U.S. Universal Healthcare

[Azarkon]

uh, hate to tell you but these things are not a result of capitalism.  the reason there is outsourcing is because these other countries do not have protections on wages like we do in the US.  protections on wages are a problem of SOCIALISM.  capitalism is based on the free market and this goes for wages as well.  minimum wage and states like california setting other wage limits on salaried employees is socialism, not capitalism, and the very reason jobs are shopped out.  allow market demands to set salaries and there will be no need to outsource.

 

sorry, but you need to get your facts straight.

 

Er... Yes, but that isn't my point. The protections on wages maintain the high living standard of the US. If we were to compete without wage inflation against the likes of China, it *is* true that we'd have less outsourcing, but it'd also seriously affect the wealth of the country. Globalization under free market economy leads, eventually, to the equalization of per capita income (between nations, not individuals, which is really the problem), which given the number of people in the US, basically means that we'll have 1/5th or less of the economic influence of a country like China. It's a lose-lose situation for the US.

 

Read this for an article expressing this view: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH20Dj01.html

 

Now, presuming that you're not a nationalist who wants to preserve US living standards (as most people arguing for free market capitalism tends to be, rather ignorantly), there is still the issue of rich becoming richer, poor becoming poorer, that is *the* natural outcome of free market globalization. Tell me, in a world where money creates money, how can you ever hope to (with a free market economy, no socialism, etc.) prevent the gap between rich & poor from enlarging (and thus the incentive for a violent revolution?)

 

plus, btw, nearly every socialist program has either failed, or is failing.  the richest countries in the world are the most capitalist, and the third world countries that are gaining are all implementing capitalist reforms as well (china, for example).  as soon as these countries that are gaining ground take steps to protect their trade and wages, they will suffer the same problems as the rest of the world.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A country being rich is not productive towards a better, more prosperous society when it is concentrated in a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. China's adoption of free market capitalism has led to it being a country of 300 million well-to-dos and 1 billion poor-as-jack peasants. Free market capitalism leads, inevitably, to exploitation in order to stay competitive, and there's no indication that the living standards of everyone will eventually go up especially since there's no incentive - if there were no socialist policies whatsoever - for the rich to stop the monopoly of resources. Therefore, while you're right that these countries will suffer the same problems as soon as they implement socialist policies, they must inevitably do so - or face the rebellion of the impoverished masses upon whose backbones the riches were built.

[Walsingham]

The notion of private healthcare is fundamentaly flawed. Health is not private. Diseases occur in populations, and the effects of disease impact upon all members of those populations. Bird flu is an excellent case in point. You cannot simply seek to inoculate yourself and your family. Because unless we all get inoculated then the national machine breaks down. The people who supply our food and power and sweep our streets get ill and die. The people you employ in your business get ill and don't show up to work. in the worst case scenario all the people who don't have the cash keel over in the streets and go unburied because the numpties who usually collect bodies are dead as well.

 

If you look at the history of altruistic healthcare you find it matches rather neatly the rise of industrialised society. It is a requirement for industrialised society.

 

This is not to mention the emphasis various religions place on helping those less fortunate than yourselves. I certainly do not believe anyone who calls themselves a good Christian should be against public healthcare or social security.

[Azarkon]

Indeed. And here's another reason health care will never be privatized - when you have a vast majority of the population (the poor, almost exclusively, are majorities in this world) who cannot even guarantee their own lives in an epidemic living amidst a pampered minority, guess what's going to happen? They're not going to just stand by and say, "well, I should've studied harder in school and made more money." They're going to overthrow those in power and redistribute wealth. Capitalism, taken to its extremes, would almost guarantee a Communist revolution sooner or later down the line.

[taks]

The protections on wages maintain the high living standard of the US.

no they don't. they keep people unemployed. jobs that go overseas are jobs that are not held here, regardless of wages. jobs that are not here are $0/hour, so less than minimum wage, and certainly less than the salaries for folks that had low-level salaries and had their jobs shipped to china, india, etc.

 

*snip* It's a lose-lose situation for the US.

maybe, maybe not. competition for jobs will benefit those that are willing to work for the market wage. it will keep some jobs here, but others will leave regardless. overall, those countries which produce more than they use will always benefit more than the others, as is particularly the case for oil bearing nations. however, to say that the US will suffer simply because of global competition is a bit short-sighted. if we wanted to stay competitive, obviously much of our current waste would need to be removed from the plan.

 

there is still the issue of rich becoming richer, poor becoming poorer, that is *the* natural outcome of free market globalization.  Tell me, in a world where money creates money, how can you ever hope to (with a free market economy, no socialism, etc.) prevent the gap between rich & poor from enlarging (and thus the incentive for a violent revolution?)

this is a problem for socialism more than capitalism. in a capitalist market, you can always up your status by working harder or by benefit of some in-demand skill/trade. in a socialist society, everybody is on the same level field except the elite that control the production of goods (and supply of money). there is no middle ground, and no hope of ever being more than your birthright.

