The welfare state stuff isn't going to go over well for the same reason free trade and pro immigration won't. Same root cause.
"I've got mine so fuck you"?
The welfare state stuff isn't going to go over well for the same reason free trade and pro immigration won't. Same root cause.
You what? Capitalism has been the major driver in reducing global poverty for the last 50+ years. There are now less people starving, less people dying all preventable illnesses, less people living in poverty etc. Inequality has been falling.That's what brought the planet to the state it's in, what drives the ever growing inequality
I'd say freedom of press, human rights campaigns, and technological and government accountability have been more effective than economic factors overall. You have a minor point, however.You what? Capitalism has been the major driver in reducing global poverty for the last 50+ years. There are now less people starving, less people dying all preventable illnesses, less people living in poverty etc. Inequality has been falling.
A lot of the places that have seen the largest benefits don't have those things, though - but they do have fundamentally market based economies that sillys demand elsewhere in the works.I'd say freedom of press, human rights campaigns, and technological and government accountability have been more effective than economic factors overall. You have a minor point, however.
I mean, socialism weakening markets is correct if you think abolishing is a form of weakening. I think you and Giant Panda might be debating the impacts of socialism without having a shared definition of what it is you're debating, so you might just be talking past each other.
Also, any system that caused economic development would have caused environmental damage because people just weren't taking the environment into account, due to externalities
The best way to save the environment and climate is thus to create a market for preserving it.
And finally, your US points are stated in the most melodramatic way possible. Your more lucid critiques are due to the welfare system needing a rework, not capitalism.
Your comment on job security is very vague, but I'd like to point out that much job security is actually a bad thing. It makes companies extremely afraid to hire anyone if they also have a very hard time to fire people or lay them off.
Strengthening competition, fighting corruption, and a better welfare system are the answer. The first two at least are very actually made worse under socialism, which leaves less welfare to distribute.
You what? Capitalism has been the major driver in reducing global poverty for the last 50+ years. There are now less people starving, less people dying all preventable illnesses, less people living in poverty etc. Inequality has been falling.
You what? Capitalism has been the major driver in reducing global poverty for the last 50+ years. There are now less people starving, less people dying all preventable illnesses, less people living in poverty etc. Inequality has been falling.
Well if we're going to play the citation needed game, then I could just as easily say citation needed for any of your assertions. Clearly there's no convincing each other. I only hope your ideas never get power.Citation needed.
Citation needed. Do you also wanna specify those 'externalities'? I'm sure that once again they'll be independent from capitalism.
This is some nonsense alright. After decades of climate destruction due to unchecked capitalism, your argument is that capitalism is climate's best chance. Thanks for the laugh. The only reason we are still struggling to deal with this problem is because of capitalist interests. In a society where profit is not the driving force, the incentives to implement non profitable but altogether beneficial solutions grow exponentially. Relying on the market to impose limits that stunt its growth is infantile.
You will have to explain what is melodramatic about my examples. You seem to be under the impression that these systems exist outside of the influence of capitalist systems. They don't. The reason why there is no healthcare system worth its salt in the US, why the infrastructure is crumbling, why education has been destroyed, why the democratic system is all but eroded is capitalism and the overbearing power it exerts on all facets of US society. When profit is the driver of every decision, you end up with mass prison slavery, bounty hunters prowling the streets, crippling student debt, completely insane healthcare costs, etc. I could spend the entire night giving examples of shit that just doesn't work because of capitalism.
You know what's a truly bad thing? Not knowing if you'll have a job next week and wonder if you'll have to be forced to live on the street. Having to work slavish hours on shitty jobs for pennies that won't even pay the rent. Be in the servitude of people like Bezos and co.. Living an entire life in the service of enriching some fuck you'll never know and dying in misery. The more capitalist a society becomes, the less rights the workers have and the more latitude corporations have to just do as they please. Even to buy legislation to benefit them. There are hundreds of millionaires and corporations that contribute absolutely nothing to society. They are merely leeches sucking the wealth derived from the labor of the plebs. This is capitalism. Accumulation of wealth is the end game.
