[bhamlaxy]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

The problem is, there really is no good system. It's cliche, but you're really talking about which is the lesser evil. The best you can do is a mixed economy, free enterprise with limited central control focused on rights and safety for both workers and consumers.

I think in the end we can permute our arguments and agree that a more mixed economy would be better, that is, if we can agree that adding more socialist aspects to current notions of capitalism, like used in the US, to help fix uneven class distribution and the impact of profit on morality, would be a good thing. I always try and find a good closing to each debate where we can agree on a compromise, to prevent the debate from dragging on forever and getting repetitive.

I'll answer some of the little mini-debates that we started.

Although not germaine to the argument per se, I'd argue this. In Vietnam, we thought the same thing, and we also thought Iraq would be a cake walk. Invading countries is a bad idea, they know a lot more about their land than we do, and, regardless of the reason for us invading, we usually end up pissing as many people off as we make happy.

The point, though, was that people would not want a military intervention, that's why they'd cry for intervention, but complain about how it's done.

Proposed intervention in Sudan would be nothing like the "regime change" of Iraq or vietnam. Literally a couple troops per village is all that is necessary.

Russia is already in a position to dictate its demands to Europe, due to the high price of oil. Remember, production isn't always the determining factor. If Russia undercuts OPEC oil by a half-dollar a barrel, it's got Europe at its beck and call. Russia has made several audacious military moves in the past couple of decades, and the EU and US haven't made a stink about it. I'm guessing there's a reason, and that reason is that Russia will become the next Asia Minor, supplying us oil that we really should be weaning ourselves off of.

OPEC could easily undercut the price more than Russia, or just lower production levels to raise prices. And Norway is still the biggest supplier of oil to the EU, so they have much more control over oil.

The de-dev point of view is very depressing. What's wrong with investing in a Space Elevator, collecting materials from asteroids, and getting our asses off this rock? The Earth isn't the only place to live, you know. We can even start making Dyson Spheres, and bypass the whole pesky "finding-a-habitable-planet" business.
Humanity already thinks too small, that's our problem. We won't solve it by getting a narrower viewpoint.

Yea it's depressing, but it is viewed as inevitable. And the whole finding a new planet thing is hopeful, but capitalism will definitely play a big part in choosing who gets to go and who doesn't. It will be a long time before we have the capability to transport everyone to a new planet. Until then, you can leave if you have the money to pay.

Could the US be doing more? Yes. It's still a lot of money going into foriegn aid though.

It's not a lot of money when you look at how much we actually have. Money is nothing unless you have something to compare it to, and when you compare the amount we give to the amount we have, it is much lower than most industrialized countries.

Could you give an example where the US sold weapons to both sides during a conflict? The US sells weapons to US allies. If we didnt' care who we sold stuff to, dont' you think we'd be selling Iran parts for their f-14 fleet now? I'm sure they'd love to get some.

We don't sell weapons to Iran right now because it is illegal. I'm sure if there wasn't an embargo some US arms companies would be selling them weapons if the price was right.

As I stated before the US sold arms to 8 of 9 groups involved in the wars in the Congo. We have supplied both India and Pakistan with weapons, which, although not at war, have had tensions brewing in the past. Other examples include Greece and Turkey, sales to both Iran and Iraq during their war, and other examples in Africa.

And what could China do about it? You said yourself they dont' have to power projection to send troops over there. We've got the oil, and if they play nice we might make sure they still get some. If they make any trouble, well more for us.

It would absolutely shatter US-China relations to all hell. They wouldn't even speak to us over key issues like North Korea, economic relations, or anything else. Come on, you seriously think the US would go in and take over their oil industry, and dangle it in front of China's face as an incentive to be nice? They would be extremely pissed off, and there would be severe backlash, maybe dump a nice bundle of our bonds to show us who is boss.

