Kissinger, Pinochet, and America's unwillingness to learn.

[goat starer]

I would argue that the bill gates empire of 60,000 people doing fairly well means a world where 400 million africans have to do very badly and the poor people in the towns those employees live in have to do very badly as well (and we all have to put up with that bloody paperclip! yes I am writing a letter and have been writing letters successfuly since a 1mb computer was state of the art so I dont need lecturing by stationary!).

Bill Gates knows this which is why he tries to salvage his concience with pitifully small donations to tackle aids.

Free markets, are never in my view, free. They allow rich people to create increasingly unlevel playing fields which make it impossible for poor people to reach the marketplace (oooh OI love mixed metaphors!). hence the fact that no capitalist government has ever been even close to doing away with the barrioers and restrictions and some kind of basic safety net. They all know it doesn't work for most people but as long as it workd for the ones who vote and as long as the media is controlled by capitalists nothing will ever change.

[Aggie]

Side note (topic drift alert!):

Why do capitalist economies (particularily when you take it to the level of individual corporations) INSIST on showing continual growth? How the heck is this supposed to be a sustainable practice?  It's one aspect of capitalism as a system that I really don't understand.

[beagle]

Goat, by your disparity argument the poorer people are way in the majority. In a democracy therefore they should be able to elect a government which would raise the tax levels astronomically. If you remember back to when we had a 98% tax rate though this turned out to be disastrous for everybody.

But if it all gets too much Word can help.

http://files.myopera.com/Ron%20Popeli/albums/52435/FunnyPart-com-microsoft_word_suicide_detection%5B1%5D.gif

[ivor]

Where are the glimmering, jewel festooned towers of a successful socialist state? 

Certainly there is a large difference in incomes in the US but gangs of the unemployed aren't burning cars in the street here. 

MB

[goat starer]

Continual evolutionary development I can understand - continual growth is a very odd concept.

on the poor majority issue the media is controlled by rich people, the political parties are controlled by rich people. An ignorant majority is very comfortable for the affluent as they either will not or cannot exercise their democratic rights and if they do they end up propping up another indistinguishable party. Incidentally going back to the thread topic when they do exercise this right the CIA soon puts a stop to it!

There are some very serious poverty issues in the US. Katrina pointed out a few of them. Just because there is no visible revoluition happening does not mean that we should accept the status quo. I firmly believe that is not beyond the wit of man to make a society that is fairer - here there are not 12 year life span gaps between rich and poor and all the other features of western poverty - I dont believe (and have said this before) that some great revolution would help achieve this because we have seen what great revolutions end up in and it generally looks like even more extreme capitalism with the Zils, Dachas, money and power in the hands of a tiny minority.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Once again, I disagree with you.

Captialism is about equality of oppertunity, not of results. I realize that there are loosers for every winner, but then they have the option to move on or try again.
Africa, pardon my pickiness, is mostly run by dictators if I remember correctly, so it's a bad example.
And those dispartities, I would think, are caused by a lack of unions and such. That's why I like them. It's the people stepping up and fighting back, not the government.
I also disagree with you that the rich run everything. They are, admittidly, over represented in PACs and interest groups, but I would say that the disparty that you point out is cause by the fact that the poor simply don't vote as often as the wealthy or middle class, and that's their fault, frankly.
A free market is the only path to freedom, in my view, as long as there are unions, and the people have the will to stand together to fight for their rights.

Socialists and Libertarians are both in the minority the majority of the time.

Agujjim, I would venture tht the continual growth shows investors that their money is well spent.

[Sibling Chatty]

"poor simply don't vote as often as the wealthy or middle class, and that's their fault, frankly."

Especially when they're told they'll be arrested for any outstanding tickets, for welfare fraud (you're gettin' a gub'mint check, you ain't eligible to vote), for being ex-cons or related to ex cons, and a myriad of other little tricks.

Add to that the history of (and attempted return to) the poll tax.

Oh, yeah, their fault for sure. With a better education system, maybe, but as is?? Ha.

The shining towers of capitalism are wondrous things. They make it possible for the majority of our elderly and chronically ill to almost starve and freeze to death and be blamed for it.

[goat starer]

I dont want to appear argumentative here and I respect your opinion because I believe it to be sincerely held and based in a concept of social justice through equality of opportunity but I have to take issue with some of the points.

Captialism is about equality of oppertunity, not of results. I realize that there are loosers for every winner, but then they have the option to move on or try again.

This might be true if we all started from a level playing field but we do not. Every piece of research shows tthat poor people are less able to access 'opportunities' due to poor education standards, housing, health, environment etc. They are effectively trapped in a a cycle of deprivation. Children born into poor households by accident of birth suffer poor nutrition, education etc and cannot extricate themselves from the situation they are born ito. capitalism has broken down traditional class barriers (to an extent) but has created a new class system of those who can and do access opportrunity and those who cannot and become a sinking underclass. For the majority wealth distribution means that they recieve rather less than their labour might indicate they should whilst a tiny minority become very wealthy but more serious is the large minority that capitalim sidelines. From a purely selfish perspective dealing with the gap is really important because this is where crime is bred.

Africa, pardon my pickiness, is mostly run by dictators if I remember correctly, so it's a bad example.

I am aware people may disagree with me but to my mind most dictatorships are the ultimate embodiment of capitalism where one individual / group has 'won'.

Socialists and Libertarians are both in the minority the majority of the time.

would not disagree with this. It was true for those who believed the world was round, for evolutionists, for those who felt that slavery was wrong etc for most of human history. Market capitalism is a recent (in human terms) invention and the fact that I am in a majority does not necessarily mean I am wrong! 

