| There are 47 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
|
|
Milton Friedman says that capitalism has produced more wealth for more people that any other system. He is a heck of a lot smarter than I am, so I would go with him.
https://youtu.be/6r2rhl8997A
|
|
|
I will take a free market capitalism over anything I have seen in the world. True capitalism doesn’t care about age, race, gender or sexual choice. Have an idea or a skill you can succeed.
|
|
|
Jazz. That’s not the answer you were supposed to give!!!
This question is designed with the “Gotcha!!!” That evil conservatives are supposed to reconsider their entire world view if “they” don’t have a built in advantage. Cause you know, the idea that they could possibly think things thru with fairness in mind is just impossible.
|
|
|
Every other economic system has been even less fair. True socialism doesn’t allow anyone to really succeed. Those who distribute the wealth do so unfairly and the masses have no alternative. If I create the better mouse trap, I will realize the success of my idea, no matter what anyone else thinks.
|
|
|
That is not the only problem with communism. There is also the issue of a lack of incentive to work hard, take risks, especially financial risk when every one else benefits from your success. Why would anyone want to do that
|
|
|
That is why you don’t want the government distributing wealth any more than they already do. You control decisions.
|
|
|
wish they'd distribute some of that my way
|
|
|
The myth that conservatives are evil and that liberals are wacky is perpetuated to keep people distracted, divided and controllable. The real question isn't communism or capitalism. Communism is a failed system based upon a false premise that takes away human incentive, and has been exercised primarily by dictatorships.
The real problem is the concentration of power for the advantage of a tiny minority via a rigged game. The purveyors of fake news on the right AND the left distort what you learn, what you know, and what you read, such that you/we cling to belief systems that perpetuate the power of the tiny minority and, as the Romans once practiced, divide and conquer.
The people who 3-4 decades ago unionized and obtained decent wages and healthcare for working people have been falsely labeled as commies, and worse, by a segment of the talking heads who spew false information and agitprop disguised as legit news.
Until we re-frame the political "fix", end gerrymandering, take away corporate ownership of our representatives, take dirty money out of politics, not much will change, regardless of which political "party" with which you identify.
Just my admittedly tenuous grasp of reality as it appears on this December day, 2019.
|
|
|
Of course they're going to give an open-ended response like "free market capitalism", but not describe what free market capitalism is. Can free market capitalism function without government? Can we capture negative externalities without regulation? Would the free market take care of all monopolies? We have overwhelming evidence at this point that people are not rational free agent machines, that media and advertising are amazingly effective at controlling populations. The average citizen can be so lost at technical facts behind certain things (e.g. "smoking causes cancer") that the requirement for the rational agent to be informed in capitalist theory would be a pipe dream, and this is more and more true as science becomes more advanced.
It might be surprising to you that a lot of liberals also believe in free market capitalism -- a more realistic free market capitalism.
|
|
|
Yes. It does surprise me. A lot.
|
|
|
"True capitalism doesn’t care about age, race, gender or sexual choice."
But this is like saying "People work hard in true socialism."
The system doesn't define the people, the people define the system. Both statements are unrealistic on their own because people, in general, do care about age, race, gender or sexual preference, just as some people choose to work harder than others, regardless of what's supposed to happen according to a system.
For example, under capitalism, if businesses refuse customers of a minority group, minority customers shop elsewhere with their money, causing other businesses who accept them to succeed more. However, if the culture is overall discriminatory towards that group, reducing opportunity for them, then their overall buying power decreases over time. If the culture is discriminatory, then capitalism sides with the majority. True, capitalism itself doesn't care about these traits, but the market could easily be rigged by the people who do care about these traits.
Likewise, socialism could posit all it likes that if people are given the choice to do what they like, they'll work hard at it, but in reality anyone could game the system by not working hard.
People can't just be shoehorned into these systems and pretend that nothing unexpected will ever happen. That's why free market capitalism, like socialism, are NOT the most successful systems. There hasn't been one successful example of unregulated free market capitalism or socialism in the history of mankind. Every successful example of capitalism required regulation.
|
|
|
I’ll take stateless and classless por favor.
