per person as a 6.7% growth in Brazil.

Brazil's GDP is just under two trillion dollars. The U.S.'s GDP is FOURTEEN trillion dollars. One percent in the United States produces as much as SEVEN percent in Brazil.

Not everyone is a coward who runs from responsibility. Teach people it is honorable, glorify it, and people will rush to do it.

Absolutely. Problem is, We The People disagree (and always have, and always will) about what constitutes responsible behavior. I say invading Iraq was the responsible thing to do (BOTH times). I'm pretty sure you don't (if you do, there are plenty of others on CFC who disagree with me, so you should still get what I'm driving at). Most radical Muslims say converting to Islam is the responsible thing for Cheezy the Wiz to do. But I'm pretty sure you don't plan on converting to Islam any time soon. Or, indeed, ever. I certainly won't. Ever.

See the problem?

 

[Archbob]

Wrong. In Brazil, GDP per person is around $7,000 to $10,000 a year. In the U.S. it's $47,000 a year. Six point seven percent of Brazil's 10,000 is 670. Two percent of America's 47,000 is 940. A SMALLER percentage growth produces MORE in the United States.


Absolutely. Problem is, We The People disagree (and always have, and always will) about what constitutes responsible behavior. I say invading Iraq was the responsible thing to do (BOTH times). I'm pretty sure you don't (if you do, there are plenty of others on CFC who disagree with me, so you should still get what I'm driving at). Most radical Muslims say converting to Islam is the responsible thing for Cheezy the Wiz to do. But I'm pretty sure you don't plan on converting to Islam any time soon. Or, indeed, ever. I certainly won't. Ever.

See the problem?

So why should someone have to carry a heavier burden? Why does someone have to have a greater responsibility than others?

Society has tried to impose equality before. Its never worked. There's no point in trying something that is destined to fail.

Do you realize that you can't expect most people to be fair and just?

 

[BasketCase]

So why should someone have to carry a heavier burden? Why does someone have to have a greater responsibility than others?

Some folks (NOT including myself) would answer with slogans such as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" or "with great power comes great responsibility". But, really, it's mostly just jealousy.

Society has tried to impose equality before. Its never worked. There's no point in trying something that is destined to fail.

I'm all for equality of opportunity. Just as long as my opportunities don't get trampled in the process.

Do you realize that you can't expect most people to be fair and just?

Better than most. That's part of why capitalism works and socialism doesn't. Capitalism uses greed to its own advantage. Socialism depends on everybody to play nice.

 

[Archbob]

I actually don't mind the "to each his ability" thing, but however, I know it doesn't work and if I try to do it all the time, I'd just get screwed.

 

[Traitorfish]

Absolutely. Problem is, We The People disagree (and always have, and always will) about what constitutes responsible behavior. I say invading Iraq was the responsible thing to do (BOTH times). I'm pretty sure you don't (if you do, there are plenty of others on CFC who disagree with me, so you should still get what I'm driving at). Most radical Muslims say converting to Islam is the responsible thing for Cheezy the Wiz to do. But I'm pretty sure you don't plan on converting to Islam any time soon. Or, indeed, ever. I certainly won't. Ever.

See the problem?

Given that your entire argument rests on the apparent assumption that the authoritarian, centralised nation-state is an inevitable fact of life, and not merely a construct, I'm going to have to say "no".

 

[PiMan]

Brazil's GDP is just under two trillion dollars. The U.S.'s GDP is FOURTEEN trillion dollars. One percent in the United States produces as much as SEVEN percent in Brazil.

We were talking per person earlier, you appear to have adjusted the point.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Town hall meetings. Ballot measures. Local elections. At all of these, the common citizen is given the power to decide on everything from civil rights to law enforcement to budget to industry.

And the power to put something on the ballot for the common citizen to decide on, also lies with the common citizen. Just start up a petition and collect signatures.

Citizens in many nations already have the power; they already have the political mechanisms you claim they need.

Again, real power. Elections are not even policy-making processes. That ballot-thing appears to be nothing more than agenda-setting. Town Hall meetings are probably the most participative things you talk about, and I am not saying they're bad, but as far as I know they do not have a compulsory nature (correct me if I'm wrong). Now please go back to my previous post(s) and read again what I talk about.... or read up on deep democracy if you feel like it.

Oh, come on. Open a browser window and type "www.cnn.com" into the URL text line, then go to the business section. And, by the way, America's economic growth is already breaking news worldwide; it has been for decades.

Not ideal, but where is the 10%? Other, more raw figures, say 1984 was the last time GDP rose more than 10%/ If anything is world news it's the abysmal state of the American economy. For a decade.

And you shouldn't need to "guess" what the Dow Jones is.

Dude, chill out. You only said 'source'. I don't see why the Dow Jones couldn't provide information on all kinds of statistics. Anyway, I take this is you admitting that you used the growth of net worth of stocks instead of GDP?

