Of course it's not capitalism. It's a socialistic aspect of the mixed economy that all western countries run.Hermit wrote:Yes. With the possible exception of rEvolutionist who seems to argue that the welfare state is not capitalism,Brian Peacock wrote:Indeed. In my page-1 post I raised a similar point...
Brian Peacock wrote:...Market economics certainly generates fiscal resources - when those resources are shared around the livings standards of all are raised, and societies become more stable, peaceful and ordered, better educated, more productive and innovative, healthier, infant mortality falls and population growth levels off as a consequence. Given that capitalism is the dominant economic system I guess the questions is, how many dyed-in-the-wool ideological capitalists are interested in raising the living standards of society as a whole - as opposed to simply securing assets for their exclusive use - and what structural influence can we bring to bear in order to ensure that the system works for all those who have little or no choice about taking part in it?
What possible exception? I haven't argued whether capitalism is or isn't the best system. Right from my first serious post in this thread I attempted to introduce the nuance that 42 has yet to grasp, that of the concept of a mixed economy. It makes no sense to claim socialised health, education, housing, unemployment benefits etc, paid through redistribution of wealth, as "capitalism". This false dichotomy, and a ridiculously lop-sided one, that says that everything bar almost total non-private ownership of the means of production is capitalism, is ridiculous. We have laissez-faire capitalism on one end, socialism on the other end, and in between is varying mixes of the two. And you find that the poor are supported less by the welfare state in those economies/societies that operate closer to laissez-faire. If capitalism is the solution to poverty, why was the laissez-faire of the late 1800's such a fucking terrible time for those other than the robber-barons? And despite 42's misuse of the OECD BLI, it's perfectly obvious to those of us in stronger welfare states that you would be way better off poor here than there. 42 might claim that due to the great wealth that capitalism has generated in the US that the rich can afford to provide the high levels of charity that they do, and that the poor are looked after by this mechanism. The only problem with this is that charity drops off in tough economic times, which are the times that poor people need support the most. In our welfare states, they get the same amount of help regardless of the state of the economy.we all made that point at some stage or another. Apart from that possible exception nobody has argued that capitalism is not the best solution for poverty.
And that's not to mention again something that I always raise in these threads, and that virtually no one other than Psychoserenity and Animavore understands, is that the alleged prosperity of the US (and our own countries) is false. It's built on MASSIVE levels of debt, both financial and environmental. What's so fucking hard to understand about this point? And this isn't just addressed to 42? Why is it the rest of you never seem to mention this point, a point which is the most obvious counter to our 'capitalistic' prosperity, and the most obvious counter to any continued prosperity long term?? There's literally no other argument, nuanced or not, that needs to be made. This sinks the idea that the West is a prosperous place. We've stolen wealth via historical colonialism, continue to steal it via economic colonialism, and the rest is borrowed from banks and the natural capital that provides all the natural services (like clean air, water, pollination, fertiliser, food chains, medicine etc) that we rely on for our existence on the planet.