508 replies to this topic

[bgwowk]

Rasputin makes an excellent point. Consider the way that majorities of people in various parts of the world consider certain religious or political ideologies to be correct. Yet all ideologies, especially mutually contradictory ideologies, cannot be correct. Therefore majority belief cannot be regarded as proof of correctness.

It's very easy for majorities to have opinions at the expense of minorities. To experience the injustice, you have to be the minority. For healthcare policy, consider the following thought experiment: Suppose equality of access was applied not just within Canada, but throughout the entire world. No more rich people or countries getting better health care than poor people or poor countries. No "two tier" system. Everyone gets the same care, the best medical care that the pooled medical resources of the world can afford. For most of the world, that's a big short-term win. But for Canada, that means no more MRIs, heart bypass surgeries, orthopedic procedures, or intensive care. Maybe not even cancer therapy. Only therapies cheap enough to make available to billions of people everywhere are allowed. Now the Canadian majority benefiting at the expense of a minority itself becomes a minority losing to a majority elsewhere. Ideals about making the rich pay, and the unfairness of the rich getting better care, look a whole lot different when you and your family are fingered as the rich people.

Food for thought.

[william7]

This World Socialist Party video, at http://www.lookinggl...?vid=capandkids, makes a pretty persuasive argument against capitalism.

[Athanasios]

I went ahead and spent the time to watch it. Unfortunately it is preying on the ignorance that most have on both economics, politics, and world issues. Here are a few elementary concepts of macroeconomics that were grossly misunderstood:

difference in fiscal and monetary policy
difference between capitalism and politics
scarcity
international markets

I could come up with a much larger list, but that is enough to give a good example. To show how far off most people's idea of the state of affairs is, I offer this table:

In the U.S. (2001 data):

Who makes how much?:

Top 1% makes: 17.5%
Top 5% makes: 32%
Top 10% makes: 43%
Top 50% makes: 86%
Bottom 50% makes: 13.8%

How much of the federal tax burden rides on each group?

Top 1% pays: 34% of the total federal income taxes
Top 5% pays: 53%
Top 10% pays 64%
Top 25% pays 82%
Top 50% pays 96%
Bottom 50% pays 4%

I dropped decimals.

This is some interesting 2003 data:

Top 5 U.S. spending programs account for most of govt. spending which is about 20% of GDP:

1. Social Security: $471 Billion
2. National Defense: $401 B
3. Medicare: $274 B
4. Medicade: $161 B
5. Interest on National Debt: $153 B

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade alone account for over 40% of all government spending, totaling 2.158 trillion in 2003. If you count food stamps, child nutrition, family support, and unemployment, it is over 50% of total government spending.

[william7]

I'm not sure we saw the same video cnorwood19. Try picking up the video off of this page here at http://www.worldsocialism.org/video/. The video I watched is called Capitalism and Other Kids' Stuff. It's about the injustice and illogicalness of capitalism and the need to replace it with something that's fair and makes sense.

[xanadu]

The trouble with capitalism much like the trouble with democracy is that it's the absolutely worst system except for all the others. No one has found a better way to go than capitalism. Pure socialism doesn't even come close. Communism is a joke. Pure capitalism has it's downside like monopolies and price fixing but that can be cured. Russia and China tried communism/socialism but it failed. They failed too until they switched to a defacto capitalist system. The ones who held out against capitalism the longest are the ones doing the most poorly now like N Korea and Cuba.

Good post, cnorwood. It makes people wonder which 50% are they going to fall into?

[Athanasios]

Yeah, that was the video I watched.

I would suggest to first really understand the concepts that form macroeconomics. Figure out why things are done the way they are. It is important to understand what you want to change, for a number of reasons.

Out of all the concepts misunderstood in that video, I would highlight scarcity as the number one. When I say scarcity, I am not talking about the basic necessities. Scarcity exists due to any limited resource, including time, people, and virtually anything that has use to us. Scarcity will always exist, even in the "post-capitalism" that he talks about. How to deal with scarcity is what defines an economic system. At no point did he bring up how to deal with this. Next, or maybe just as badly understood, is the difference between an economic system and a political system.