In any case, economic growth of 10% annually for Brazil doesn't tell you much of anything. Ten percent of a small number is a much smaller number. And Brazil is pretty darn poor. GDP per person in Brazil is ONE-FIFTH that of the United States. So two percent economic growth in the U.S. produces as much, per person, as TEN percent economic growth in Brazil.

Have you ever been to Brazil? It's a rich country. It's just distributed in an incredibly unequal fashion.

Anyway, you are right about absolute terms of course. You could also argue that with a larger GDP you evidently have more money to invest and turn into growth as well. That wasn't the point though. My point is that a direct linear causality between a free economy and growth lacks a lot of nuance.

Then I would just stop working out and let someone else carry the burden.

In the end you just get a bunch of weak people.

That's not how it works and you know it. You don't get money no matter what. If you are truly ignorant and really think that is how it works, go back to school. It's a bit sad to see that you think that the unemployed are lazy and do not have jobs because of their own unwillingness.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's not how it works and you know it. You don't get money no matter what. If you are truly ignorant and really think that is how it works, go back to school. It's a bit sad to see that you think that the unemployed are lazy and do not have jobs because of their own unwillingness.

Well, most of them.

 

[lovett]

Not everyone is a coward who runs from responsibility. Teach people it is honorable, glorify it, and people will rush to do it.

The fact is, an awful lot of people are. I doubt you would reject the fact that pretty much everyone would like more 'stuff' for less effort. That's the basic state of any active creature. Your arguing that by making altruism yield social 'cred people will be willing to exchange material 'stuff' for social 'stuff'. That's true. The problem is, it's a fragile equilibrium. We should note that altruism is already one of the things we value most in societal terms; it basically defines what we mean by morality. It seems that people are only responsive to social values up to a certain point. This shouldn't be surprising; things tend to have diminishing returns.

To expand further the social value in the way you want to form seems very fragile. It doesn't take much to feel that your work is unappreciated; that rather breaks down the whole 'glorifying' thing. We should also note that one assumes a certain subsection of society will be far less responsive to social pressure than the average. They will not give everything that they are able, because they don't have any reason to do so. That erodes the bonds required to make the whole thing credible, especially given that this subsection of society is almost certainly non-negligible. The fact that they effectively opt out of the social values that such a state requires to function makes those values seem far less absolute and far less important than otherwise. Therein lies their strength, so this is rather important. What you have is essentially a prisoners dilemma; small-scale breakdown in trust rapidly spiraling into complete meltdown. That's not very good.

 

[Husky250]

Many people say the financial crisis, high bonusses and everything is caused due "capitalism", but be aware that most countries in the world where that happened don't have a true capitalism as many of them are just socialized democracies.

 

[aelf]

Many people say the financial crisis, high bonusses and everything is caused due "capitalism", but be aware that most countries in the world where that happened don't have a true capitalism as many of them are just socialized democracies.

lolwut.

DL?

 

[Traitorfish]

Many people say the financial crisis, high bonusses and everything is caused due "capitalism", but be aware that most countries in the world where that happened don't have a true capitalism as many of them are just socialized democracies.

Simplistic. "Capitalism" refers to a broad swathe of economic systems, not merely laissez faire capitalism (which is not, whatever the libertarians may scream themselves hoarse declaring, "true" capitalism). It merely refers to a system in which the means of production are privately owned, while socialism refers to one in which they are collectively owned. That many Western nations allow varying degrees of state intervention in the economy does force not drag them out of the "socialist" column and force them into the "capitalist"; aside from anything else, state intervention in the economy is not an inherently socialist facet of government.
Most modern Western countries, while advocating socialist-inspired policies such as universal healthcare and education, are more likely to described as Mixed or Keynesian economies, having failed- or refused- to depart from a fundamentally capitalistic system. I challenge you to name a single Western nation in which the bulk of productive activity is dictated by either the sate or workers' collectives; perhaps then we may call them "social democracies".

Of course, that's not to say that merely decrying the evils of non-specific "capitalism" is particularly enlightened, either.

 

[Nares]

Not everyone is a coward who runs from responsibility.

What a bogus statement.

Great for a pep talk from coach, but terrible as an assessment of all mankind.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Well, most of them.

To be fair, they do have a job and do deserve a salary. Though I'm not sure how much the English royal family gets, but I guess they are somewhat overpaid.

 

[aelf]

What a bogus statement.

Great for a pep talk from coach, but terrible as an assessment of all mankind.

I like to give a bleak assessment of the human condition as well (I might have a reservation at the Grand Hotel Abyss), but I wonder if with all this talk we've forgotten that some sense of morality has existed in human society.

 

[BasketCase]

Given that your entire argument rests on the apparent assumption that the authoritarian, centralised nation-state is an inevitable fact of life,

It's not. Human disagreements over "what is responsible" exist between nations as often as within nations, and the Earth is not an authoritarian centralised nation-state. The Earth is basically the embodiment of anarchy.

