Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[pErvinalia]

Take as many data points as you want. The outcome will be the same.

Rerun history fifty times and then another fifty but with the west championing socialism and the east capitalism, and then get back to me.

SD's argument is always going to be a begging the question fallacy. His conclusion is a given as he proceeds from an assumption (freedum - by a particular narrow definition) that he holds ideologically as true.

[Strontium Dog]

Take as many data points as you want. The outcome will be the same.

Rerun history fifty times and then another fifty but with the west championing socialism and the east capitalism, and then get back to me.

What difference would that make to anything?

[Strontium Dog]

SD's argument is always going to be a begging the question fallacy.

SD's argument is observable reality. Though of course, even if liberty produced inferior outcomes, that still wouldn't be an argument against liberty, which is an inherent good.

[JimC]

SD's argument is always going to be a begging the question fallacy.

SD's argument is observable reality. Though of course, even if liberty produced inferior outcomes, that still wouldn't be an argument against liberty, which is an inherent good.

Neither is "liberty" an all-or-nothing proposition. We all have a certain amount of restrictions on what we can or cannot do, many of them because they lead to improvements in the common good. As I said in an earlier post, there is a continuum here, in terms of how much abrogation of personal freedom for public good is to be considered reasonable. There is (and should be) debate and argument over what section of the continuum suits any given society, with most people abjuring the crazed libertarians at one extreme, and the rigid totalitarian state at the other. In the end, however imperfectly, the ballot box gives people some ability to influence the position they prefer their society to adopt...

[pErvinalia]

SD's argument is always going to be a begging the question fallacy.

SD's argument is observable reality. Though of course, even if liberty produced inferior outcomes, that still wouldn't be an argument against liberty, which is an inherent good.

I.e your argument is circular.

It seems to me that the problem is really a case of large groups of humans interacting. On a small scale with local units I suspect both capitalism and socialism would work fine. But as the units get larger they get more impersonal and that opens the way to detached exploitation. It looks as though that's probably just as likely in capitalism as in socialism. Although, from a social condition perspective, socialism is less likely to result in one seeing one's fellow humans as competitors and threats to your survival.

[Scot Dutchy]

Socialism gives a happier country. Absolute poverty does not exist.

[rainbow]

Free market capitalism exists in social democracy.

Drivel, it is a contradiction in terms.

Capitalism is the antithesis of a free market.

Capitalism is the antithesis of a free market? What economic system would you say is consistent with a free market?

Market Socialism.

Under Capitalism it is allowed to accumulate and own the means of production. This is anti-market as it removes free competition to sell one's labour.

Of course you know that.

Why are you acting dumb?

Under capitalism "it? is allowed to accumulate and own the means of production? What's the "it" you're referring to?

I'm not sure how a free market removes free competition to sell one's labor.

It doesn't.

Capitalism destroys the free market.

Please pay attention.

[Scot Dutchy]

Exploitation of workers is the name of the game for capitalism or does 42 find that a difficult concept? Playing off people against each other and making sure wages are low as possible. No permanent contracts and no job security. Why does he thinks America is so inefficient? Does he think it is normal for someone having to work three jobs just make ends meet? Why American kids are so unhappy?

Capitalism looks after a minority. Socialism looks after everyone.

[JimC]

Exploitation of workers is the name of the game for capitalism or does 42 find that a difficult concept? Playing off people against each other and making sure wages are low as possible. No permanent contracts and no job security. Why does he thinks America is so inefficient? Does he think it is normal for someone having to work three jobs just make ends meet? Why American kids are so unhappy?

Capitalism looks after a minority. Socialism looks after everyone.

Historically, a very important counter to this exploitation has been the rise of unions. Individually, a single worker is dwarfed by the power of a large company. United, workers can use their collective power, backed by the ultimate reply of strike action, to bargain over wages and conditions much more effectively.

[Scot Dutchy]

Exploitation of workers is the name of the game for capitalism or does 42 find that a difficult concept? Playing off people against each other and making sure wages are low as possible. No permanent contracts and no job security. Why does he thinks America is so inefficient? Does he think it is normal for someone having to work three jobs just make ends meet? Why American kids are so unhappy?

Capitalism looks after a minority. Socialism looks after everyone.

Historically, a very important counter to this exploitation has been the rise of unions. Individually, a single worker is dwarfed by the power of a large company. United, workers can use their collective power, backed by the ultimate reply of strike action, to bargain over wages and conditions much more effectively.

Unions have to be recognised. In capitalism there is no place for unions. Collective powers only happens when it is allowed and respected. Just bring in other workers. Unions are easily broken in a capitalist world. Solidarity is only a question of time.

[JimC]

I disagree. Unions have been a vital component in Australian society for a long time, and have given working people a voice and influence that would not be possible as individuals.

[Scot Dutchy]

I disagree. Unions have been a vital component in Australian society for a long time, and have given working people a voice and influence that would not be possible as individuals.

Only because they have been allowed. Unions were broken throughout history. The only exist if legally allowed. In Britain since their conception. In America between the wars and afterwards. The only 'strong' unions in America were run by the mafia or Joe Kennedy. Thatcher broke the mine workers using 'scabs'.
Here we have had always unions but Dutch law brought in workers councils in which other elected workers (non-union), union reps and manager reps took part. If the company was over a certain size there has to be appointed a board of commissioners to supervise the board of directors. The commissioners have the right to sack the directors. The whole board if required (which happened in my former company). Commissioners also have a seat in the workers council so that workers can complain about the directors. The commissioners also approve directors salaries and bonuses. The commissions are appointed by the directors but have no further say over them. All this fits into the Dutch culture of negotiation and leads to very few strikes.

[Brian Peacock]

Blah blah blah...

[Alan B]

At present, capitalism allows the psychopathically greedy to flourish at the expense of the people who provide their resource.

[pErvinalia]

The 5 richest people in the world own more than the poorest 3.5 billion or so (many of whom are starving) combined. If anyone thinks this is desirable state of affairs, they are a sociopath.