Trade agreements...

[Swatopluk]

My sophisticated economic theory is that there are 2 types of societies: envy-driven and greed-driven.
The latter is based on "more for me", the former on "the others should not have more than I have".

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

The rich are getting richer and "we all" benefit from that??

Speak for yourselves.

Down here where the disabled, the elderly, the folks at the bottom of the food chain live...no we don't.

Prices go up, but low end wages don't. Disability doesn't. And the NAFTA crap has cost so many jobs in the US that the Very Poor are the fastest growing demographic in former manufacturing states.

I'm sorry, I might have been a little too generalizing in my post... I was just more or less quoting Adam Smith and his approach, I never ment to say that the poor should be forgotten, or that everybody is benefitting.

Capitalism isn't perfect, no system is... But at the moment, it's the beste we got...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Capitalism isn't perfect, no system is... But at the moment, it's the beste we got...

I don't question the fact stated but its common use as an excuse (I'm not implying that is the case in this discussion though).

My opinion is that capitalism alone will not solve the problems of inequality. Swato's post is actually quite on target: it would seem that we are supposed to choose between greed and envy, as if no other alternatives were possible. I don't foresee the demise of capitalism (unless we go back to small nomad tribes where survival is much more important than property), but I would welcome ways to get around its most obvious flaws, and/or at least provide universal nutrition, shelter, healthcare and access to education. That would seem like an impossibility but technology can provide answers to those problems if there is a real interest to solve them (ie: the world produces more food than it is needed to sustain its current population but it is so unevenly distributed that an obscene amount of people suffers from hunger).

[Alpaca]

I think that the fundamental problem we are struggling with is the inability of "free-market everything" and "socialized everything" to coexist. In America, at least, I see our government as having to balance a capitalist economy and an attempt at a welfare state. We run into trouble where the two seem to conflict. For instance, we're having so much conflict about the state of Medicare and Medicaid right now because those are two healthcare services provided by the government for its people, but the healthcare industry itself is, well, an industry, and people wanna turn a profit. Hence, the socialized healthcare the government is attempting to provide crashes into cutthroat competition.

I think that in order to achieve a balance, we need to define what it is exactly that the government should provide for its citizens. Having determined this, the government should provide it - payed for by tax dollars, executed by civil servants, not subcontractors. Corporations and capitalists ought to play no part in these services. Then, once the government can provide its people with what they need, the rest can be left open to the capitalists and completely deregulated.

This plan, of course, is an idealization, and is, I believe, impractical. The problem is that our world is incredibly interconnected! You can say that the government needs to build the roads, but does that mean the government also needs to operate the machinery? Make the cement? Mine the ore for the structural supports? Make the mining equipment? It's impossible, in the end, to "draw the line." But what we can do, I think, is to write laws that would give government (and hence its people) and corporate America no incentive to compete against each other.

[jjj]

Chile is far more advanced than Africa, yet N.-Americans doing little to help Sth.-America's development. Instead they continue exploiting them the 'modern/ human right's way', by setting up huge shopping complexes and soliciting high prices (...those 'customer lifters'!).
For instance, in Chile is only one USA company distributing food supplements: GNC !! Their prices are about three to four times that I pay online from USA (swansonvitamins).
It's, because most Chileans are poor, unable to understand English and have no computers... so, GNC robs them!!! There's just no excuse for it! This goes through the whole economy... The Spaniards do the same!

To really advance an underdeveloped country one needs to offer incentive to the public in form of an affordable small business loan, enabling the greater majority to partake in the development of the economy... and most-importantly, stop exploiting them!!!
No wonder Chavest & Castro call Bush 'the devil' and desperately tries to come up with a socialist formula to improve living standard of S.-Americans. If they succeed Bush sends them weapons... as happened in Chile.

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

No wonder Chavest & Castro call Bush 'the devil' and desperately tries to come up with a socialist formula to improve living standard of S.-Americans.

From personal experience I can say that socialistic economical systems (everything is in the hand of the community) is no solution. I've lived in the Czech Republic and Yugoslavia during the communist regimes, lived through the transition in the Czech Republic and saw the economical boom after a (rather problematic - but that's not the issue right now) privatisation. I have close bonds to Serbia (former Yugoslavia) and I'm seeing the economical progress over there as well.

Yes, of course, many people don't like the transition process that has been taking place in these two countries, because, "thanks" to the socialist agenda, everbody had a job. Even though the job was not necessary, because for example the factory wasn't profiting and the people were paid from money that wasn't there, and after the fall of the socialis regime, many people stayed unemployed. In a short-term, the people are unhappy, they were secure, they had something. Now they don't have anything, until the exonomy is revitalized. Now the Czech Republic has one of the lowest unemployment rate in the EU, and making great economical progress.

Socialism isn't the solution for the problems that are taking place in South America. That's my opinion.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Being from South America, I have some different perception of things.

On one hand I do not like, endorse or promote any form of authoritarian regime be it from the left or from the right (and we have had them both). The communist approach used in Cuba and in Nicaragua for a while while trying to solve the problems of the bottom part of the society, showed themselves as authoritarian, reaching unacceptable levels (in Cuba particularly at the beginning of the revolution) and sadly Chavez' regime is moving in the same direction. That is not ignoring that a large portion of the population that had been ignored and abused for centuries got something out of it (check the statistics on literacy and health on Cuba and compare them to its values previous to the revolution).