 

China's adoption of free market capitalism has led to it being a country of 300 million well-to-dos and 1 billion poor-as-jack peasants.

those poor-as-jack peasants could dip into the free-market well-to-dos with education, or a skill or trade, etc. i.e. they aren't poor-as-jack because of capitalism, they're poor-as-jack because they live on farms in the middle of nowhere and probably have little idea about what's happening in the rest of their country.

 

Free market capitalism leads, inevitably, to exploitation in order to stay competitive, and there's no indication that the living standards of everyone will eventually go up especially since there's no incentive - if there were no socialist policies whatsoever - for the rich to stop the monopoly of resources.

ah, therein lies the key... the rich only control resources via government intervention. government intervention is, by definition, not capitalist. mixing theories here, blaming capitalism for what amounts to the ills of socialism (or fascism).

 

 

Therefore, while you're right that these countries will suffer the same problems as soon as they implement socialist policies, they must inevitably do so - or face the rebellion of the impoverished masses upon whose backbones the riches were built.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

based on the arguments i've presented above... this last bit is moot.

 

taks

[LadyCrimson]

to believe that good people will go into medical professions "for the good of the community" is naive. the bightest will, no matter what system, find what benefits them the most.

 

Oh, I agree with that...which was sort of the point of the first part of my post. While there are plenty of people who go into jobs because they simply like the profession and want to help people, and thus they are only concerned with a certain livable wage rather than an 'uber-materialistic' wage, they are not enough to make a high-quality system.

 

Think of the US Dept. of Motor Vehicles and all the jokes about their employees...now think of the medical profession being run the same way.

Now...I believe it'd be possible to create a socialist hathcare system that works better than the US DMV, haha, but it would still lack something.

 

I didn't say universial preventive care (notice I didn't say universal treatment) was truly feasible...just that I'd like it.

 

Couldn't you have a basic socialist type healthcare for basic needs, even if it was filled with grumpy government workers, and still have the 'pay through the nose' higher-end options for those who could afford it?

 

For me, I'm more concerned that there are too many people in the US who have absolutely NO healthcare because they can't afford it at all, especially as more and more companies are getting rid of all or part of their 'benefits.' Some kind of minimal, standarized healthcare program for those people would be nice...and while it may be naive, I don't think such a thing would neccesarily have to get rid of/replace the free-market end of things.

[Walsingham]

I just wanted to point out that the fact people have to wait in line for hours to see a doctor has less to do with the system than with the fact not enough people want to be doctors (vs. the speed of the growth of the population)...or at least, not enough people want to be general practictioners, because it pays less or has less chance for 'glory and recognition'.

 

I've always wanted 'universal' preventive healthcare - the check ups, the tests, tho being no policy expert I'd have no idea how to implement it or if it would even be possible given the mechanics of the US systems.

 

Currently, the US medical system seems to largely consist of nothing but drug-pushers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have to agree with you here. There really aren't enough peopel wanting to be doctors.

 

However, taks' point about allowing the free market in does not apply, given my starting premise which is that we need a healthy nation. This has to be budgeted for, not bid for. It has to be planned. A fact which is true whether we are trying to reduce cancer rates, lower infant mortality, or prevent infectious diseases. It can be done by the civil service in theory, and is being done in practice.

 

Lady Crimson makes a further point regarding pill-pushing. There is an important difference between a private and a public health system. The former gets paid to work. teh former gets paid when it treats people. The latter gets paid irrespective. True the latter can be a little slack sometimes. But the former has no interest at all in preventive or low-effort measures. For example, stem-cell treatment of heart conditions is being trialled in the NHS. With some astounding initial results. It seems that people with weak hearts may be treatable using relatively simply one-off interventions, rather than continually taking drugs and visiting their doctors. This makes the NHS happy, and it makes us patients happy. It does not make a private doctor or a drug company happy.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The notion of private healthcare is fundamentaly flawed. Health is not private. Diseases occur in populations, and the effects of disease impact upon all members of those populations. Bird flu is an excellent case in point. You cannot simply seek to inoculate yourself and your family. Because unless we all get inoculated then the national machine breaks down. The people who supply our food and power and sweep our streets get ill and die. The people you employ in your business get ill and don't show up to work. in the worst case scenario all the people who don't have the cash keel over in the streets and go unburied because the numpties who usually collect bodies are dead as well.

 

If you look at the history of altruistic healthcare you find it matches rather neatly the rise of industrialised society. It is a requirement for industrialised society.

 

This is not to mention the emphasis various religions place on helping those less fortunate than yourselves. I certainly do not believe anyone who calls themselves a good Christian should be against public healthcare or social security.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

People seriously dislike taxes. Especially people who have to fork over half of the money they earned which in a lot of cases leaves them even worse off since not only did they just lose half their income. They don't qualify for any of the free stuff either.