[Athanasios]

The trouble with capitalism much like the trouble with democracy is that it's the absolutely worst system except for all the others. No one has found a better way to go than capitalism. Pure socialism doesn't even come close. Communism is a joke. Pure capitalism has it's downside like monopolies and price fixing but that can be cured. Russia and China tried communism/socialism but it failed. They failed too until they switched to a defacto capitalist system. The ones who held out against capitalism the longest are the ones doing the most poorly now like N Korea and Cuba.

Good post, cnorwood. It makes people wonder which 50% are they going to fall into?

I would agree, xanadu. I would also propose that the problems we face have more to do with the people in the system than the economic system itself.

[william7]

Macroeconomic issues aside are you and xanadu trying to tell me it's morally right and just for Rex to keep all the toys and not share them with the other kids? Just think if you were one of the kids without the toys. Put yourself in the position of the toyless class.

[Athanasios]

No, but what does that have to do with capitalism? Capitalism does not hinder you from giving your money or toys away.

Did you read about Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the U.S., giving up most of his wealth? http://money.cnn.com...rtune/index.htm

The video can be very convincing if you do not know the "whys" of capitalism. To know this, you must get a basic understanding of macroeconomics.

On another note, I thought you would like this (if you havent seen it):
http://www.globalenv.../library/4/630/

[william7]

Yea, I read about Warren Buffet and I believe I read about Muhammad Yunus or something similar. In Buffet's case it's pure tokenism for public consumption. He'll always have more than enough and continue to live the lifestyle of the rich and famous. I would've been impressed had he done his giving in private like Jesus taught in Matthew 6:1-4 or gave up all his wealth in order to obtain perfection and enter the kingdom of God as Jesus taught in Matthew 19:21-24.

The same applies to Yunus. It's only a small drop in a very large bucket. The 4 billion dollars may seem large to most people who deal with much smaller amounts of money every day. The program will really only effect a few people for only a short period of time. Many people will be mislead to think something significant is being done to alleviate poverty when it really isn't.

[Athanasios]

By law, he could not have set up that transaction in private.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

[william7]

With that kind of money he could've hired a team of lawyers to challenge the law under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. What "compelling interest" does the government have in such a law?

[Athanasios]

Not only is it by law, but it is also ethical to outline his plans to exit out of such a large position of stock in the company he has managed for most of his life. He is the most ethical business man I have ever met or heard of.

But none of this is too important in relation to how capitalism is or is not deficient.

Your position seems more to be that if we change outward society, it will change the evils of the individual. This is simply not true, for a variety of reasons. The reason the video says it is true, is because it will eliminate scarcity. Which, as I have said, will not happen.

In a discussion of economics system, " Macroeconomic issues aside" just does not make sense, as it is 90% of the conversation.

[xanadu]

Macroeconomic issues aside are you and xanadu trying to tell me it's morally right and just for Rex to keep all the toys and not share them with the other kids? Just think if you were one of the kids without the toys. Put yourself in the position of the toyless class.

This goes back to the old idea of whether people should be allowed to keep what they earn or not. Clearly you are of the opinion that they should not. Forced realocation of resources is nothing more than stealing from those who work hard and giving a handout to those who do not work hard or are not very productive. When you do that under socialism, communism or some other ism, you take away the incentive to work and you get apathetic drones who do the least amount of low quality work they can get away with. The former USSR was a poster child for that principle. Cuba is another example. Man works for reward, when it's a handout then he just goes through the motions. Shortages and low quality goods are the result.

In short, communism/socialism works only for communal insects like bees. It does not work for higher animals such as humans. Our nature is to find the easy way out and when the easy way is to hold out your hand and get a gift, all we want to do is hold out our hand. Working hard for the same gift makes no sense so we work not at all or the minimum. Labor was forced in the USSR with overseers.

[william7]

(cnorwood19)

Not only is it by law, but it is also ethical to outline his plans to exit out of such a large position of stock in the company he has managed for most of his life. He is the most ethical business man I have ever met or heard of.