You seem to both have a misunderstanding of the actual effects of capitalism on a macro scale and a lack of imagination regarding the possibilities and advantages of a society centered around socialism. A society whose purpose is to take care of all its members on equal measure, instead of leaving it in the hands of this imaginary 'free market' that has never and will never exist. Socialism puts its resources at the service of all society, capitalism not only permits but incentivizes greed and accumulation of resources. Socialism breeds community and promotes equality. Capitalism breeds and promotes psychopathy. Capitalism is a failed system for the majority of the population. And it gets worse the longer it goes. The inequalities will only grow.
I feel like the Trump administration has turned me into a full blown socialist.
To answer your question, though, yes, I would rather trust the government taking a portion of my paycheck to pay for certain things like healthcare. Better than trusting a private corporation to do the same as they pocket a large chunk of it as profit and then factor in my "pre-existing conditions" as they weigh my health and life against their profit margins.
You what? Capitalism has been the major driver in reducing global poverty for the last 50+ years. There are now less people starving, less people dying all preventable illnesses, less people living in poverty etc. Inequality has been falling.
I mean you're the one making incredibly wild claims as fact, insulting other members by implying they "don't understand economics" (where a large part of economic science DOES suggest many forms of socialism are highly desireable) and applying incredibly general statements that could apply to literally anything in order to make your point. All without providing any type of source. Expect to get called out on it if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.Well if we're going to play the citation needed game, then I could just as easily say citation needed for any of your assertions. Clearly there's no convincing each other. I only hope your ideas never get power.
I mean, socialism weakening markets is correct if you think abolishing is a form of weakening. I think you and Giant Panda might be debating the impacts of socialism without having a shared definition of what it is you're debating, so you might just be talking past each other.
These kind of posts always conveniently ignore the thousands of years of human and social evolution that happened before the idea of capitalism was even conceived, while assuming that none of the benefits that arose under capitalism would arise (and have arisen) under any other system, and also gloss over the specific problems that capitalism did bring us.
This is a seesaw, not a tide that raises all people.
You can take the bolded, invert all of those arguments to their opposites, and now you have America. This is the problem: we are expanding relative poverty while tackling absolute poverty. One can argue these may in fact be opposing forces. The poorer nations have waves of people having improved lives, while the richer nations get the opposite, especially if they enact neoliberal policies.
But it doesn't assume that. What it *does* assume is that the distribution of work is done in the most effective way, rather than for the benefit of pursuing other goals (central planning, specifically giving people jobs etc). As globalisation continued, lots of production and industry that used to be done in the west was outsourced to Asia and South America. This gave the people in these places significant boosts in wealth because they were now making goods in far greater numbers than their own domestic markets could fuel. Meanwhile the west gets cheaper goods and enabled their economies to graduate to high quality service economies, in turn making them generally richer too. If you can tell me of another economic system that would have a) driven technology towards the ends we have now and b) would have lead to this distribution, I'm all ears. Usually at this point, though, people decrying capitalism point to some sort of internationalist socialism which has absolutely no grounding in reality, or otherwise point to Scandinavia as though that isn't an example of capitalism working wonders.
But it doesn't assume that. What it *does* assume is that the distribution of work is done in the most effective way, rather than for the benefit of pursuing other goals (central planning, specifically giving people jobs etc).
As globalisation continued, lots of production and industry that used to be done in the west was outsourced to Asia and South America. This gave the people in these places significant boosts in wealth because they were now making goods in far greater numbers than their own domestic markets could fuel. Meanwhile the west gets cheaper goods and enabled their economies to graduate to high quality service economies, in turn making them generally richer too.
If you can tell me of another economic system that would have a) driven technology towards the ends we have now and b) would have lead to this distribution, I'm all ears. Usually at this point, though, people decrying capitalism point to some sort of internationalist socialism which has absolutely no grounding in reality, or otherwise point to Scandinavia as though that isn't an example of capitalism working wonders.
For the benefit of those who control the means of production and its product. And to the detriment of the actual workers. The former reap all the benefits and are free to do as they please. The latter are nothing more than indentured servants, whose destiny depends on the whims of their owners. You might see that as a good thing. I don't.