Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

Something caught my eye this morning as I glanced over the news headlines. It was a piece about the states with the lowest median incomes compared to the states with the highest median incomes. Normally this tidbit of news would have distressed me no end because I live in Alabama. But the fact is, I spent time in Connecticut as well and my observations show more than just disparity. To make a long story short, I can live better in Alabama on the median income there than I can in Connecticut on the median income there. The cost of living varies more than the disparity of income. My military retirement income is below the median for the statem yet I continue to support some extended family and 5 orphans in India and have money left over. While on active duty in Connecticut I went further into debt every month I was there. Both were after my children were grown and gone. If I was not helping a grandchild who is in college we would be able to save even more.

Alabama - Among the 5 least wealty states
> Median household income: $41,574

Connecticut - Among the 5 most wealthy states.
> Median household income: $67,276

- - - Updated - - -

Where did that come from? I have always been for regulated capitalism rather than laissez-faire. It seems you have to comment even when my post is more like the results you call for.

 

So long as they are not dominated by a dictatorial government which is a necessity of Socialism, and as long as they are rewarded commensurate with their achievements. The fact that we have been a capitalist economy since the inception of the republic seems to point to where the compatibility lies.

Your special pleading not withstanding, it is not me engendering insufficient morals about following our country's principles. I support the poor and the social programs which help take care of the. You support a system which will force more of our citizens into poverty in a relatively short time.

Ho many times do I have to answer that same question? Especially since the answer is really very simple. Socialism robs people of personal achievement, initiative, ambition, motivation and as a result the high achievers get tired of carrying the low achievers while they, the high achievers are held back.

Because it robs the country of its prosperity. See statement above.

On its own, it is not a bad thing. But Daniel, that is not guaranteed with socialism either.

I agree with that, and if our economy was not capitalist we would not have that "more money circulating in our markets.

"Democratic capitalism," or in other words capitalism in a democratically elected government is the only way to go if prosperity is what you want. Aristotle recognized that no form of government is perfect. I accept that, but the idea is to seek perfection where possible. That is one of the reasons I so totally discount socialism as socialism eats prosperity while capitalism builds prosperity.

 

Cost of living variables should be the norm under any form of capitalism due to the inefficiency of any natural rate of unemployment as recognized by that economic sytem; however, you do make a valid point regarding a hypothical capital based moral and "holy grail" of Perfection in money management.

Thank you for ceding the point that mixed market, socialism and capitalism, economies are more well developed than any AnCap could be on its own.

In any case, what objection do you have to simply solving simple poverty with existing legal and physical infrastructure in every State of the Union and the federal districts.

 

Cost of living variables should be the norm under any system as there is always a difference from place to place. As to what is a natural rate of unemployment, it should consist mainly of people between jobs. We should all strive for perfection, in life and money management, and we should all strive to help those who have less than we do; but it should be a personal action, not a government action when possible.

I concede no socialism is helpful in our economy, I only concede that some social programs are necessary in every type of economy.

As stated, I have no objection what so ever. Of course you realize you left out any socialism activities in that question.

 

I am glad you don't actually have any problem solving for the inefficiency of capitalism with our already existing legal and physical infrastructure.

Why do you believe our elected representatives have any problem with that promotion of the general welfare?

 

I don't believe our elected representatives have a problem with promotion of the general welfare. You do know that the "general welfare" has to do with many things to include social programs, maintaining infrastructure, law enforcement etc., right? Why on earth would you think I would believe such a cockeyed thing? But to be sure you understand me, I believe they are better able to do just that because of the prosperity capitalism has generated, something socialism would never be able to afford.

 

The only problem with that line of reasoning, is that we still have simple poverty in our republic that Capitalism has no solution for. Social-ism does, even if only through free social morals regarding bearing true witness to our own laws.

Consider that persons of wealth, can simply hire counsel to "purchase" better privileges and immunities under our form of Capitalism, and is one reason for the Socialism of our supreme law of the land.