 

If however there was more honesty in how these taxes were spent, or you could have optional taxes which you could opt out of (above the base rate obviously) then you may see some more altruism.

 

For example many people would be quite happy to pay an extra 2% if that money was used only for the purpose of healthcare. They may not be as overjoyed to pay and extra 2% which could be spent on the millitary budget.

 

I still think there are way too many freeloaders though. And it's seen as a soft option. I've heard (and had personal experience) or girls getting pregnent for no other reason than to jump to the head of the housing list for example.

[taks]

Capitalism, taken to its extremes, would almost guarantee a Communist revolution sooner or later down the line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually the opposite is true.

 

should we actually get the government out of the economy, the overall standard of living will improve, resulting in, eventually, less unemployment and more insured workers. health care costs will, by design of the free market, drop, allowing health care for everyone. those that are unfortunately burdened with unemployment will benefit from charity.

 

while what you and walsingham say looks good on paper, it suffers from flaws. first, good christians should also balk at robbing peter to pay paul. charitable donations are not forced, yet it is OK to force people to pay for others' health care? i.e. the idea that it is christian to help others is very true, but the idea that it is forced upon people via threat of criminal liability is not even moral. second, a lot of these problems you (not just you, in general) mention are not problems of capitalism. they are problems of socialism. take away the excess waste of social programs and we all have more money. we all have a better opportunity to spend, which means more jobs, which means more unemployment, which means less people in need of charity, which means... etc.

 

taks

[taks]

For example many people would be quite happy to pay an extra 2% if that money was used only for the purpose of healthcare. They may not be as overjoyed to pay and extra 2% which could be spent on the millitary budget.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

many, but not all, and not the majority. univeral health care in the US typically enjoys a <30% favorability rating. even bush's drug benefit would have lost if it were voted on by the population.

 

taks

[taks]

Oh, I agree with that...which was sort of the point of the first part of my post. While there are plenty of people who go into jobs because they simply like the profession and want to help people, and thus they are only concerned with a certain livable wage rather than an 'uber-materialistic' wage, they are not enough to make a high-quality system.

the cool thing about capitalism is that it pays well for in-demand skills. high-end medical professionals are in-demand AND, short on supply. that's why they pay well. as a result, there is heavy competition for schooling and only the best filter to the top. in a socialist system, this is removed. there is no way to guarantee the supply of doctors is sufficient. likewise, there is no way to guarantee there aren't too many.

 

I didn't say universial preventive care (notice I didn't say universal treatment) was truly feasible...just that I'd like it.

i'd like it too, but it just can't happen in reality.

 

Couldn't you have a basic socialist type healthcare for basic needs, even if it was filled with grumpy government workers,  and still have the 'pay through the nose' higher-end options for those who could afford it?

no, there's not enough capital in such an arrangement to guarantee equitability for the higher end... besides, why should anybody have to pay twice for something? you couldn't find a way to distribute the differing levels of care, either. what if a cure for something is available, but too expensive for "the population" and only available to the wealthy? do the people in "the population" just sit back and die?

 

btw, i'm not all-together against government funded emergency care. it is the government's job to protect its people, and some things fall under that bucket.

 

taks

Edited November 14, 2005 by taks

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

For example many people would be quite happy to pay an extra 2% if that money was used only for the purpose of healthcare. They may not be as overjoyed to pay and extra 2% which could be spent on the millitary budget.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

many, but not all, and not the majority. univeral health care in the US typically enjoys a <30% favorability rating. even bush's drug benefit would have lost if it were voted on by the population.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats quite suprising.

[LadyCrimson]

@taks

 

Well, since I have no facts or figures to make debate points with (not to mention I don't like debating that much, hehe), I'll just end with...all 'systems' have pros and cons and it's all really just dependant on what the population of an area is willing to put up with at any given time. What works in one country may not work in another, blah blah.

 

In terms of the medical debate, my sister would be better equipped...she's a general practice MD for low-income families in SF and has been highly active in the politics regarding rying to improve the situation there (from both the 'doctor' and the patient aspects). She's created interesting, potentially workable...bills?...that were voted down...it's a highly frustrating process for her, to say the least.

Edited November 14, 2005 by LadyCrimson

[taks]

well, the people of the US are getting tired of the gobmn't wasting their money. maybe if they could prove that some pork program could be run reliably without so much waste that always accompanies such programs, the public would turn their opinions around.

 

keep in mind, IMO, government waste in these programs is an inherent problem of all socialist based ideas. as a result, i doubt we'll ever see one run "correctly" and, hopefully, the public will continue to be wary.

 

taks

[taks]

Well, since I have no facts or figures to make debate points with (not to mention I don't like debating that much, hehe),

this has been more of a discussion, really... but i get ya'!