Religious practice is suppose to take precedence over business ethics. What a sad state of affairs we're in.
And I'll bet Mr. Buffet probably calls himself a Christian or attends some Christian church. Here a business law prohibits him from giving up all his wealth to the poor privately in order to be perfect and to enter God's Kingdom as Jesus taught.

But none of this is too important in relation to how capitalism is or is not deficient.

Capitalism has got to be deficient if you can't follow your religion to its utmost. Freedom of religion is supposedly considered to be a fundamental human right. Buffet is trapped by capitalism and the excessive and unnecessary wealth it produces.

Your position seems more to be that if we change outward society, it will change the evils of the individual. This is simply not true, for a variety of reasons. The reason the video says it is true, is because it will eliminate scarcity. Which, as I have said, will not happen.

No, my position is that socialism is the necessary basis to practice true Christianity which will change the evils of the individual and put the the individual in a better mental state to substantially increase his lifespan through vegan diet, calorie restriction, periodic fasting, and whatever the longevity scientists come up with. Socialism must come first to achieve this.

In a discussion of economics system, " Macroeconomic issues aside" just does not make sense, as it is 90% of the conversation.

Not sure what you're saying here. I've never studied the fine points of economics or business. I believe these disciplines would distract from the fundamental or more important issues.

[Athanasios]

Religious practice is suppose to take precedence over business ethics.

The reason why it is ethical to do it the way he did, is to ensure he does not hurt anyone. Business and capitalism is not inherently unchristian, unmoral, or unethical. Having a lot of resources and wealth is not inherently unchristian. I think it is silly to say so without knowing at least the basic fundamentals. There may be variables that make it more complicated than you first thought. The responsibility to do what is just with the resources in your possesion goes up as your capabilities to affect change do. If you read the manner in which Buffet is disposing of his money, you will see the care he has put into ensuring the benefit per dollar is maximized. It is the idea that you can have loads of wealth and resources at your disposal but not own one cent of it.

Even when there is no form of money at all, you must make these decisions. They are decisions of scarcity. For example, let us say you can only work, due to health reasons, 8 hours a day. There is 16 hours of labor to be done, that can only be done that day, but only you to do it. You must choose where to spend your 8 hours, and you have a responsibility to choose the best benefit for 8 hours of work. Then let us say that your neighbor can only work 6 hours, are you unjust for being able to work 2 more hours than he? Should he have control over one of your hours of labor to make things equal?

Scarcity exist, and we must deal with it. By saying that our current version of dealing with it is no good, then offering no alternatives to deal with it, will make no progress. You must be able to show how another system is more capable. If we all blindly switched to a new system, it could cause an unbelievable amount of pain, suffering, and deaths due to the problems created by switching prematurely.

[william7]

Macroeconomic issues aside are you and xanadu trying to tell me it's morally right and just for Rex to keep all the toys and not share them with the other kids? Just think if you were one of the kids without the toys. Put yourself in the position of the toyless class.

This goes back to the old idea of whether people should be allowed to keep what they earn or not. Clearly you are of the opinion that they should not. Forced realocation of resources is nothing more than stealing from those who work hard and giving a handout to those who do not work hard or are not very productive. When you do that under socialism, communism or some other ism, you take away the incentive to work and you get apathetic drones who do the least amount of low quality work they can get away with. The former USSR was a poster child for that principle. Cuba is another example. Man works for reward, when it's a handout then he just goes through the motions. Shortages and low quality goods are the result.

In short, communism/socialism works only for communal insects like bees. It does not work for higher animals such as humans. Our nature is to find the easy way out and when the easy way is to hold out your hand and get a gift, all we want to do is hold out our hand. Working hard for the same gift makes no sense so we work not at all or the minimum. Labor was forced in the USSR with overseers.

I'm sure you participate in the imminst forums in order to exchange information and ideas on achieving a longer lifespan. What if achieving socialism and the reduction of work hours and stress this will bring will be absolutely necessary to achieving a substantially longer lifespan and putting that increase of lifespan to good use? Shouldn't this change your mind in favor of socialism?

Wouldn't a longer lifespan be reward enough for man to work cooperatively and share all things?