 

The fact of the matter is, there is relatively little actual poverty in our republic, in part because our capitalist economy increases prosperity such that we can assist the least of our people.

Baloney! Socialism does not create enough wealth to eliminate or reduce poverty to the same low levels that capitalism does. It simply does not have the capacity to do so as it reduces prosperity.

Certainly persons of wealth have the ability to purchase more comfort and a higher standard of living, but to introduce socialism would only reduce the number of people capitalism has raised out of poverty.

Instead of pursuing a failed system like socialism, we should focus on making capitalism take care of more people than it currently does. Socialism is not the answer to any question but that of making the leaders of state take over the role of the rich and causing everyone else to lose their status and wealth.

 

Socialism/communism or what ever "ism" you want to mention has NEVER worked.

 

I think what is obvious is, there is no perfect economic system; but in my opinion and based on my personal experiences and observations, the -ism which works best is regulated capitalism which results in sufficient prosperity to help the most needy of our people.

 

Capitalism provides no solution for a natural rate of unemployment. Socialism does provide social based solutions. Full employment of resources should be considered a benchmark Standard under any form of Socialism, but not Capitalism, naturally.

Introducing social programs without actually solving our social dilemmas is a form of socialism not for profit capitalism. You keep missing the point about Socialism requiring social morals for free.

 

Nothing provides a solution for a "natural rate of unemployment," . What is natural? Surely you don't believe that socialism's propaganda that everyone and all resources are fully employed, do you? The economic system which comes the closest to full employment of resources and labor is capitalism. Full employment is a bench mark for any economic system. The idea that socialism will employ everyone and create prosperity for the greater number of people is a pipe dream, not a reality. The natural rate of employment is deemed to be the structural rate of employment, and socialism will no more be able to eliminate it than capitalism, no matter what their propaganda says.

Definition of 'Structural Unemployment'

A longer-lasting form of unemployment caused by fundamental shifts in an economy. Structural unemployment occurs for a number of reasons – workers may lack the requisite job skills, or they may live far from regions where jobs are available but are unable to move there. Or they may simply be unwilling to work because existing wage levels are too low. So while jobs are available, there is a serious mismatch between what companies need and what workers can offer. Structural unemployment is exacerbated by extraneous factors such as technology, competition and government policy.
Growing technology in all spheres of life may increase future structural unemployment, since workers without adequate skills will get marginalized, while even those with skills may face redundancy given the high rate of technological obsolescence. ​

Social programs may be successful or they may not. Throwing money at a problem does not necessarily solve it. I miss none of your points, but in fact none of your points are the pie in the sky you think they are. Socialism will never have more moral people than capitalism because people are people. Some are good, some are not so good. Socialism will create less morality because there will be more dissatisfaction when the high achievers aren't rewarded for their contributions and they have to carry the low performers.

Your suggestion that any system is allows for more morality is nonsense. Human behavior is what human behavior will be. Because human nature is what makes the world go round is why after studying economics as a major when I got my MBA I chose to continue in graduate school until I got an EdS is psychology and counseling to study human behavior.

You cannot make the presumptions about morality will be under either system and since Socialism does not create the prosperity that Capitalism does, it is likely there will be more envy and less satisfaction with Socialism.

You are completely off base when you make assertions about morals.

 

You are welcome to take the opposing view on a hypothetical scenario and alternative, To simply being moral enough for free, to bear true witness as a social moral but not capital moral moral to our own supreme law of the land.

Let's assume, that due to the Socialism of States and Statism, that the inefficiency of a natural rate of unemployment engendered by capitalism is corrected for by socialism recognizing that market failure of Capitalism.

In the US, we have the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will. We should be solving simple poverty in our republic through that form of socialism.

 

Morality is a human behavior trait. It has nothing to do with the kind of economic system in place, though as a student of and graduate of psychology, the more repressive/oppressive a system is the quicker morals are thrown aside. Socialism requires significant repression/oppression to keep people in line, therefore it would more likely reflect a negative change in morality.