This question wasn’t for me though. 😂
|
|
|
Bravo, Loki51!!!
|
|
|
Stateless and classless is ridiculous. Do you want pure survival of the fittest ? The state is necessary to provide basic services and a system of laws at a minimum. Classes, if you mean wealth disparity is going to exist in any free society. The overwhelming class disperity of today exists by the death of the American labor movement, murdered by Reagan in the 80's. Warren proposes to reduce these disparities by a weath tax on net worth over a certain amount. If it were up to me we would tax wealth at net worths over 50million but that would be subject to debate. What most of Americans don't realize is that the truly wealthy dont pay federal income taxes. The orange idiot wont release his taxes because he doesn pay any. Anyone that has any substantial real estate need never pay any taxes and live in luxury. A wealth tax could reduce those inequalities.
Of course it will never pass into law as we live in an oligarchy.
|
|
|
Detroit: it was a little tongue and cheek. I like to be cheeky. I also like a little bit of Marx so you know, was just a shout out to the OG anti-capitalist.
I am however all for abolishing the hell outta billionaires via taxation so there’s that. 😘
|
|
|
Any society is essentially a system of freedoms and controls. The ideal mix will help maximize the overall welfare of everyone. Unfortunately, both the left and right peddle their dogma without a nuanced approach. The left doesn't understand the simple concept of self-interest can't be removed from humans without turning the system into a totalitarian state. On the other hand, no 'true' capitalist state has ever existed. Given all that, the United States certainly has reached the closest balance of a mixed economy, historically.
Don't trot out the Scandinavian countries as a better model. You can't compare a racially homogeneous country with the population of Wisconsin to a melting pot with 54 times the population and 60 times larger economy. My $.02.
|
|
|
The challenge is what to do with those who cannot compete.
The reality is there are those that are smarter, faster, stronger more creative etc... Some are not those things.
Some of this is physical, mental, biological. Some of it can be environmental and just plain lack of opportunities. They don’t choose to be a little slower (or a lot) but they are.
Anyone that has to deal with handicapped offspring live challenging lives and often end up impoverished.
There are few easy answers.
|
|
|
Funny - "the biggest problem is they are run by people"???? - really?
Yet, these people who hate free markets and capitalism wants to run everything. Do they see the irony of that????
Please check how much Xi Jinping is worth. Also check out China's Xinjiang camps. Now you might get a good idea about Capitalism and Socialism. Liberals and Progressives promote Socialism and Conservatives promote Capitalism.
|
|
|
It is true that a lot of liberals believe in free market Capitalism. However, liberals running for office are primarily anti Capitalists. Yet, these liberals vote for these fools who are liberals with Socialist leanings.
|
|
|
I'd take Natural rights (law) any day.
Those that think Government should make the decisions- not people, would doom those whom they say they care about to servitude.
Government is the evil - not "capitalism"
|
|
|
All I know is one system leads to mass starvation, totalitarian governments, and millions dead over and over again
|
|
|
Loki51's response was the smartest I've seen on this site in a long time. No one would want unfettered capitalism. That system failed in 1929 and in 2008. Both times it was bailed out but the misery it causes is unacceptable.
Regulated capitalism as they used to have in the US and currently have in Canada and Europe are my vote for the best of both worlds. Top notch products are produced, the system avoids huge shocks (like the US housing market destroying the world financial system), wages are high, health care is provided to everyone, and the typical worker enjoys their life.
Anyone who has ever been to Germany, France, the UK, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, or Belgium has seen how this works in practice. The finest airports, train stations, subways, infrastructure available. Flying back to the US is like landing in Mexico City or some other second world location.
Those who think a vacation at the River or in a trailer park off route 66 may have other less worldly ideas. And since so many Americans think the US is Number 1 in everything (when in reality it is 28th or 40th) things here will never change.
|
|
|
When you say "Question for Conservatives" where are the conservatives?
The GOP is the party of Trump. Trump is not a Conservative.
He's a Nativist/Nationalist as he called himself.
|
|
|
OP here.
Waitagoddamminnit. I thought I posted this on HX. I've just read through a bunch of thoughtful and mostly-coherent arguments from both liberals and conservatives. Something doesn't seem right here.