On the other hand, right wing (and I should say fascist because it can hardly be anything else) dictatorships, killed thousands of people across the continent, and created a regime of terror that even today stirs the affected sectors of the population.

Is it and ideological problem? I am very cynic on that point because I no longer believe that any politician out there really cares about his country or the well being of its people. They just want the power for themselves and will say anything to get it, be it left or right, and because the extremes are more appealing to the masses they will likely go in that way.

I like social democracies in which there is a balance between individual and business interests, but some conditions are required to achieve that balance. A functional justice system tends to be key. A critical mass of educated population seems to be the other.

[Alpaca]

I have a very close friend who is a Communist, or at least calls himself one.

He's not a politician. He means his beliefs in the most sincere, noble way. I agree with his principles wholeheartedly. His ultimate vision would be a world without countries, without government, functioning in perfect harmony by the individual motivation of every individual person doing what he or she an do best to help society.

It's a nice vision, and I'd love it. I disagree with it completely, though, and with the notion of Communism in general. I'm too cynical. I don't think that all people in the world can put aside self-interest and work for the benefit of all around them (not to mention the logistical nightmare!). I think it's against our nature as creatures that have successfully evolved to arguable dominance over the ecosystem.

My parents grew up in Communist Poland. They say, with ironic smiles, that the only thing wrong with Communism is people.

My friend disagrees. He says that the reason it failed in the East was Stalin. It failed in Cuba because of Castro.

QED, I think.

[Aggie]

My parents grew up in Communist Poland. They say, with ironic smiles, that the only thing wrong with Communism is people.

I think that's a pretty correct assessment, actually.  There's far too many people in most nations for it to work.  By my best estimate, anything over 100 is probably too much.

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

I like social democracies in which there is a balance between individual and business interests, but some conditions are required to achieve that balance.

I have no problem with social democracies. I have a problem with socialist regimes that tend to destry the economy by enforcing a (rather utopian) idea. The majority of European countries are social democracies and one of the few problems I've noticed in this is, that people tend to abuse the social part of it (for example a big problem now in Europe is that many people don't work, because the state provides for them, so no necessity to work).

Anyway IMO, the idea Karl Marx had, about a socialistic regime etc, wasn't bad as an idea. But it was abused by communist regimes throughout the world. With a little elaboration, the system could have worked, but (as stated above), people destroyed it...

[Aggie]

Anyway IMO, the idea Karl Marx had, about a socialistic regime etc, wasn't bad as an idea. But it was abused by communist regimes throughout the world. With a little elaboration, the system could have worked, but (as stated above), people destroyed it...

Heh, this is kind of how I feel about capitalism. 

I think what I would like is communist-capitalism; workers owning 'private' businesses, with caps on maximum ownership (capped by dollar earnings or percentage, whichever is greater) on each corporate entity.  In other words, small business can be totally private to a certain profit level; after that point, workers must be given easy opportunities to buy in.  Each 'work commune' is small enough to manage, workers control the majority vote in larger firms, but commerce is overall run privately.   Let's see a company outsource labour when the bulk of the shares are owned by the labourers... 


Of course, politics and greed would kill it, same as anything else.

[jjj]

Socialism isn't the solution for the problems that are taking place in South America. That's my opinion.

I totally agree, because I'm born in East Germany and we past through these very changes. Yet, out of desperation many S-Americans believe only solidarity can improve their appalling living conditions.

I

s it and ideological problem? I am very cynic on that point because I no longer believe that any politician out there really cares about his country or the well being of its people.

Few Chileans politicians. Whenever I meet young people, I try to get to them the idea to form a party, progressive ideas and so, outvote the government of old, sordid politicians enjoying a stranglehold on power.

Communism is

...a nice vision!

And so is the vision of 'paradise', yet society is unable to realize it.

Heh, this is kind of how I feel about capitalism.  Wink

Capitalism is undoubtedly the better of the two devils! The good thing about capitalism is that it is amendable and hopefully this won't be abused.

[The Meromorph]

Heh, this is kind of how I feel about capitalism.  Wink

Capitalism is undoubtedly the better of the two devils! The good thing about capitalism is that it is amendable and hopefully this won't be abused.

Unfortunately, that's where my agreement with what you're saying becomes vitiated.

[Alpaca]

I don't think a government can ever be quite perfect. Humans are competitive, Darwin-style. It's how we got to where we are. We put our trust in government, and hope that the government will function as a single entity, not as a group of human beings who still have their own motives. As long as people in government aren't completely selfless, that is, inhuman, government will have flaws.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I don't think that any human construct can be perfect. There will always be the problem of theory vs practice. In theory the government has the people's best interests at heart, in practice it may become a tool of profit for those in power and/or those who help place those in power. In theory private enterprises have long term profits as its main goal, in practice quick profits without care for long term consequences are far more common. In my eyes there is a difference: a government is supposed to have a moral compass; it is possible for a business to sustain profits without moral considerations.

In any case checks and balances are required.