Why would anyone assume such nonsense?

Even if that assumption was true at the onset, it would quickly change negatively when the high achievers became subject to carrying the low achievers financially. But the assumption is simply a wild guess at what might happen.

Just a little tidbit thrown out for you to chew on. The ONLY condition in which enough people would ever even consider socialism is in a country in which the majority of the population lives in poverty; so they will try anything in the hopes it would work. The US has a citizenry of which the great majority are not living in poverty, and even the lowest quintile of wage earners who are near or below the poverty line, have a living standard that surpasses the bulk of the middle classes of the world. Basically capitalism has proved its worth and value by creating the most prosperous economy in the world. Why on earth would anyone be stupid enough to fall for some Bozo's speculation that Socialism would be good for them? At least take a stab at answering this instead of your typical special pleading for socialism in which you have not one time told us how you would accomplish putting socialism in place in a country where the people tend to be so prosperous?

In my opinion the ONLY way the US will ever adopt a system which has failed so many people in the world would be an armed resurrection of the minority over the majority with the installation of a dictatorial government.

Oh, and Daniel, is this why so many left wing nuts want to take away our 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms? You do know there are many millions of gun owners who would join our military in putting down such an insurrection, right?

 

You make it seem like the market for labor would not reach a new equilibrium at a new Standard fixed by that hypothetical public policy.

Why do you believe labor would be worse off by having recourse to unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines, simply for being able to claim to be unemployed or underemployed?

 

If you mean, do I believe that the market for labor would not reach full employment beyond what we have had historically, yes, I do believe that, in spades.

1. Unemployment compensation will not clear poverty.
2. A socialist government would not be able to provide for the poor and unemployed, especially since during down cycles revenue would be lower than up cycles.
3. In socialism (assuming if follows theoretical guidelines) the great majority of people who "receive according to their needs" would be much less prosperous than the majority of the people in our current system, thus we would have more unhappy citizens and only a few living high on the hog (the leaders of the repressive government needed to keep the people in line).
4. The discontent of the high achievers would build to the point of revolution when they tire of supporting the low achievers.
5. About the war to overthrow the government and socialism will begin, but this time the MAJORITY of the people would be fighting to get rid of socialism.

 

When I was a kid growing up in Louisiana, there was a commune in Southwest LA in which the people chose to share in the labor, in the fruits of labor. It was called "Socialist commune Llano Del Rio Cooperative Colony." It started off in the early 20th century and eventually petered out around 1939 after going bankrupt for the second time. Effectively what happened was their capital was gradually reduced to nothing, or as Margaret Thatcher would say, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of (other people's) money."

Socialism is not self sustaining.

 

Interest phenomena of a socialist leaning country. http://travel.yahoo.com/ideas/venezuelan-flights-book-months-in-advance-because-of-cash-scheme-173617945.html

 

An interesting article I read this morning relates to the fall of income.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-incomes-could-fall-next-30-years-151334171.html

Effectively the conclusions were relative to changing demographics, or in plain English, the dumbing down of the labor force in the US.

 

Why won't unemployment compensation clear poverty if it only may require sufficient subjectivity of social morals for free, through a moral of "goodwill toward men" for our elected representatives to reach an epiphany regarding the promotion of the general welfare in our republic, with existing legal and physical infrastructure; at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that may clear our poverty guidelines, and label it full employment of resources in our market for labor.

I am not sure why you believe what you do regarding social governments. All they require is a fiat social contract to create fiat money that is legal tender for all debts, public and private in a republic.

I agree to disagree with you that socialism is less efficient than capitalism in modern times. Socialism provides not merely for your special pleading, but also for "from each according to their ability" that may enable a form of synergy for the social, Body politic. Capitalism only provides for a profit motive and recognizes the subjective value of morals.

Socialism in action; what a concept.

I don't mind claiming socialism has a better use for capitalism than capitalism has for socialism.