Which would require billions to build the infrastructure to drill for the oil, refine it, and ship it. Why do that when you can just take over existing infrastructure? What's China going to do about it?
Send troops? You yourself said that was impossible.
Protest to the UN? Well, they would have to explain why there were giving money to people commiting genocide.
Economic sanctions against the US? Oh wait, we have their oil.
Invade Taiwan? Oh wait we have more ships, more planes, and their oil.
Accept it and negoiate a treaty where they keep access to some of the oil supplies and maybe get reimbursed a bit for the seized assets? That seems the safest route.

Cut all diplomatic relations on issues across the board, and economic sanctions would be almost a guarantee. The fact that we would have their oil wouldn't mean shit because it isn't all of their oil, just a portion of it, but not enough to hold them in a death grip. If you seriously think China would just whine and cry if we invaded and took over their infrastructure in another country, you are dead wrong. It is almost a guarantee that they would use their economic "nuclear option" of dropping US bonds, and quickly realize that the US might start screwing with international interests and develop long range military capabilities.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

I think in the end we can permute our arguments and agree that a more mixed economy would be better, that is, if we can agree that adding more socialist aspects to current notions of capitalism, like used in the US, to help fix uneven class distribution and the impact of profit on morality, would be a good thing. I always try and find a good closing to each debate where we can agree on a compromise, to prevent the debate from dragging on forever and getting repetitive.

Yup, we can agree on that.

It's not a lot of money when you look at how much we actually have. Money is nothing unless you have something to compare it to, and when you compare the amount we give to the amount we have, it is much lower than most industrialized countries.

Just because the US could do more isn't reason to minimalize the contribution that is made. In a society purely motivated by greed and self interest, even that wouldn't be spent.

We don't sell weapons to Iran right now because it is illegal. I'm sure if there wasn't an embargo some US arms companies would be selling them weapons if the price was right.

Absolutely someone would. However, it's illegal because the US puts political issues ahead of profit.

As I stated before the US sold arms to 8 of 9 groups involved in the wars in the Congo. We have supplied both India and Pakistan with weapons, which, although not at war, have had tensions brewing in the past. Other examples include Greece and Turkey, sales to both Iran and Iraq during their war, and other examples in Africa.

All but 1 of which were considered allies at the time of the sales, and who were not at war at the time. Greece and Turkey, both being members of NATO especially.

The 1 that wasn't an ally, Iran, people got jail time for. Of course they didn't get the guy in charge.

As for the groups in the Congo, the US supported them because they were, or at least claimed to be anti-communist.

It would absolutely shatter US-China relations to all hell. They wouldn't even speak to us over key issues like North Korea, economic relations, or anything else. Come on, you seriously think the US would go in and take over their oil industry, and dangle it in front of China's face as an incentive to be nice? They would be extremely pissed off, and there would be severe backlash, maybe dump a nice bundle of our bonds to show us who is boss.



Cut all diplomatic relations on issues across the board, and economic sanctions would be almost a guarantee. The fact that we would have their oil wouldn't mean shit because it isn't all of their oil, just a portion of it, but not enough to hold them in a death grip. If you seriously think China would just whine and cry if we invaded and took over their infrastructure in another country, you are dead wrong. It is almost a guarantee that they would use their economic "nuclear option" of dropping US bonds, and quickly realize that the US might start screwing with international interests and develop long range military capabilities.

The problem with that is the US could only do it if we managed to push through a resolution at the UN authorizing use of force, with China not using their veto for some reason. At this point, it's not just the US China has an issue with. The US is supposedly only intervening to stop a genocide, and the other major powers approved action. China can't take any action in this situation, the international political climate won't allow it. If they try, they risk being completely isolated for supporting a genocide. Yes China will be pissed, but they've proven themselves very pragmatic in the past. They'll be able to put that aside for now and try to get a favorable deal.


Of course this is quite farfetched, since there's no way China would let a resolution get approved, and there's no way the US is going in without one.

[snoro]

While some of you just know the problem on paper,me i can see it in every day in my life because where I live the political systems is right in the middle of capitalism and communism(the right,the left and us in the middle).This is the province of quebec.