The former USSR was a poster child for that principle. Cuba is another example.

Most socialist organizations will tell you that the former USSR and Cuba never established or practiced true socialism as Karl Marx envisioned it. See, for example, http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm and http://www.worldsoci...s_different.php. There was still a privileged ruling class and there was still oppressive wage slavery. The monetary system was never abolished.

[william7]

Even when there is no form of money at all, you must make these decisions. They are decisions of scarcity. For example, let us say you can only work, due to health reasons, 8 hours a day. There is 16 hours of labor to be done, that can only be done that day, but only you to do it. You must choose where to spend your 8 hours, and you have a responsibility to choose the best benefit for 8 hours of work. Then let us say that your neighbor can only work 6 hours, are you unjust for being able to work 2 more hours than he? Should he have control over one of your hours of labor to make things equal?

I'm thinking me and a team of my neighbors should share the 8 hours of labor and finish it in 2 or 3 hours. Then we'll have plenty of extra time to share information and ideas on achieving a longer lifespan and putting it to practice. Calorie restriction and periodic fasting are not easily practiced while working hard or long hours or under stress. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia....ds_for_exercise and http://en.wikipedia....native_approach. You'll need to be in the right mental state to concentrate on doing this for the periods of time it'll take to gain a substantially longer lifespan.

[Athanasios]

You bypass the problem of scarcity by pretending it wont exist. It really does seem like the world socialisms approach is a fairy tale that is designed to soothe liberal guilt by pretending something outside of themselves is the problem.

[halcyondays]

The trouble with capitalism much like the trouble with democracy is that it's the absolutely worst system except for all the others. No one has found a better way to go than capitalism. Pure socialism doesn't even come close. Communism is a joke. Pure capitalism has it's downside like monopolies and price fixing but that can be cured. Russia and China tried communism/socialism but it failed. They failed too until they switched to a defacto capitalist system. The ones who held out against capitalism the longest are the ones doing the most poorly now like N Korea and Cuba.

Good post, cnorwood. It makes people wonder which 50% are they going to fall into?

I would agree, xanadu. I would also propose that the problems we face have more to do with the people in the system than the economic system itself.

The problem is people in the system? The people ARE the system. On paper Communism works great, human nature means that it won't work. This is the same way with Capitalism.

Capitalism is broken, you know how I know that? There has been a massive shift in wealth over the last 40 years to the wealthy from the middle class and poor. If the system was working it should have stayed the same. I believe that the greed the drives our system is also going to cause its downfall, because at some point the middle class won't be able to afford their already strained lifestyle. When that happens the system will collapse or people will revolt and demand that wealth be shifted to a more equal ratio.

[halcyondays]

What happens to Socialism vs Capitalism when scarcity no longer becomes an issue? When everyone can have everything they want because everything becomes so cheap?

[Athanasios]

The problem is people in the system? The people ARE the system. On paper Communism works great, human nature means that it won't work. This is the same way with Capitalism.

I agree with this statement. As for neither working, which works best if human nature is going to try and muck it up? If human nature did not muck it up, would the one that is better, when it does try to muck it up, be just as good as the alternatives?

I think that capitalism has some inherent checks and balances that keeps greed from destroying the system. Unfortunately the political system can be manipulated to affect the economic system in unnatural ways that can undermine the inherent checks and balances of the economic system. There has yet to be any combination of political and economic systems that are immune to this. The democracy and capitalism combination in the U.S. has been more hardy than others though.

What happens to Socialism vs Capitalism when scarcity no longer becomes an issue? When everyone can have everything they want because everything becomes so cheap?

There seems to be a few issues here. Scarcity will always be an issue, but what the goods and services that are scarce will change. If you are thinking of basic necessities, as in what is needed for survival, I think we are already there. It is a distribution problem at this point. For example, recently Kenya had some major starvation issues. At the same time they had a crop surplus so large that it took a farmer 3 months to sell his crops to the government. The government then exported the crops. They even refused aid. This is a problem with the political system.