 

Wow, but you do like long sentences. We have unemployment compensation now and it has not cleared poverty and there is no reason to believe it would do better in a socialist system. Actually, because in socialism prosperity always goes down it will become less and less possible to take care of any needy people, and that is presuming socialism has not yet been overthrown by disgruntled citizens who discover it did nothing to help the citizenry. Full employment of labor resources requires continuing to pay for unneeded labor with make work situations which do not produce prosperity. Even in a capitalist economy which creates much more wealth and revenue for the government we do not have enough money to totally eliminate poverty. Socialism will not be able to maintain even our current level of social programs.

You actually hit on two things in that sentence. I believe what I did because of my experiences before the military and living in start up of a socialist economy and observed its dismal failure. As to creating fiat money, we do that now; and if money is printed at a more rapid pace than now we likely would see the kind of inflation that hit Germany during the depression. In addition, the debts paid off with money of little value would destroy our economy as the people those worthless $$$ to are the drivers of our economy.

Your agreeing or not agreeing with me is irrelevant. If you are so stock on Socialism why not move somewhere with some like minded people and start your own commune.

Strike that, it is you doing the special pleading because you have yet to produce any discussion as to why you think socialism will work, whereas I have posted many supported arguments against socialism.

The people of ability will not for long continue to work according to their ability if they have to drag all the others along supporting them. Human nature tells that simply won't work.

Capitalism promotes the value of morals as much or more than socialism which fails everyone. Capitalism also is what creates the wealth which allows social programs to function.



Socialism in action; what a concept.

I don't mind claiming socialism has a better use for capitalism than capitalism has for socialism.[/QUOTE]

 

Where? Ancient Greece? Synergy
I don't mind claiming socialism has a better use for capitalism than capitalism has for socialism.No "socialism" (social programs) can function without capitalism creating the wealth; but even then social programs are not socialism. Symbiosis is required in any economic system and does not in and of itself suggest it is socialism. A good example of symbiosis in real life is in India: man and the cow are intertwined in life to the advantage of both. IE the sum of the both individually is not as much as when they are considered together.

 

Daniel, in several posts you have harped on the "morality" of Socialism. Given that socialism requires a very oppressive government to keep the people in line, and I don't mean simple law enforcement, why do you believe there is any positive morality in socialism? Are you talking about the people who have to be submissive to the "as to ability? or "as to need? concept?

I don't see any positive morals in a system of socialism.

 

I think it easy to see why this Commune failed.

Llano del Rio Cooperative Colony

Declaration of Principles

(as they were published in the 1920s)

The rights of the community shall be paramount over those of any individual.

Liberty of action is permissible only when it does net restrict the liberty of another.

Things used productively must be owned collectively.

Law is a restriction of liberty and is just only when operating far the benefit of the community at large.

Values created by the community shall be vested in the community alone.

The 'Individual is not justly entitled to more land than is sufficient to satisfy a reasonable desire for peace and rest. Productive land held for profit shall not be held by private ownership.

Talent and intelligence are benefits which should rightly be used in the service of others. The development of these by education is the gift of the community to the individual, and the exercise of greater ability entities none to the false reward of greater possessions, but only to the joy of greater service to others.

Only by identifying his interests and pleasures with those of others can man find real happiness.

The duty of the individual to the community is to develop ability to the greatest degree possible by availing himself of all educational facilities and to devote the whole extent of that ability to the service of all.

The duty of the community to the individual is to administer justice, to eliminate greed and selfishness, to educate all, and to aid in time of age or misfortune.

 

You seem to be missing the about being moral enough to bear true witness to our own (social) laws regarding employment at will, in a truer welfare-State. That is all we currently need to solve simple poverty in our republic using existing legal and physical infrastructure.

Full employment could be said to exist when the natural rate of unemployment reaches less than one percent.

The mechanism would be as simple as the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will can make it. Do we really need our elected representatives micromanaging anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines in any at-will employment State.