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I'm enjoying the debate, Goat. Quite interesting, since the few Socialistic folks I know generally don't discuss these things with me.

Chlidren born into poor homes have the same oppertunity for an education as a middle class person. Public schools, cheap colleges with cholarships for everything. The governemnt offers huge discounts on school lunches, so at least some of the nutritional arguements are taken care of. There are governemnt programs that provide health care at a discount. If your arguement was true, then it would seem to me that no one ever gets out of that cycle, and they do. The US's attorney general Alberto Gonzales, is an example of that. His parents were migratory farm workers, as I remember. A person's ascent in economic status relies on their ingenuity and taking advatage of what's there, and capitalism is a good way to do that, in my opinion.

The dictator thing, I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree about that. ^^
Chatty: Being related to an ex con? What does that have to do with choosing not to vote? I can't see booth people chasing someone down for any of those reason, and I've never heard about that sort of thing, and we spent quite a while discussing voter discrimintation, so explain, please. And if you don't take advantage of what's avalible to you, that is your fault.

[goat starer]

the question I would have is why, if you are correct, is it that the vast majority of children born into poor families do less well than their affluent counterparts. Socio economic conditions at birth are a really good indicator of ultimate educational attainment, health and lifespan, liklihood of conviction for a criminal offence etc. There is to my mind a systemic failure inherant in capitalist systems that leads people from less affluent backgrounds to have lower expectations and aspirations because it is clear that most people are more likely to end up sweeping the streets than being Bill Gates.

The paraphrased marxist adage of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" seems to me to be correct. I dont like accidents of birth dictating success, affluence and health (whether that accident is being born into the royal family or being born less accademically gifted than another person). I know that I personally need binmen, nurses and street sweepers more than I need investment bankers but capitalism values wealth creation above real value. It essentially puts wealth, a human artificial concept, above the real needs of the individual.

I, and many others, choose to do a less well paid but socially responsible job. That is a personal choice but I really feel that a nation like the United States that was founded as a reaction against wealth and privilage should encourage people to do this rather than create a god out of monet as the measure of success.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Once again, I disagree with you.

Captialism is about equality of oppertunity, not of results. I realize that there are loosers for every winner, but then they have the option to move on or try again.

Pardon me for "cherry-picking" but this statement, I could not let go past.

Especially the one I embolded.

This is a false idea, for much of low-income America.  Just look at the HUGE number of poor folk who had zero method of getting out of the way of Hurricane Katrina.

But, even for the middle-class, there are USUALLY things in the way of them "moving on".

As for trying again- many times, it's the "whole enchilada" that was invested, and if the investment FAILS, these formerly "comfortable" people are now on the bitter edge of being really poor.

--------------

And, finally, I have to point out that your initial statement, "Captialism is about equality of oppertunity, not of results." is false, as well.

At least, it is not demonstratively true. It may be true in principle, but principle is rarely, if ever, applied here.

This is because the idea of "equal opportunity" is a myth.  Only folk with money, or access to money, have "equal opportunity". _{(just TRY to get a loan, if you are poor ...)}

The rest of the folk are left out in the cold, and used as stepping stones for those with the  cash.

Even getting a business loan, requires one to demonstrate that one has access to money.  The financial rules are old, and of the "good old boy" camp, and firmly keep the rich--rich, and the poor--poor.

But-- this is changing.  The micro-loan idea is one example of how. 

And, I think that it's frankly scaring the bejeezus out of the 'haves' ...

[goat starer]

The UK Government Document here outlines some of the barriers to people trying to enter the capitalist arena of entrepreneurialism. There seems to be no level playing field.


PS. where I said the US makes a god out of Monet above this should of course read Money. Monet was a good painter but was not a God   

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I realize that the family is a good indicator. I'm watching that happen again in my own extended family, but you CAN break the cycle. It's up to each individual to do so, however.

Again, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of unions to level the playing field.

The paraphrased marxist adage of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" seems to me to be correct.

My problem with that arguement is that there's no reason to do better. Bettering one's self finacially is a primary drive in doing better.

Bob- Feel free to do so.
Explain what prevents the middle class for moving on, please.
I disagree with you that it's a false idea. I personally think that your example of Katrina was because the governement was preventing true capitalism from happen. But hey, that's my opinion. I agree that banks sometimes do that, and I'm looking forward to someone filling the open niche of catering finacially to the poor with microloans. I hope it scares the 'haves,' because that's what captialism is about.

[Aggie]

Agujjim, I would venture tht the continual growth shows investors that their money is well spent.

Well spent in making my money worth less! *@*#&$ inflation!

[Swatopluk]

I'd say there could be a (more) level playing field, if children from rich families would be prevented from putting their parent's riches to use before they have shown that they can do without.
Someone like Dubya is a prime example of a non-achiever whose success is solely a result of family connections and money he has not earned (in both meanings of the word).
The example of a few risers from bottom to top is in my opinion a dead-beat argument all-too-often used to put the whole blame on the poor for not being/becoming millionaires.

Concerning Africa: How many of those dictators were/are neither our bastards nor those of somebody else outside the continent?

Returning to the original topic: There are few countries Kissinger can travel to without risking to be either assasinated or arrested and/or extradited. He has more dirt on his fingers than just Chile.
Btw, it is suspected that he had a direct hand in organizing the Pinochet takeover but court-proof evidence is lacking to my knowledge.
(In contrast, there is enough irrefutable evidence now to hang Reagan half a dozen times [hey, in the middle ages it was no problem to dig 'em up again and let due process take its way ])