Seriously though, there is a reason this is such an intriguing thought experiment. My opinion is that capitalism with unfettered markets and minimal government seems like it would produce the best results.However, the fact is that the system is seriously stacked against you if any of the following apply:
* You are born into a poor family
* You are a member of a maligned minority group, whether it be due to race/religion/sexuality/whatever.
* You are not particularly intelligent or gifted at anything
* You are born in a part of the world that faces significant challenges.
The problem with capitalism, for all its merits, is that it tends to reward luck more than anything else. Consider that most Americans are privileged, simply by being born in the US, compared to most of the world. If you are also caucasian and male, then you are even luckier. And if you possess a slightly above-average intelligence and have moderately wealthy parents, you have basically won the lottery of life. And even then, your chances of real success are still something like 1 in a million.
So, getting back to the thought experiment. Would you really favor "true" capitalism if there was a 90% likelihood that it would not benefit you personally? Would you happily accept being a downtrodden minority knowing that the "system" worked for the 1% at the top? Would you be satisfied that the reason you can't feed your family and can't afford medicine for your children is because *YOU* failed to thrive in a society that was rigged against you.
And to be fair, societies based on socialism/communism/anarchy/whatever are also going to have problems.
For those who are intellectually honest, there are no easy answers.
|
|
|
DudeLebowski: I agree with you regarding conservatism versus nationalism. However, that distinction ventures into the No True Scotsman fallacy territory.
For the purposes of discussing the current political climate, I probably prefer just using Left/Center/Right on the political spectrum. It's not a perfect distinction, but it does tend to describe opinions relatively well despite how someone may self-identify. A Goldwater republican may disagree with a Tea Party republican on many issues, but they are relatively close to each other on the spectrum.
Just my .02
|
|
|
Well, this blog reached 24 posts of actual decent commentary on each posters' thoughts before some yahoo had to bring up his love/hate for Trump. That's pretty amazing.
Now let's revert back to the usual level of political discourse on HX and sermonize to each other how Trump is either the antichrist or second coming. Don't forget to include worn out and juvenile insults to the other side like libtard or republikkklan to show your intellectual superiority and pithy play on the English language.
|
|
|
I don’t know many real conservatives that truly think Capitalism should be completely unregulated. I think those that think that are the equivalent of the progressive left that think humans are a “virus” that are destroying the planet, and more concerned with the planet than the people living on it.
So to answer your question where we could design our own system, I would stick to a Capitalist society, with minimal necessary regulation. I would make sure that in this society the education system is top notch for everyone, since that is probably the biggest single factor in anyone’s ability to succeed in life. Will there be some people that have more natural talent? Of Course, and they will find it easier to succeed. Will there be others that will have to work harder because they are not as talented as your average citizen? Again, yes. There will even be those that are born unable to function in this society, they will need to be taken care of by the rest of us.
In the end, not knowing where I would fall in this society, I would prefer this system because I have the ability to thrive. I would not be condemned to a life of mediocrity for the sake of everyone else.
I guess the counter question to my true progressive friends out there would be this....
How would you design a system where you had complete control of what your role would be, but not anyone else’s? Would you be so quick to put yourself smack dab in the middle of the nameless masses? Would you limit everyone so no one succeeded beyond your station in life?
|
|
|
Oh, I forgot to add. In my “ideal” society there would only be one race, the human race. Differences like skin color, religion, and sexuality would all be accepted as just that, differences. They wouldn’t play a part in our relationships with each other.
|
|
|
The Idea that Europe is superior to the US is just nonsense.. that's why American Colleges ..Hospitals and Business are FULL of great Europeans minds.. FULL!!!! Just go to UCSD and look around if you don't believe me.
Most of the Fortune 500 companies to work for are AMERICAN.. and that's the product of free capitalism.
The best companies to work for are AMERICAN. I am from Europe. My brother and most of my closest friends are either unemployed or scratching by...I (and most people on these blogs I suspect) are doing FINE. those are facts.
|
|
|
I think humans are a virus destroying the planet. But I need them... so I can drive a nice car, watch TV, go to the movies, travel to distant places and eat delicious food.
So... I let them live.
That is totally selfish? Does that make me a bad person?
|
|
|
A homogeneous society cant use things like color, religion, sexual orientation, country of origin to game the system. When a group is discriminated against and prevented from accumulating wealth or equality the group being systematically discriminated against over time is defined by the ways the group' has been discriminated against over time. So, color or religion becomes the reason for lack of success.