Here is just a exemple of the beauty of capitalism.We have a orgazination that is called Office de la protection du consommateur.The job of this orgazination is check every store ,every publicity and every products to check their quality,to check if the publicity are targetting children(WICH IS SUPPOSED to bo illegal in our country) and also help the buyer if he have some problems with a buy.In 1995,our governement decided to have no more deficit so cut in half the budget of the OPC and they wanted them to give the service.
In 1993,there were 40 inspector that could go see the buyer in need to help him.Today,they are now 5 inspector and they are in the same city wich is Montreal and they have to help everyone in the province.

This a good exemple of just a bit of capiitalism can do that i wanted to tell you

[Hex]

I judge we've devolved into a war-for-money debate. A return to the topic for me:

Contrast point:

Originally Posted by AidanRyuko

Why is Communism/Socialism better? Because the greed is controlled.

Greed. You know, someone asked me why communism failed so often in past instances, and I came to a quick Flyff analogy. Imagine the party system before advancement (and because this is an analogy to economy, ignore the game aspect and read into the meaning): many similarly-leveled players, all fighting together and sharing experience. Each player will recieve an equal share of the experience everyone generates, and the experience each player generates is divided evenly amongst the party members. But, since no two players build quite the same, those better built will kill more efficiently and generate more experience than those that are poorly built. Ultimately, the players best for the party -- the ones providing the highest experience/time rate -- are the ones who suffer most, because they would actually be better off fighting alone and keeping what otherwise would have been the difference between what they earn and 'their share'. But the real point is the flipside of that coin: those who are the worst for the party -- those providing the least experience per time -- recieve more than they would fighting alone, and recieve more experience than they generate.
Communism, on the large scale, is geared towards the longevity of itself as a whole: by equalizing citizens' rights and economic access, the whole of society tends to be a little more stable. Unfortunately, this doesn't last long, because of what's happening on an individual scale: those working the hardest know they're getting less than they're giving, and are content to change and work out to what they take in. Simultaneously, those least economically successful know that the economy will carry them, and in cases where other factors don't apply simply don't attempt to put out as much as they get back. Slowly, the entire system shrinks, and the only way to offset the fallback is to advance the entire economy -- either by a faster population growth than economic decline, or by galvanizing societal outlooks, neither of which are easily accomplished on a national scale in small countries, and both of which are notoriously difficult to actually influence in any society.
You cite Greed as the evil of capitalism. Is it so forgivable then if Sloth is Communism's favorite sin?

Minor point:

Originally Posted by Fipherion

The driving force of capitalism is self interest, and as such, it is the economic system best fitted to our human nature. Call it greed if you want. That wouldn't be innacurate but self interest and capitalism leads to competition. Competition leads to innovation, increased efficiency, and lower prices.

When you get down to it, nothing here isn't true. Tempered Capitalism is based entirely around competition, and competition is won and lost by different factors. You have to be more attractive than the other guy, no matter how you do it: either you maximize on efficiency, and promote yourself as the cheapest source of a good/service, selling more frequently; or you refine your product continuously, and get billed as the finest provider, allowing you to demand greater compensation; or in any other of a myriad ways. Ultimately, Capitalism is geared towards advancement of individual providers, and when those unable to deliver fail out of the system, the system as a whole is more advanced, and the failed gets recycled into the workforce of better proviers. Communism slides backwards intrinsically; Capitalism is inherently designed on growth.

Minor point:

Originally Posted by Fipherion

"Market prices are determined by a few guys in corporate offices."
If you mean that they decide what price to print on the labels of their products then you are correct but do you know who tells them what price to print? Consumers. If a price is too high, the product won't sell. If a price is too low, there will be a shortage and profits will not be as high as they could be. It is in the "guys in corporate offices" self interest to price their products where they should be.

Point closed. Couldn't have summed it up better Fiph, +rep.