 

I'll just end with...all 'systems' have pros and cons and it's all really just dependant on what the population of an area is willing to put up with at any given time. What works in one country may not work in another, blah blah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

probably right here. like i've noted, if a country is naturally rich, even socialist ideas have a bit of a chance, albeit limited. in order for any system to work, you need sufficient resouces or some sort of skill that others need. hate to say it, but desert countries are without hope. they need to move.

 

taks

 

PS: note, however, that the government in norway controls the oil, which is sort of like a socialist country exploiting capitalist means to support itself... ironic. germany does this as well with deutsch telecom (DT, or T-mobile in the states).

[Azarkon]

no they don't.  they keep people unemployed.  jobs that go overseas are jobs that are not held here, regardless of wages.  jobs that are not here are $0/hour, so less than minimum wage, and certainly less than the salaries for folks that had low-level salaries and had their jobs shipped to china, india, etc.

 

Oh come on. What's America's unemployment rate? It's not 40%+. Workers in China/India are paid 1/36th of what Americans are paid, or less. Basic mathematics dictates that even if 10% of America were unemployed (a huge unemployment rate) and that all 10% of these jobs were lost to overseas, we'd still be losing less money than if even 50% of American jobs were reduced to 1/36th of its wages.

 

maybe, maybe not.  competition for jobs will benefit those that are willing to work for the market wage.  it will keep some jobs here, but others will leave regardless.  overall, those countries which produce more than they use will always benefit more than the others, as is particularly the case for oil bearing nations.  however, to say that the US will suffer simply because of global competition is a bit short-sighted.  if we wanted to stay competitive, obviously much of our current waste would need to be removed from the plan.

 

It is short-sighted, but that's exactly why free market capitalism is going to be challenged by the US and most other first world countries in the short run - because they don't want to lose their privileges. It is true that in the long run it's only *fair* that countries that work harder get more benefits, but that already presupposes a free market ideology - one that doesn't necessarily lead to a better world, as I'm willing to argue.

 

this is a problem for socialism more than capitalism.  in a capitalist market, you can always up your status by working harder or by benefit of some in-demand skill/trade.  in a socialist society, everybody is on the same level field except the elite that control the production of goods (and supply of money).  there is no middle ground, and no hope of ever being more than your birthright.

 

It's the same in both cases (you don't think the elite that control the US would do anything to prevent others from rising to their power? you're deluded if that's the case), except that in socialist societies the bare minimum line is higher than in capitalist societies. A socialist society would not allow a child to starve to death on the streets if it could help it. A purely capitalist society would - because that's the mentality you adopt when you promote pure capitalism.

 

You have to realize that all this talk about birthright is meaningless because no one - not in socialism, not in Communism, and certainly not in capitalism - starts out on equal standing. Therein is why capitalism fails - when you are born into a society where an elite of monopolizing corporations already control all the means of production, you have as little chance of upward mobility as you would in a socialist society ruled by aristocrats. This is why we have anti-monopoly laws in effect - because we know that in extreme capitalism the monopolizing corporation survives in effect by consuming all attempts to supplant it. Big corporations become bigger. Small companies become extinct. And therefore an aristocratic elite is created de facto rather than (as you claim in socialism) de jure.

 

those poor-as-jack peasants could dip into the free-market well-to-dos with education, or a skill or trade, etc.  i.e. they aren't poor-as-jack because of capitalism, they're poor-as-jack because they live on farms in the middle of nowhere and probably have little idea about what's happening in the rest of their country.

 

They can't. I've seen arguments like yours before and personally, it's too ideological - too out of touch with reality. The truth of the matter is this: IT'S NOT HAPPENING. I don't care if you want to shift the blame onto the poor. The bottomline is that the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. The underlying factors are too many to even summarize here, but it does speak of a fundamental issue in capitalism that cannot simply be ignored by blanketing all the poor people as being poor b/c "they aren't trying". You do that, you keep telling them that, and in the end you're only deluding yourself because these people don't see themselve as lazy workers who don't deserve any better. They see themselves as victims, and victims when victimized enough will turn against their victimizers.

 

ah, therein lies the key... the rich only control resources via government intervention.  government intervention is, by definition, not capitalist.  mixing theories here, blaming capitalism for what amounts to the ills of socialism (or fascism).

 

Not really. If I'm a capitalist tycoon living in a governmental vacuum (ie no restrictions with regards to my tactics) there are PLENTY of ways I can control the flow of resources without government intervention. I can, and corporations are doing so right now, simply buy out any opposition, monopolize the market, and prevent all upstarts from using my resources. In a purely capitalist society, money can do almost anything, and as such those with money already can very well prevent those without money from obtaining money. Resources, after all, are limited. If the rich keep getting richer, it must necessarily mean that the poor become poorer in a gobal scenario.

