Jump to content

US Politics: A Game of Chicken (with Constituents lives)


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

Capitalism is the single best economic system ever implemented. That doesn''t mean we couldn't try something better but as of now no system has been shown to reduce poverty more especially when tied with a generous welfare state, I also don't consider things like public education or healthcare to be socialist or noncapitalist as they are services and the production models that support these are fundementally capitalist. 

As for me I like capitalism, I like owning property, I like buying and selling goods, and I don't believe workers should control the means of production or capital. I don't see the need to give those things up when we can harness the engine of capitalism to ensure that everyone has food, education, healthcare and housing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Capitalism is the single best economic system ever implemented. That doesn''t mean we couldn't try something better but as of now no system has been shown to reduce poverty more especially when tied with a generous welfare state, I also don't consider things like public education or healthcare to be socialist or noncapitalist as they are services and the pruduction models that support these are fundementally capitalist. 

In fairness this is largely dependent upon what you value.  Different values are likely to make a far more socialized economic model more appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darzin said:

Capitalism is the single best economic system ever implemented. That doesn''t mean we couldn't try something better but as of now no system has been shown to reduce poverty more especially when tied with a generous welfare state, I also don't consider things like public education or healthcare to be socialist or noncapitalist as they are services and the pruduction models that support these are fundementally capitalist. 

As for me I like capitalism, I like owning property, I like buying and selling goods, and I don't believe workers should control the means of production or capital. I don't see the need to give those things up when we can harness the engine of capitalism to ensure that everyone has food, education, healthcare and housing. 

This doesn't seem accurate- it may reduce poverty in some areas but generally at the expense of keeping others in poverty.  Especially on a global scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Once upon a time, the divine right of kings was considered the best system of managing the economy and government to keep people out of poverty.  

Are you going to argue that Capitalist countries with generous social safety nets as in Europe and Canada are really hellscapes for most people in those countries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This doesn't seem accurate- it may reduce poverty in some areas but generally at the expense of keeping others in poverty.  Especially on a global scale.

Until the pandemic started, global poverty rates had been in steady decline for the past 25 years

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview#1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This feels like some are saying “captialism bad”… “socialism good” with absolutely no recognition of the nuance that exists between these two systems.  

It is setting up a false dichotomy assuming it has to be entirely one or the other.

  I don't see anyone, other than stupid extremist libertarians, arguing for absolutely no regulations or control of the government in the economy. However, a lot of neo-Marxist types argue for ending capitalism altogether.

47 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This doesn't seem accurate- it may reduce poverty in some areas but generally at the expense of keeping others in poverty.  Especially on a global scale.

Except you know pretty well, that every single of those poor areas was already poor- in fact, poorer- long before capitalism existed.  If capitalism ended worldwide, Bolivia or Haiti wouldn't turn in to a workers paradise, in fact they would be much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

No - but it is unarguable that capitalist countries with generous social safety nets as in Europe and Canada mostly maintain those non-hellscape standards of living by either directly exploiting, or relying on countries like the U.S., China, and Russia to exploit, poor and underdeveloped nations for their natural resources, cheap labor, and corrupt governments.

So, what evidence do you have that Socialist systems would be better?  Have you looked at the environmental record of formerly “socialist” nations like the Soviet Union and the PRC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

  I don't see anyone, other than stupid extremist libertarians, arguing for absolutely no regulations or control of the government in the economy. However, a lot of neo-Marxist types argue for ending capitalism altogether.

There are plenty in the Trumpanista lead Republican Party who go apoplectic at the mere mention of anything that hints of socialism or marxist philosophy to any degree.  Please don’t try to pretend like we aren’t seeing alarming degrees of extremism from the right side of the aisle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you going to argue that Capitalist countries with generous social safety nets as in Europe and Canada are really hellscapes for most people in those countries?

Of course not and it's a good thing I said nothing like that...Do you think the wealth of Europe and North America would have been possible without cheap materials and labor from overseas?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ran said:

You are sending this out on a hosted forum by typing the above on a device that sends it over a network made up of millions of miles of wires and cables being routed by complex machinery and software that are powered by electrical generators fueled by various forms of energy from renewables to fossil, and every step of that is the work of capitalism.

Every. Single. Step.

You can convince me that there are problems with capitalism, but you'll never be able to convince me that the solution is that capitalism must be done away with. Until such time as we reside in a Star Trek/Culture future of post-scarcity, capitalism seems, like democracy, to be the worst form of economy, except for everything else we've tried.

 

 

 

The network you are referring to is an evolution of Arpanet, a fully funded government project with zero capitalism involved. Key steps in its evolution were funded by NSF (government organization), CERN (international government organization). IETF? Started out by the US government. IANA? Likewise. ICANN? Depended on US government for funding.

Depending on where you are sitting, your telecom and electrical utility company may or may not be privately-owned, but the majority of the world's population uses electricity provided by a government-owned monopoly - even in North America, if you are living in, say, Quebec. Renewable energy? Wouldn't exist in a market-acceptable form without government support and subsidies in early stages. Nuclear power? Came as a result of government research. Those transmission lines? Good luck building them without government support (eminent domain).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Of course not and it's a good thing I said nothing like that...Do you think the wealth of Europe and North America would have been possible without cheap materials and labor from overseas?

 

I don’t know.  But claiming Norway, Sweden, Demark, and Finnland are aggressive imperialists… is a tad off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

On a different note, today we have to ask the annual question, why is Columbus Day still a thing?

Because who doesn't want a day off? And the purpose of the day is slowly changing; every year more places are calling it Indigenous Peoples Day.

But also, it's worth remembering that the Day was first created at a time when Italian Americans weren't really considered White and faced a lot of discrimination (the day was first declared shortly after 11 Italian Americans were lynched in New Orleans). The holiday was to make them more included and note their place in the history of the US. Granted, even at the time it should've been called Vespucci Day instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I''m all for some kind of regulation to protect workers in third world countries and the goods they send to the first world that would also help re-industrialize the first world a win win. But I don't think Capitalism needs that to prosper nor is global colonialism in inherrent part of capitalism. Look at Norway's model of investing their national fund as a way to promote human rights. Or that the scandinavian countries in general are prosperous despite never having vast colonial empires.

Ever since we've had complex societies we've had trade and mediums of exchange and currency I don't see a need to get rid of these when we have models that work pretty well with them. I think trying to supress money would go about as well as the drug war and you'll get a huge black market with unofficial currency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Can you be legally punished or fined by your boss for quitting or leaving town to get a better job than the one you already have?

That did happen UNDER UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM ALL THE TIME.  Look at Jim Crow, i.e. 'slavery by another name.'

But, ya, no white men, so OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the -ism's. Its people. You might get a better ride in another vehicle, but ultimately, the driver decides the destination.

Also, I think the definition of capitalism we're talking about has been very flexible and interpreted both broadly and narrowly to suit the argument. It's rather disingenuous. If I follow the logic that capitalism = trade = the means to be wealthy, then does that mean that impoverished countries do not participate in trade? Its really a matter of having the means (resources or capital, not method) to do so. That's where people are at with capitalism increasing inequality. Not if they participate in trade or not.

39 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I''m all for some kind of regulation to protect workers in third world countries and the goods they send to the first world that whould help re-industrialize the first world.

Sure, that's what everyone says. But when push comes to shove, most people go with it's always not in my backyard, I can't afford to do so and a host of other reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...