capitalism- is it workingFollow

Well maybe free health care didn't exist before capitalism, but the health care situation we've got now didn't either. The demand for public health care is the result of capitalism, and is therefore a negative affect that we could fix by tempering capitalism.

I'll try to factor puppies into this.

Capitalism is an economic model. It isn't a political system, it isn't a set of ideologies. It doesn't have a binary, on/off status either.

As RedPhrenchfaggotxx said, most western democracies embrace varying elements of capitalism and socialism - Some nations limit obligatory social funding to armed forces and essential security services (E.g. USA, UK, France, Germany, Canadia), others include state funded care for certain older adults (all of the above).

Others extend it to partial healthcare (Medicare & Medicaid in USA, etc.) others to more universal healthcare (UK, France, Netherlands etc.).

It's all about degrees.

Another dimension is whether the capitalism is globalised or nationalistic. Lately it's all the former (A Belgian company could buy Ford or Rolls Royce). That's pretty standard these days, whereas in 1930s Germany Hitler allowed free market capitalism provided the owners were Aryan Germans.

As for the statement earlier that no-one woke up and said "let's have capitalism" - how about Yeltsin in 2000 or Deng Xiao Peng a few years later.
So now Moscow and Shanghai are booming capitalist economies with gold plated office blocks amid squalid shanty towns.

So there we have capitalism without democracy.

And on a more important note, Stella Artois tastes Shit after eating mints, and puppies are soooo cute!.

I'll try to go slower and use smaller words then. ;)



No. They are completely different things. It's the process that matters here. In mathmatical terms, reduction of a negative is a multiplier. More correctly it's a percentage, right? You can only reduce from 1-100% of a negative effect. So if the effect generates -X "badness", the maximum countering effect is +1X "goodness". You can't reduce more negative effect then you create. Adding a positive is (obviously) addition. There is no limit to the amount you may choose to add.

It's that lack of limit that is the problem. If we restrict our regulation to reducing negative effects, we impose an automatic restriction on the power of government itself. The government can only regulate industry in direct proportion to what the industry is already doing. You can always strive for "100% elimination of negatives" and still have limits. But you can't both strive for "100% positive effects" and have limits. You'll never find an end point at which you're "done" making the world a better place.

The danger is that government will grow endlessly if we follow that model. And I'm not just talking about money. I'm talking about power. And the more power the government has, the more risk there is for corruption or worse.


Another way to look at it is that government can be an effective check to private industry (and it should be!). But nothing stands as an effective check to government power itself. Certainly, the private industry doesn't do so. It's a one-way equation. Hence, it's logical to limit the control the government has over industry to only regulating and limiting the negatives industry may generate. That way we ensure a balance between the two. Pursuing positives may seem like an ideal and worthwhile pursuit. And in some cases, there are strong arguments in favor of those types of actions. But you need to be *very* careful and aware of the risks involved.


And when people can't even see that the two actions are radically different, I have a hard time believing that those same people are aware of the risks of one action versus the other. Your own argument serves as a warning to those who understand this disctinction and gives us a strong reason to oppose such things even more strongly.

So you're saying that "the ends justifies the means" is an ok methodology for governments to adopt?

Sometimes, I feel like I'm trapped in an alternate political reality, where gbaji and I are forever stuck on little podiums debating the definition of "Yes".

And then Nobby comes in and farts all over the place...

I love the Asylum.

Well. To be fair to socialism, what you're describing is really just government in operation normally. Government spending always tends towards increasing itself for the sake of those "in control" of the funds. It's the "big dick" problem. The guy with the biggest budget has the biggest dick. And there's a lot of motivation to be that guy...


This is hardly something new. I'm pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find any system of government throughout history where there wasn't some desire to be "the guy in charge" and to take some efforts to increase the power of "the guy in charge" purely for personal gain. Modern bureaucracy takes this concept to the highest and silliest levels, but it's really nothing new. I'm sure that back in Rome, Senator Flavius worked hard to make sure that taxes flowed into his zone of control instead of someone elses for exactly this reason.


Again, this has nothing to do with socialism. However, socialism can often be used as an excuse for this sort of thing. Afterall, if you can convince the people of the need/benefit for some increase in taxes to pay for some new program, and you get to control that money, well... Who's to say that's a bad thing, right?


The concern here (for me anyway) is that government almost always does this. All by itself. You don't plan for it, but you can count on it happening. Adding additional flow of revenue through the government can only make it worse, so that's certainly relevant, but that's not necessarily limited to socialist programs. Socialism just amplifies the rate of the problem.

In Japan they dont have the "big ****" problem, but they DO have elections evely molning.

Couldnt help myself.

Honestly though, you don't. Not when what's fueling the size of the metaphorical ***** is sold to the public as something that will make their lives better. People will vote their own self interest almost every single time. If you give them a choice to "vote for something free for you", it's really really hard to convince people not to vote for it.

And the guy who runs the program to provide that free thing has the power handed to him. So no. Democracies do *not* have any sort of check to this. The only check is to actively work to make sure that people recognize the true costs involved with the "free things" that many politicians will try to get them to vote for.

You know. People like me.

Hello again!

I can't speak for gbaji, but I think that you and he may be speaking two different languages, Monsieur Red. You have pointed out that in a representative democracy, the public ideally knows what their money is being spent on, and is able to review the government's financial decisions.

I think that what he -- or at least I -- was trying to say, however, is that yes, we know what our money is being spent on. That is what we object to. I personally do not believe that just because the majority voted for something, that that makes it okay. I think that the fact that we have socialist programs in our representative democracies means that the public has voted to steal from others, as I described above. And I think that that's wrong.

Also, I do not think that he meant to say that the bureaucrats who implement the budgets are given Lamborghinis. That's kind of silly. ^.^ I think that he meant to say that we now have politicians making promises that they will steal from other people and give to their constituencies, in order to get voted into office -- i.e. "Vote for me and I'll set up new government programs, and spend more of other people's money on the ones we have!" That's what I personally object to, anyway.

Not to be redundantly obvious, but if we didn't tax the money in the first place, then yes, we could choose exactly where "our money" gets spent.

Welcome to 13th Century Britain.

Only those born into wealth could access education and social rights. The only taxation was to fund military campaigns.

Nobody born poor was able to improve their social circumstances. Ever.

In your utopia, you'd be cleaning up my horses' Shit and hoping to sneak some to enhance your diet.

****

Wow! It's just all or nothing with you guys, isn't it?


So suggesting that maybe the government shouldn't tax money from people unless it can show that the program(s) they're spending it on is a better use of the money then if it hadn't been taxed in the first place is somehow equated in your minds with turning back the clock to some kind of fuedal economic system?

Hyperbole much?


What's funny is that you *just* got through talking about how as long as there is oversight on the spending, it's all peachy. But when someone suggests that very thing, you bash them for trying to make everyone poor.


Maybe I'm old fashioned, but to me oversight on government spending *starts* with an assessment of the value of what it's being spent on. The starting point should always be "dont' tax anything and let the people spend their money how they please". Taxing that money in order to use it for some "good" should be the exception, and it should require justification, not just be an assumed default condition.


And you guys wonder why I keep pointing out this flaw. You're so wrapped up in it, so accepting of government spending and the "right" of the government to spend our money, that you can't even see what I'm talking about.

I live in a democracy that allows me to vote out the leadership that fails to meet my requirements.