 

But we don't need to keep talking about this in the abstract sense. Simply point out to me how you can prevent the growing gap between rich and poor in a free market capitalist society, because that is a *real* problem that capitalism, even as it is now, fails to solve. If the poor have so many opportunities, why aren't they getting richer, and how can you make them richer without resorting to any "socialist" practices such as better public schooling? You act like if we did away with all socialist policies in this country the poor would suddenly rise to the occasion, and I just don't see that. Rather, if that were to happen, I think the poor would either become poorer, immigrate, or revolt.

[Lucius]

I don't know which nazi came by here, but it must be nice for dear taks to have one keeping him safe from those evil, evil post.

[taks]

Oh come on.  What's America's unemployment rate? It's not 40%+.  Workers in China/India are paid 1/36th of what Americans are paid, or less.  Basic mathematics dictates that even if 10% of America were unemployed (a huge unemployment rate) and that all 10% of these jobs were lost to overseas, we'd still be losing less money than if even 50% of American jobs were reduced to 1/36th of its wages.

exactly where did you get the 1/36th wage? back it up before your "basic mathematics" even have a chance to work. also, just because china's wages are that low does not mean US wages would. part of what happens is that jobs that stay in the country don't cause import/export tariffs and such. i.e. china's wages themselves may be low, but after taking into account the extra expenses, they aren't that much lower.

 

It is short-sighted, but that's exactly why free market capitalism is going to be challenged by the US and most other first world countries in the short run - because they don't want to lose their privileges.  It is true that in the long run it's only *fair* that countries that work harder get more benefits, but that already presupposes a free market ideology - one that doesn't necessarily lead to a better world, as I'm willing to argue.

history dictates that capitalism is the only system that creates wealth, so any socialist system will only lead to a lower quality of life.

 

It's the same in both cases (you don't think the elite that control the US would do anything to prevent others from rising to their power? you're deluded if that's the case), except that in socialist societies the bare minimum line is higher than in capitalist societies.  A socialist society would not allow a child to starve to death on the streets if it could help it.  A purely capitalist society would - because that's the mentality you adopt when you promote pure capitalism.

no, if you get the government out of business, explain to me exactly how the elite that control the US? the only reason "greedy capitalists" have any form of control is because the government interferes with the free market. take their influence out, and oila, no more control.

 

again, what you cite here is a problem of a socialist system, not capitalist.

 

You have to realize that all this talk about birthright is meaningless because no one - not in socialism, not in Communism, and certainly not in capitalism - starts out on equal standing.

uh, sorry, but in a socialist society, everyone gets the same amount, regardless of who they are. you're a bit off on that.

 

Therein is why capitalism fails - when you are born into a society where an elite of monopolizing corporations already control all the means of production, you have as little chance of upward mobility as you would in a socialist society ruled by aristocrats.  This is why we have anti-monopoly laws in effect - because we know that in extreme capitalism the monopolizing corporation survives in effect by consuming all attempts to supplant it.  Big corporations become bigger.  Small companies become extinct.  And therefore an aristocratic elite is created de facto rather than (as you claim in socialism) de jure.

you obviously do not understand how capitalism works. first, before you comment, find me ONE monopoly that grew up in a capitalist system without government help. just one.

 

They can't.  I've seen arguments like yours before and personally, it's too ideological - too out of touch with reality.  The truth of the matter is this: IT'S NOT HAPPENING.  I don't care if you want to shift the blame onto the poor.  The bottomline is that the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer.

what is this about? whoever said anything about blaming the poor? capitalism in china has nothing to do with the poor in the countryside. they're farmers, divorced from the reforms. they were poor before capitalism showed up, even in the communist system. the entire reason china went with the reforms is because they couldn't afford to pay for those poor-as-jack farmers. i'm not sure where you're going with this one...

 

I can, and corporations are doing so right now, simply buy out any opposition, monopolize the market, and prevent all upstarts from using my resources.

again, show me an example that didn't have government help.

 

But we don't need to keep talking about this in the abstract sense.  Simply point out to me how you can prevent the growing gap between rich and poor in a free market capitalist society, because that is a *real* problem that capitalism, even as it is now, fails to solve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

as i've already noted, the gap is actually larger in a socialist system. the problem there is that there is no middle. in a socialist sytem, you cannot climb any higher. not so in capitalism.

 

taks

[taks]

I don't know which nazi came by here, but it must be nice for dear taks to have one keeping him safe from those evil, evil post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

there's a quote steeped in pure logic.

 

uh, hate to tell you, but nazism is socialism - the national socialist german workers party. i get a kick out of people that just don't understand that.

 

if you want to refer to one of us "right-wingers," you need to make a thinly veiled reference to italy and benito mussolini. he was a fascist, which is what right-wing economics is all about.

 

that you would prefer to lob insults as well is hardly a surprise. the least you could do is get it right.