Nice try, but not buying it. My argument does not depend on the existence of a centralized authoritarian state--it is an explanation of why some degree of centralization is inevitable. A centralized state is not the basis of the argument, it is the conclusion.

We were talking per person earlier, you appear to have adjusted the point.

Because Wikipedia gave two different estimates of Brazil's GDP per person, and the distinction between them was unclear. With one, the result was U.S. = five times more productive; the other, seven times (which matched almost exactly my estimate of nationwide GDP's). Either way the, result is identical: any given percentage growth produces many times more in the U.S. than in Brazil.

Again, real power. Elections are not even policy-making processes.

Whaaaaat???? Dude. Seriously. You just told me two plus two is five.

Elections are the ONLY policy-making process. In order for The People to control policy, you have to ask them what policy to perform, and you MUST allow them to answer with safety and anonymity. Translation: ballot box.

Not ideal, but where is the 10%?

It's within the chart you provided--just not visible, because the averaging is too long. There have been many periods when the U.S. economy grew by more than 10%, frequently just after recessions. Also many periods when housing grew by more than 10%, tech jobs grew by more than 10%, manufacturing grew by more than 10%.

Anyway, I take this is you admitting that you used the growth of net worth of stocks instead of GDP?

No, that's you admitting that you're using GDP instead of stocks. Guess where your paycheck comes from, Sherlock. If your company's income drops by half, what's your paycheck gonna do? On average, it will drop by half (actually, with most companies, you will instead have a fifty percent chance of getting FIRED).

 

[Archbob]

That's not how it works and you know it. You don't get money no matter what. If you are truly ignorant and really think that is how it works, go back to school. It's a bit sad to see that you think that the unemployed are lazy and do not have jobs because of their own unwillingness.

Not all, but there are a good number that are unemployed because of laziness. Most street bums wouldn't work if you gave them a job.

 

[kosiosko 1]

Not all, but there are a good number that are unemployed because of laziness. Most street bums wouldn't work if you gave them a job.

most if you gave them a list of free handouts would only get to the first one today.

 

[PiMan]

Because Wikipedia gave two different estimates of Brazil's GDP per person, and the distinction between them was unclear. With one, the result was U.S. = five times more productive; the other, seven times (which matched almost exactly my estimate of nationwide GDP's). Either way the, result is identical: any given percentage growth produces many times more in the U.S. than in Brazil.

Wikipedia gives six different numbers for almost every country's GDP per person. Three figures for nominal GDP, and three for PPP GDP. These are clearly defined. The three figures in each case come from the IMF, the World Bank, and the CIA Factbook.
The three nominal figures were roughly the same as each other, and the PPP figures were roughly the same as each other. The only way you could be confused, is because you don't understand what they are at all. For our purposes, I believe PPP is the more appropriate figure.
And if you were looking directly at the wiki page for Brazil, that would be using IMF data.

No, that's you admitting that you're using GDP instead of stocks. Guess where your paycheck comes from, Sherlock. If your company's income drops by half, what's your paycheck gonna do? On average, it will drop by half (actually, with most companies, you will instead have a fifty percent chance of getting FIRED).

A company's income is better reflected in the nation's GDP than in a stock indicator.

 

[willemvanoranje]

No, that's you admitting that you're using GDP instead of stocks. Guess where your paycheck comes from, Sherlock.

Yes, I used GDP....which is the normal way to operationalise economic growth, Watson. See, that's why I'm the lead detective and you are the assistent.

Elections are the ONLY policy-making process. In order for The People to control policy, you have to ask them what policy to perform, and you MUST allow them to answer with safety and anonymity. Translation: ballot box.

Do you even know what policy is?

Anyway, in elections you don't ask them what policies to perform, nor give them a real opportunity to control policy. Even more so in the Americas than here, you have to vote for a package, and usually vote for a person. But hey, you stay in your high tower with an outdated elitist model. Elections as an accountability mechanism are weak, and experiences show that people have quite different ideas about what should happen in their direct environment than bureaucrats tend to have. That needs to be more balanced.

Btw, you can use ballot boxes as well in participatory approaches. I don't see how it cannot be combined with deliberative participatory approaches. You discuss problems, discuss possible solutions, have a number of solutions and then vote on them.

It's within the chart you provided--just not visible, because the averaging is too long. There have been many periods when the U.S. economy grew by more than 10%, frequently just after recessions. Also many periods when housing grew by more than 10%, tech jobs grew by more than 10%, manufacturing grew by more than 10%.

Again, stocks are not economic growth... nor is sectoral employment.

If your company's income drops by half, what's your paycheck gonna do? On average, it will drop by half (actually, with most companies, you will instead have a fifty percent chance of getting FIRED).

Guess where I work, Watson? Different country, different system. Here you don't get fired that easily and if you do without your fault there is a backup system to help you in your transition.

Anyway, ask a random person in America if they agree with you that there is economic growth at the moment because the Dow Jones went up. Geez.