Dead wrong, Capitalism is directly responsible for the economic success of this country. Capitalism is also the only economic system compatible with principles of the US constitution. The last 80 years of US history have been an unfortunate series of steps in the wrong direction, beginning with the New Deal and the abandonment of the gold standard. These government programs fly in the face of individual rights, and are responsible for the stagnation of the standard of living for all classes (which was on an unprecedented rise previously).
There are a multitude of factors that have led to the success of the USA, not the least of which includes geography. Also, you can have a large booming economy and still have massive poverty. Economic indicators are not the only thing by which you should judge a Countries "success" on. It is obvious to me that you are a Free Market proponent and I am not, so we can agree to disagree on that point. I believe that Countries like Norway and Sweden are the best economic models to follow, and the proof is in the statistics, they are the top countries to live in, in the world. I know Americans like to be patriotic, but I think that gets in the way of logic and reason sometimes.
As for the decrease in the purchasing power of people in the US. That can be directly tied to Businesses not matching employee pay raises to rising inflation. There has been a massive shift of wealth from the middle class to the rich because of this. It's why you need to parents working in order to keep a middle class lifestyle, to own a house, two cars, 2.5 kids, and a dog. The American dream has been steadily pulling away from the reach of an increasing number of people because of the selfishness of Corporations. Any Economic system based on infinite profits in a finite world is seriously broken.
The only means by which such technologies can be developed and become available to everyone is by adhering to the laws of supply and demand, and allowing unfettered competition. The only way this natural progression can be stifled is by government interference.
I disagree. A free market economy would be a disaster for the world. It would create massive economic and social inequality, even more so than exists now. There is no truly Free Market society in the world. Every Country has some aspect of Socialism and Government control over the economy. If they didn't the system would be a mess. You honestly think there is a demand for mature nanotechnology, or for life extension technology? For most people it's a pipe dream, it's not possible, not in the next 100 years. So why should the federal government give any money to corporations that are going to fund this type of research? The government gives grants all the time to high tech companies and they don't get that money back. According to your thinking the government shouldn't be funding anyone. Or if you agree that it's ok to fund some corporations and not others.
If you think that the government can't push technological progress just look at the Atomic Bomb, or landing a Man on the Moon. You do not need economic competition to drive technological progress.
I'm sorry, but where is the motivation for developing such technologies? It doesn't exist, either in the individual or the government. The Socialist government has no motivation for improving the lives of its citizens, except in the realm of international politics, and the individual has no motivation to work amitiously as a slave.
Where is the motive? Why do people go into science? Just to make a buck? If that were the case everyone would be business owners and CEOs. A Socialist government has every reason to want to improve the lives of its citizens. I think you are confusing a Communist Dictatorship with true Communism and Socialism. Your ideas of Socialism are stuck in the Cold War era, and the propaganda thrown about by both sides. China is a Communist goverment, and they are pushing for massive technological development, militarily and otherwise.
That entire statement just reeks of Cold War era thinking and the inability to be objective when looking at Socialism. Socialism doesn't mean a Dictatorship, it doesn't mean no private ownership. It doesn't mean a lack of scientific innovation. I will grant you that Capitalism has helped technology to grow quicker in the first world because it appeals to human selfishness and greed. But it isn't the only way, which is my point. Not that one way or the other is better, but that you can have technological developments that equal those under Capitalism in a Communist State.
A morality that considers the 'we' as more important than the 'me' is incompatible with individual rights, with freedom, and thus with Capitalism. This is the morality of altruism, it is a remnant of religious philosophy, and it is utterly irrational.
Your understanding of economics is extremely misguided. Yes, as technology progresses (as it will and can only under Capitalism) goods will become cheaper and manual labor will become less valuable. Money does not lose it's value when material products become cheap, it gains value.
Since when is a corporation a "me"? You honestly arguing that a corporation is doing a moral good when they don't produce a drug that cures a disease because not enough people have the disease? I would argue that the "we" is equality important as the "me". It is because we are not completely selfish beings, because we look out for those who are weaker that we are where we are today. What you are essentially arguing is social Darwinism which is just an excuse to be selfish when you don't stand to benefit directly from the investment. You completely ignore the societal impact that your investment has, which in the longterm benefits you and everyone else. When people starting viewing the entire human race as they view their immediate family then we will be on the path to a better world.
As for my understanding of economics. I only took first year macro and micro economics in University, so I guess my understanding of economics isn't as good as yours. I suppose you were an economics major? I would say my understanding of basic economics is very strong, and I have no trouble understanding your viewpoint. But I completely disagree with it. I think you need to look at the internet as a model for future economic communities. I am arguing that money will no longer be a currency, that physical "things" will no longer hold any real value. It will be knowledge that will be "bought and sold", or rather traded between one another for more knowledge. Well, that is one scenario. Another scenario is a society in which knowledge is freely traded over networks between people for the sake of increasing knowledge. I think you are being a little parochial when it comes to how much society is going to change in the future with the introduction of desktop nanofactories and mature nanotechnology. I think you need to look to Torrent sites as an example of a possible future. Except that the torrents are molecular designs for products and once the information is purchased by one person it can be copied and downloaded by billions of people. Our current economic system will not hold up to these future technologies, there will be massive changes.
Lastly, I disagree that capitalism is the only thing that drives technology. the USSR was Communist when it launched the first satellite into space, they also create many other technologies that were unique and innovative. You do not need a free market economy to drive technological development, this is a fact. Now, I'm not arguing one way or the other which is better, or that it has to be either one or the other. I just believe that our current economic system is far from perfect and that it will have to change in the future if we are to have a fair and just society.