 

taks

[WITHTEETH]

 

Good times, good times.

 

Thanks got pointing that out, next time, ill use that against you.

 

........Fascist!

[taks]

hehe... you funny. i think the reason nazism is associated with the right is the strict adherence to tradition and german nationalism (which the nazis really wiped out by creating their own history anyway...)

 

actually, as i review the post, he wasn't calling me a nazi. i must take my retort back. no, it was even better, he was calling the moderators nazis. how to gain friends and influence people at its best.

 

not sure why people think a good argument tactic is to call people names. perhaps one day i'll understand the illogic in it?

 

taks

[Azarkon]

exactly where did you get the 1/36th wage?  back it up before your "basic mathematics" even have a chance to work.  also, just because china's wages are that low does not mean US wages would.  part of what happens is that jobs that stay in the country don't cause import/export tariffs and such.  i.e. china's wages themselves may be low, but after taking into account the extra expenses, they aren't that much lower.

 

It's in that same article I linked to earlier. But since you would rather not read the article, here's the text of interest:

 

"China has more than 1.3 billion people, a fifth of the world's population, and a workforce of 700 million as against a US workforce of 147 million. To avoid being overtaken by China in aggregate national income, US wages would have to maintain a gap of five times Chinese wages. Historically based technological and economic advantages currently give US workers a nominal wage gap of more than 35:1 over Chinese workers, or 9:1 on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis. This comfortable gap is not based on current productive differentials but rather on unbalanced terms of trade and geopolitical incongruity left by history. Yet until wage parity is attained, free trade will continue to be driven by cross-border wage arbitrage in favor of China. But with wage parity, the Chinese economy will be five times the size of the US economy, a prospect not welcomed by the US geopolitical calculations."

 

Like I said, lose-lose situation, but outsourcing is far less damaging to national wealth than wage parity. US purchasing power comes from the historical "incongruity" inherent in the dollar, and that's what allows most Americans their lavish life style (since the goods, most of which are produced in other countries, are cheap by the fact of that imbalance). Take that away and how exactly would you maintain US privilege?

 

history dictates that capitalism is the only system that creates wealth, so any socialist system will only lead to a lower quality of life.

 

Why argue in extremes? Capitalism can coexist with socialist policies, and that indeed is what most people are arguing for in this thread.

 

no, if you get the government out of business, explain to me exactly how the elite that control the US?  the only reason "greedy capitalists" have any form of control is because the government interferes with the free market.  take their influence out, and oila, no more control.

 

What prevents the corporations from creating their own governmental structure, then? What prevents them from using monopolistic tactics to exploit the populace?

 

uh, sorry, but in a socialist society, everyone gets the same amount, regardless of who they are.  you're a bit off on that.

 

That has never been true in any socialist society in human history.

 

you obviously do not understand how capitalism works.  first, before you comment, find me ONE monopoly that grew up in a capitalist system without government help.  just one.

 

Microsoft comes the closest. But this is besides the point, since governments have never ceased to interfere with any capitalist system in existence. Since a so-called free market economy has never quite existed in its purity (much as a perfect socialist society has never existed), this call for examples is impractical and thus moot.

 

Btw, some of the most successful capitalist societies in history (South Korea, Japan) were government-planned economies. China is going in the same direction, and the world is taking notes.

 

what is this about?  whoever said anything about blaming the poor?  capitalism in china has nothing to do with the poor in the countryside.  they're farmers, divorced from the reforms.  they were poor before capitalism showed up, even in the communist system.  the entire reason china went with the reforms is because they couldn't afford to pay for those poor-as-jack farmers.  i'm not sure where you're going with this one... 

 

The point is this: when every man is poor (as would occur if wealth was distributed equally), the state of poverty is universal and therefore tolerated. When a few men are rich and the rest are poor, inequity is perceived and leads to violent uprisings. A capitalist society inevitably moves towards the latter. The concentration of wealth is the breeding ground of revolution. This was true with feudalism, and it was true with capitalism in the past. Socialist policies are, in some ways, a way of delaying that inevitability through promoting, to a degree, collective advancement, which is key to national cohesion.

 

as i've already noted, the gap is actually larger in a socialist system.  the problem there is that there is no middle.  in a socialist sytem, you cannot climb any higher.  not so in capitalism.

 

You act like socialism = feudalism. What exactly is your definition of socialism? I speak from the perspective of someone who wants to see capitalist nations with select socialist policies (such as universal health care). Therefore, I oppose a purely free market economy. That does not mean, however, that I'm supportive of socialist societies in the sense of ideological Socialism, far from it.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Azarkon

[taks]

It's in that same article I linked to earlier.  But since you would rather not read the article, here's the text of interest:

uh, my statement came out wrong... i meant, back up the concept that just because china has 35:1 wages (revised from the 36 i suppose, but still significant) equilibrium will result in the same for us.