If you view it on a sliding scale with each capitalism and socialism as an extreme, it depicts how political and economic systems work in combination. There is no purely capitalistic economy in existence. The amount the government intervenes in business the more socialist. The situation in the U.S. seems to only get worse as inroads are made toward socialism and the political system gains more and more power.

[william7]

You bypass the problem of scarcity by pretending it wont exist. It really does seem like the world socialisms approach is a fairy tale that is designed to soothe liberal guilt by pretending something outside of themselves is the problem.

Scarcity is not an immutable fact of life. It can change too as halcyondays points out above.

[Athanasios]

Scarcity is not an immutable fact of life. It can change too as halcyondays points out above.

This is only because you seem to choose to represent scarcity by necessities needed for survival. There is more than that.

Here is a formal definition:

Scarcity: the condition that our wants are greater than the limited resources available to satisfy them.

Notice it says wants, not needs. Who is going to mate with the most beautiful and capable woman/man? The limited resource here is relative, it will never go away until the want is gone. There are tons of examples like that one.

Edit: In fact, may economists say if there was no scarcity, there would be no such thing as the study of economics.

Edited by cnorwood19, 10 December 2006 - 01:21 AM.

[william7]

Notice it says wants, not needs. Who is going to mate with the most beautiful and capable woman/man?

Again, this is not an immutable problem insusceptible to change or modification. Under true socialist society practicing true Christianity it will be monogamy: one man and one woman joining together and becoming one flesh in order to form strong family bond necessary for social stability and for longevity. See, for example, Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:3-12; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15712449. Picking out mates under such a system will be done in a voluntary and cooperative way without coercion or unjust means employed. Those that don't join in marriage will take Nazarite vows according to Numbers 6:1-21; Amos 2:11 and be positive examples and provide necessary spiritual instruction to the people. They'll more than likely live even longer than those that are married because of their service to the people and to God.

When are you going to grow your hair and beard back and stop taking Resveratrol made from wine?

Here's another link to an article that supports necessity of strong marital
bonds to obtain longer lifespan. http://www.rand.org/...018/index1.html.
Bible based religion and socialism strengthens marital bonds were as capitalism stresses and weakens them.

Edited by elijah3, 11 December 2006 - 12:20 AM.

[xanadu]

I'm sure you participate in the imminst forums in order to exchange information and ideas on achieving a longer lifespan. What if achieving socialism and the reduction of work hours and stress this will bring will be absolutely necessary to achieving a substantially longer lifespan and putting that increase of lifespan to good use? Shouldn't this change your mind in favor of socialism?

How do you figure socialism is going to lead to a reduction of work hours and stress? That is one enormous leap of faith. A leap with no evidence to support it, in fact the evidence points to the opposite. People in USSR worked like dogs and were poor. Now comes the statement that they didn't have "pure" socialism or communism. It has been tried and never has worked. Show me one example where pure socialism or communism has worked?

Under true socialist society practicing true Christianity it will be monogamy: one man and one woman joining together and becoming one flesh in order to form strong family bond necessary for social stability and for longevity.

Now it becomes clear. Your beliefs are based on belief, not on facts or logic. Have a nice day.

[AaronCW]

The trouble with capitalism much like the trouble with democracy is that its the absolutely worst system except for all the others. No one has found a better way to go than capitalism. Pure socialism doesnt even come close. Communism is a joke. Pure capitalism has its downside like monopolies and price fixing but that can be cured. Russia and China tried communism/socialism but it failed. They failed too until they switched to a defacto capitalist system. The ones who held out against capitalism the longest are the ones doing the most poorly now like N Korea and Cuba.

Good post, cnorwood. It makes people wonder which 50% are they going to fall into?

I would agree, xanadu. I would also propose that the problems we face have more to do with the people in the system than the economic system itself.

The problem is people in the system? The people ARE the system. On paper Communism works great, human nature means that it wont work. This is the same way with Capitalism.

Capitalism is broken, you know how I know that? There has been a massive shift in wealth over the last 40 years to the wealthy from the middle class and poor. If the system was working it should have stayed the same. I believe that the greed the drives our system is also going to cause its downfall, because at some point the middle class wont be able to afford their already strained lifestyle. When that happens the system will collapse or people will revolt and demand that wealth be shifted to a more equal ratio.