Dose this make sense.?
|
|
|
yes it does and this country is by far the best in the world to do that. Every JOB listing in US is full of prohibitions and instructions to prevent that.
|
|
|
I don’t care what they do... as long as they don’t take more of mine.
|
|
|
The Laundromat (film).
A very interesting film based on the "Panama Papers" scandal that blew up the news in 2016 is available on Netflix, with Gary Oldman, Antonio Banderas and Meryl Streep. It's a really good, in fact fascinating review of how the super-rich use off-shore "shell" companies to avoid prosecution for fraud, avoid taxes, avoid regulations, and scam working people out of money.
It's related to the discussion in this blog.
A true story told documentary-style by the 3 film stars above, it's fun to watch. News hounds watching it will recall how it blew up the news cycle in spring 2016, implicating quite a few famous politicians and other super-wealthy Americans in the scams.
It's eye-opening.
On Netflix.
https://www.netflix.com/title/80994011
|
|
|
What does that link have to do with partisanship?
Fucking idiots.
|
|
|
"What does that link have to do with partisanship?"
Not much. It has to do with a rigged game benefiting a tiny minority, as noted in the comments above.
|
|
|
Our economic system should protect those who cannot protect themselves. If a person is unable to work through no fault of their own, we certainly can have support systems for them.
However, if a person is able bodied and chooses NOT to work, why should be allow them to avail themselves of entire array of social services and free stuff.
|
|
|
Do you trust a politician, pandering for re-election votes, to write the laws that determine eligibility for a program that you will have to pay for - forever?
|
|
|
I spoke with a millennial the other day. He was complaining about high cost of college tuition. He of course was touting Bernie and Elizabeth as removal of his college debt.
I explained to him that, yes, he might not have to pay for that 4 year college tuition but that he would get to pay for the millions of other with college tuition costs for the rest of his working career. He might actually pay off those college loans, but if Bernie or Elizabeth have their way, he will NEVER be free of college debt....it will be the debt of others.
And I also offered that I bet more people would go to college if it was free....so that amount of college debt would grow even larger and faster. I told him, get ready for a lifelong commitment to college tuition.
|
|
|
I hope that millennial had the patience to straighten your uniformed boomer ass out.
Free tuition makes sense. it's math. people with education earn more and pay more taxes.
It's already in place in many places in the US. Most states deeply subsidize tuition at in-state colleges.
In Texas (red state for sure), tuition is free and has been for a very long time. It is not some radical left-wing crazy idea. Just that it is not offered to all in the USA.
The people don't pay for it--the corporations do. In Texas, the government was smart enough to make oil companies pay. Taxes on luxuries or vices can work too.
The reason to oppose it? Simple: educated people overwhelmingly vote liberal. Very educated people are almost all liberal
|
|
|
And extremely educated people fully understand Education is NOT what the Federal Government should spend its money on and we cannot possibly support the cost of free college education for everyone who would take advantage of it if it is free.
It is the math...pay off your 4 years college loans and you are free and clear. Owe the government for those 4 years and you will pay for 40 years of work life. Do that math....oh that's right, you are the 'educated ones' but somehow didn't take economics or mathematics during your curriculum.
|
|
|
Yes, the subsidizing California does now....and the system is nearly broke...having to continue to raise tuition and admitting way more out of state people since they pay more....the system really works....LOL.
|
|
|
Happyguy. Is there a Texas somewhere I don’t know about?
I just read a shitload of articles... and all of them talked about the rising cost of tuition in Texas USA and the hope of providing subsidies for low income students.
“It's eye-opening” - Loki
Do you know where you are posting? As if anyone here is interested in having their eyes opened.
|
|
|
Conservatives are totally against providing the poor and the homeless a cell phone. Yet they expect them to work ? Generally you have to provide a prospective employer a phone number but yet they cant have acell phone. Of course it will be all solved next year when they will be poor AND hungry with the roll back of food stamps. Whatta great country.
|
|
|
Obviously a cell phone will fix everybody's problems.
|
|
|
Some problems just need to come to an end.
|
|
|
the end
|
| There are 47 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