- "Quality naturally declines in favor of quantity."
Yes it does with some providers, in tandem with alternative providers who justify the same price as ever or an even higher one by refining quality rather than degrading it. The two are entirely interdependant: if either one were to cease, maybe the argument you make in this point would be true; and even if it were, it would not, could not, last, and would create a collapse. As this has not yet occurred, I think it's safe to say that "Capitalism promotes the decay of quality" cannot be an axiom without assuming it's opposite to be true as well (and any logical system with conflicting axioms is nonsensical and useless).

- "Quality of service is correlated to worker's compensation."
Yes it is, intrinsically. When quality declines in favor of economizing price, less gain is generated per good/service, which is in turn less money to be invested back into the provider as compensation. But you tend to forget, cheap sells well; precisely because your favorite fast-food hamburger costs a fraction of the really good ones you might find at a steakhouse, a whole lot more of your fast food is going to sell. Whether you divide a dollar into four quarters or twenty nickels, it's still a dollar.
The reason you raised this point wasn't for consumer economy, though; you cite human services as something to fear a decline in quality of, which is a natural (and honestly a valid) fear. However, because we live in the first world, human life comes with a rather high price, if you'll pardon the pun: we take it much more seriously, and so cheap service isn't the priority. While "alley doctors" do exist (perhaps one of the few real phantoms of "Capitalistic Greed"), generally people are very much geared towards the maximum quality healthcare they can allot themselves, because everyone looks out for number one. With more important industries, decline in quality is unacceptable, and stagnation of quality is rare: the more seriously an entire economy takes a service, the more the entire society demands good product.
Oh, and, I can't believe you used an example that extreme, unrealistic, and rediculous. Fail hard.

Minor point:
- "Healthcare companies care more about profit than the quality of life."
I have to hand this one to Fipherion too, plus my end notes in the previous point. It's a stereotype you're harping on for image, and while out healthcare system is certainly flawed, it's for much more complex reasons.


My actual thread contribution:
- "The poor stay poor, the rich get rich." / "Poor families don't advance."
Man, and I just put Leonard Cohen lyrics in my signature.
I do have to inevitably discuss what's seeming to piss people in here off: class disparity. One of the most attractive features of Socialism and most instances of Communism is the reduction in and sometimes elimination of class differences. We're even having ethical debates right now (or, rather were shortly before election news took over evening broadcast) about the immigrant worker flood being in danger of becoming a permenant underclass. Why was this? Because they were at the bottom of the economic curve, and content to work the hardest: the less you have, the harder you fight for it. Yes, capitalism lends itself very well to a tri-tiered class setup, because there really isn't a curve for economic well-off-ness -- it's probably more remnicient of a f(x)=1/kx with a large k constant. The point is, money doesn't generate itself within an economy; a closed economy gets richer on the whole as it grows and improves, but it's still all there. And between you and me and some amount of money, neither of us can be rich unless the other is poor. The effect is less noticeable when there's fewer rich than poor (which makes sense mathematically/conservationally anyway), because me taking $10 from you and four of your friends is a lot subtler than me taking $50 from you. On a millions-of-first-worlders scale, most come out in the average, with a few at the top and the rest at the bottom.
You can explain why and how it works all day long, but the point to take home here is that a greater wealth cannot exist without a tandem greater poverty, and the greater they become the further the classes separate.
Now, ethically speaking, is a tiered class system morally sound? Probably not. The most extreme incarnation of the phenomenon is slavery. And then, eliminating class difference altogether creates it's own logistical and moral issues. But you tell me whether you're comfortable with your fancy computer and fast internet connection and what you're doing for the beggaar on the corner. You tell me the price difference between the nice toilet paper you want to buy and the cheapest you can find, and to what charity you donated that difference.
Unfortunately for me, this debate seems to be ethically driven, which I guess is inevitable when the headliner is "Bad, Capitalism! Bad!" I personally do not intend to get into an ethical pissing match, because ethical debates are ones that can't come to any useful conclusion, if any conclusion at all. However, I think a few of you might find the commentary useful.