Xanadu, I think that you are offering an unfairly weak defense of Capitalism; it requires, as it deserves, a defense on moral grounds. Capitalism (read Laissez-faire Capitalism) is the only politico-economic system that preserves the rights of the individual and the integrity of the US Constitution. Collectivist doctrines such as any variety of Socialism or Communism destroy them. The fact that Capitalism is also the only system that can reliably increase the standard of living for all levels of society is true for a variety of reasons, but they are all secondary arguments in favor of Capitalism.

Halcyondays, Communism works neither in theory nor in practice, which is only slightly less obvious on paper. It is also an immoral doctrine, and only slightly less so on paper (I am referring to context in which they where written, at which time the atrocities which took place as the logical and necessary result of that doctrine were not fully understood. In light of those facts, it is far more evil to advocate Communism than it was 100 years ago).

The massive shift in wealth over the last 40 years is obviously and demonstrably a result of distortions in the economy due to government regulations, restrictions, and misguided social programs, the result of which maintains the lower levels of society in perpetual poverty. It is intrue and absurd to believe that the wealthy are somehow 'soaking up' the wealth or resources or the poor; it is quite the oppisite in reality. Poverty is maintained, perpetuated, and encouraged through welfare programs. In addition, it is not only the cost of the welfare programs that burden society, it is also the fact that we support an entire class of people that subsist as consumers only, contributing nothing to the economy. A much ignored fact of classical economics is that it requires consumers and producers to be the same people. The shift of wealth is not a result of the basic principles and practice of Capitalism; it is a result of violating them.

If our economy and Government collapses, and the people, or their representatives, demand redistribution of wealth, they will get exactly what they ask for; a Communist dictatorship, an economy that operates at the point of a gun, and a society stripped of all social and individual freedoms.

[william7]

(xanadu)

How do you figure socialism is going to lead to a reduction of work hours and stress?

That's the standard assumption of most serious socialists. I've seen it crop up in the literature time and time again. If you watched the video I posted a link to here you'll noticed it was mentioned. I believe it'll occur as a natural result of a well run socialist society.

Show me one example where pure socialism or communism has worked?

Israel's Kibbutzim worked fairly well for a time until the pressures of worldly capitalism gradually wore them down. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz. I have an entry some where taken from an old Compton Encyclopedia that says Israel"s kibbutz project was the world's most successfully example of voluntary socialism.

It was the same with the early Christian Church mentioned in Acts 4:32-35. The roman catholic church gradually supplanted the true teachings and practices of the early Christians with false teachings and practices and subjected the flock to an oppressive exploitation. This is mentioned in Gustav Bang's booklet Crisis In European History on pages 21- 23. See http://www.slp.org/p...s/crises_eh.pdf.

Now it becomes clear. Your beliefs are based on belief, not on facts or logic. Have a nice day.

My beliefs are based on facts and logic. True, reasoning from the Scriptures employs a different type of logic than you're use to.

Edited by elijah3, 11 December 2006 - 12:02 AM.

[bgwowk]

...voluntary socialism.

Name a country (not commune) where socialism has ever been voluntary. Wealth transfer mandated by law has always been the essence of socialism. If you are truly advocating a voluntary system, you should find a different name for it.

[william7]

...voluntary socialism.

Name a country (not commune) where socialism has ever been voluntary. Wealth transfer mandated by law has always been the essence of socialism. If you are truly advocating a voluntary system, you should find a different name for it.

I can't name a country that's practiced true socialism as it was taught by Jesus Christ or by Karl Marx. Those countries that practiced wealth transfer by law were not practicing Christian socialism nor Marxist socialism. They weren't even close.

You're right about a voluntary system of socialism needing another name. I can't give the new name for it now because it will be tied up with the new names Christ plans to give us mentioned in Revelation 3:12. For now I would just call it true Christianity as opposed to Satan's false version that currently dominates the world today. You thinking about voluntarily giving up all your wealth and the cryonics business and joining?

Edited by bgwowk, 15 December 2006 - 09:41 PM.