 

Like I said, lose-lose situation, but outsourcing is far less damaging to national wealth than wage parity.  US purchasing power comes from the historical "incongruity" inherent in the dollar, and that's what allows most Americans their lavish life style (since the goods, most of which are produced in other countries, are cheap by the fact of that imbalance).  Take that away and how exactly would you maintain US privilege?

we'd have to compete, i agree. the US has, btw, resources that not everyone has as well as historical capability. i'm not in favor of sucking off the teet of the poor if we have to cheat to do it (and keeping developing nations down is cheating).

 

Why argue in extremes? Capitalism can coexist with socialist policies, and that indeed is what most people are arguing for in this thread.

i know they are arguing for it, but evidence is not in their favor. with a few exceptions, particularly oil rich nations, socialism fails globally. every socialist program in the US is a time bomb. the most notable, btw, is SS, but i bet medicare/medicaid will be worse once all those baby boomers actually retire.

 

What prevents the corporations from creating their own governmental structure, then? What prevents them from using monopolistic tactics to exploit the populace?

ah yes, if corporations try to create their own structure, then they are treading on the elected government's responsibility. this type of interference and legislation is not only legal, but required. the governments sole responsibility is to protect trade.

 

That has never been true in any socialist society in human history.

there's really never been a fully socialist society, but the concept of socialism requires equality. at least, relative equality. the difference between common man at the bottom and top of the scales is negligible. there are the elite, of course, which run the system, and the disparity between those elite and the average man is far greater than in any capitalist society.

 

Microsoft comes the closest.

aha! the closest, right? but not quite a monopoly, AND, they really did cheat. they got to where they are in the beginning by forcing retailers to pay them even if selling other OS products. they got caught, too. also, their share is slipping away...

 

But this is besides the point, since governments have never ceased to interfere with any capitalist system in existence.

it is not besides the point. government interference is the only way monopolies can exist. i dare anyone to find an example otherwise (a real example, controlling a market of a relatively small population, i.e. very small business, does not really count). the fact that governments have never ceased to interfere is further evidence. my point is that they need to stop interfering.

 

Since a so-called free market economy has never quite existed in its purity (much as a perfect socialist society has never existed), this call for examples is impractical and thus moot.

yes and no. socialism is more than just an economic system. it is socio-economic whereas captialism is stricly about economics of the free market. rather, capitalism does not have to be "implimented," it just happens (capitalism is really more of an observation of the free market). socialism requires implementation, but it can only be implemented in theory, not reality. a pure capitalist society could easily exist, but the same is not true for socialist.

 

taks

Edited November 15, 2005 by taks

[taks]

Btw, some of the most successful capitalist societies in history (South Korea, Japan) were government-planned economies.  China is going in the same direction, and the world is taking notes.

government planned does not mean government controlled. the US was planned to be capitalist, and i'd argue it is THE most successful economy. and btw, the world can take notes all it wants, the dollar still runs the economy.

 

The point is this: when every man is poor (as would occur if wealth was distributed equally), the state of poverty is universal and therefore tolerated.  When a few men are rich and the rest are poor, inequity is perceived and leads to violent uprisings.  A capitalist society inevitably moves towards the latter.  The concentration of wealth is the breeding ground of revolution.  This was true with feudalism, and it was true with capitalism in the past.  Socialist policies are, in some ways, a way of delaying that inevitability through promoting, to a degree, collective advancement, which is key to national cohesion.

that's a good theory, but not based in observation. it is a theory put forth by marx, if i'm not mistaken, as an argument in favor of socialist policies. i think the contrary is true, that if we were all poor, and had nowhere to go, we would uprise in an attempt to better our lives. as it stands, why uprise in a capitalist society when all you have to do is get some education, learn a skill/trade or simply work harder?

 

also, making the extension from feudalism to capitalism is a false analogy. two completely different situations. to equate the problems of fuedalism, particularly tyrannical rule, with capitalism is invalid. notably so since capitalism does not require any specific form of government (though democratic rule is preferred, i'm sure).

 

You act like socialism = feudalism.  What exactly is your definition of socialism? I speak from the perspective of someone who wants to see capitalist nations with select socialist policies (such as universal health care).

socialism is collectivism.

 

Therefore, I oppose a purely free market economy.  That does not mean, however, that I'm supportive of socialist societies in the sense of ideological Socialism, far from it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i realize that, but note that my original points covered how well socialist policies work. they don't. none of them do. they are all over budget, out of control spending nightmares.

 

as an example, our educational system is a mess, and the only solution "give them more money!" money is not the problem, competition is the problem. without competition, there is no incentive to do better. public schools are government enforced monopolies, and as such, they are bloated and inefficient. they don't work because they are based on socialist ideas. private schools actually spend less per pupil, make a profit AND outperform their public counterparts all while paying their teachers better.

 

taks

[Azarkon]

uh, my statement came out wrong... i meant, back up the concept that just because china has 35:1 (revised from the 36 i suppose, but still significant) wages does not mean equilibrium will result in the same for us.

 

I see. Well, it's difficult to argue about this, since no nation has ever willingly reduced itself to another nation's wage status, and thus we have no examples one way or another.

 

we'd have to compete, i agree.  the US has, btw, resources that not everyone has as well as historical capability.  i'm not in favor of sucking off the teet of the poor if we have to cheat to do it (and keeping developing nations down is cheating).

 

I agree with this, but I suspect the policy makers do not, given recent protectionist trends.

 

i know they are arguing for it, but evidence is not in their favor.  with a few exceptions, particularly oil rich nations, socialism fails globally.  every socialist program in the US is a time bomb.  the most notable, btw, is SS, but i bet medicare/medicaid will be worse once all those baby boomers actually retire.

 

I really don't think that this is the case. What about things like education? It's true that public schooling has failed in the US, but it thrives in other countries - including China and Japan. At any case, I really can't imagine how society would be if things like free education and minimum mage were removed. They were put there for a reason, historically, due to the exploitation that otherwise resulted (of ex-slaves, immigrants, and/or the poor).

 

ah yes, if corporations try to create their own structure, then they are treading on the elected government's responsibility.  this type of interference and legislation is not only legal, but required.  the governments sole responsibility is to protect trade.

 

But there's a paradox there, isn't there? For the government to protect trade, it must first define what *is* trade, which means interfering with market forces that fall outside of what the government considers healthy trade. A free market economy, like everything else that can be considered "free", is therefore purely ideological: it must be curbed by practical restrictions that prevent the freedom from turning on itself.

 

there's really never been a fully socialist society, but the concept of socialism requires equality.  at least, relative equality.  the difference between common man at the bottom and top of the scales is negligible.  there are the elite, of course, which run the system, and the disparity between those elite and the average man is far greater than in any capitalist society.

 

It seems to me though that part of your argument earlier assumed a flawed socialist society, which is why that comment struck me as odd. In an ideological socialist society, there would be no ruling elite - everyone would, indeed, be equal and upward mobility would be a moot point since everything's owned by a benevolent government anyhow. Yes, practical socialist societies fail, but only because socialism as an ideological system is unattainable.

 

aha!  the closest, right?  but not quite a monopoly, AND, they really did cheat.  they got to where they are in the beginning by forcing retailers to pay them even if selling other OS products.  they got caught, too.  also, their share is slipping away...

 

Yes, and my argument is that there has to be policies that guard against monopolistic practices such as those utilized by Microsoft. If they were not caught, and had no threat of being caught, they would've done much worse. The government cannot, therefore, simply practice laissez faire.

 

it is not besides the point.  government interference is the only way monopolies can exist.  i dare anyone to find an example otherwise (a real example, controlling a market of a relatively small population, i.e. very small business, does not really count).  the fact that governments have never ceased to interfere is further evidence.  my point is that they need to stop interfering.

 

Yeah but how can we ever find this example until someone out there creates such a Utopian laissez faire nation? It's like arguing that Communism is Utopia: you can't disprove this because there's never been a truly Communist society, so there. In both cases, the lack of practical examples do not justify an argument in either direction. If you tell me to take you on faith that a laissez faire system never creates monopolies, then I will tell you to take me on faith that Real Socialism is Utopia. Without examples, we both arrive at an impasse.

 

yes and no.  socialism is more than just an economic system.  it is socio-economic whereas captialism is stricly about economics of the free market.  rather, capitalism does not have to be "implimented," it just happens (capitalism is really more of an observation of the free market).  socialism requires implementation, but it can only be implemented in theory, not reality.  a pure capitalist society could easily exist, but the same is not true for socialist.

 

I think you'll find it very difficult to argue that any system "just happens" or "is natural", given the historical fluidity of human governments. The exchange of resources on a market - ie trade itself - is intrinsic to human society, but that is not what capitalism describes. Capitalism is not the equivalent - as far as I've ever heard it defined by economists - of Trade. Rather, it is a principle of economics that emphasizes private, individual ownership (something that many cultures traditionally rejected) and a free market (again, something that many cultures never believed in).

 

In fact, this is why there has never been a truly capitalist society in human history. Some of the most successful "adopters" of "capitalism" (in the sense of their economy's strength, not their proximity to the ideals of capitalism) have been essentially a combination of socialist control with capitalist ownership. As such, it would be folly to assume that socialism is merely an abnormal growth on the butt of capitalism, when in fact they coexist in every capitalist society on earth.

[Blank]

not sure why people think a good argument tactic is to call people names.  perhaps one day i'll understand the illogic in it?

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the best one too use is to say dat they are bad at spellin, cuz that ones so easy and troo at the same time