Greatest debate in modern history? Socialism(not Stalinism) vs Capitalism

[mheslep]

A relatively long life of observation.

An economics degree. A lifetime in business. A network of VERY crafty people.

And this has shown you how easy it is to become successful in both France and the USA, enough so that you could make a blanket statement on the subject? Me, I would have looked at how difficult it is to start a business in each country, or how many are perennially unemployed in each. The state might take care of the forever unemployed, but I doubt they'll ever become well off.

 

[mheslep]

OK, well I concede that that is really not in the spectrum of what they do. They invest in the development, but not the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of drugs.

But that is somewhat besides the point though since I was responding to this claim:


The point being that the NIH does have a hand in the development of drugs and it is a socialist program.

Ok, we're on the same page. It's been suggested not to uncommonly by some pundits and academics that we don't need any drug companies, that the NIH does everything we need already, literally. That's a view I find absurd for the reasons I listed above.

 

[AlexES16]

I was watching "Capitalism a love story" by Michael Moore. Dude capitalism fail hards. It doesent protect the enviroment, or health of it citizens, promotes canibalism, selfishness, gangsterisim. USA is defintly a bad Empire just as USSR was. The chairmans are like little dictators, just like Mao and Stalin. Technology in capitalism is used for profit not for the good of society.Yeah state capitalism failed hard to just as the free market capitalism. The Libertarianism Socialism is good and communism is an ideal. Striving for a better tomorrow is not a bad thing sounds like "eyes on prize". At the end i think the healthy thing do in life is find happiness and money helps to ensure the basic need and not being poor, after that money doesent have impact on happiness.

 

[calculusrocks]

Michael Moore also believes Cuba's Health Care system is pretty good.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I was watching "Capitalism a love story" by Michael Moore. Dude capitalism fail hards.

It's just possible that you need to broaden your horizons.

 

[Evo]

Seriously?? That is the main mission of the NIH is to invest in research for new treatments, therapies, and medicine in the treatment of disease. I had assumed this was common knowledge, but if you still require a link, I will provide it.

(http://www.ott.nih.gov/policy/policy_protect_text.html" study is about 10 years old, but it determined that about 8.5% of the drugs on the market were from direct NIH funding.)

"Us" capitalists fund the NIH through our tax dollars which is a socialist program.

What specific drugs were researched and brought to market by NIH? Oh, none. That's not their function. Or do you have something no one else knows about? Please post the links to the drugs the NIH have brought to market.

 

[BoomBoom]

What specific drugs were researched and brought to market by NIH? Oh, none. That's not their function. Or do you have something no one else knows about? Please post the links to the drugs the NIH have brought to market.

No, that is not their function... (see post #105.) Again, that is completely besides the point since the statement I was responding to specifically stated "new drug being developed".

 

[mgb_phys]

Well Adam Smith might have baulked at that definition of free market capitalism, the basis for which is un-coerced agreement among parties to transact, including some kind of legal basis to uphold agreed-upon contracts in those transactions.

Smith only needed for you to agree to trade or not, his objection was being forced to trade at a non-market rate (in his day the corn laws).

The choice is pay protection to the mob or leave, if the mob extracts too much everyone leaves - or pays for their own army.
An inner city drug gang's monopoly is no different from a company lobbying for rules making it hard for a competitor to get into the market. The gang is just rather more democratic ;-)

 

[mheslep]

Smith only needed for you to agree to trade or not, his objection was being forced to trade at a non-market rate (in his day the corn laws).

The choice is pay protection to the mob or leave, if the mob extracts too much everyone leaves - or pays for their own army.
An inner city drug gang's monopoly is no different from a company lobbying for rules making it hard for a competitor to get into the market. The gang is just rather more democratic ;-)

Too many Too Cool Drug Gang movies in there somewhere.

 

[AlexES16]

It's just possible that you need to broaden your horizons.

Maybe you are right, but watching all those USA problems, and that's USA the richest nation in the world and one of the most advanced and educated, now how the hell will capitalism work in countries like mine in which the capitalist buy every politician, military, death squads, gangs so they can be richer plus people is very ignorant. Plus climatic change, and maybe the beginning of a new ice age. So yea for you guys in the 1st world, is fine if you go capitalism, socialism or wathever, you have the tech, money, scientist and everything, but for us, maybe we or are just gona pass to history as millions of deads or fight to change things.

 

[calculusrocks]

Maybe you are right, but watching all those USA problems, and that's USA the richest nation in the world and one of the most advanced and educated, now how the hell will capitalism work in countries like mine in which the capitalist buy every politician, military, death squads, gangs so they can be richer plus people is very ignorant. Plus climatic change, and maybe the beginning of a new ice age. So yea for you guys in the 1st world, is fine if you go capitalism, socialism or wathever, you have the tech, money, scientist and everything, but for us, maybe we or are just gona pass to history as millions of deads or fight to change things.

I don't think we're first in the world. In fact, I think the $ is going to fall considerably. This isn't about some ego-trip on American exceptionalism. This is about reality, and the reality is that we're in debt to the rest of the world for gobs, and gobs of money, and in my opinion we're not going to be able to pay it back. The rest of the world, they're not going to keep lending us the money forever, so we're going to print it. We have a phony economy being floated by the rest of the world in my opinion.

 

[calculusrocks]

Plus climatic change, and maybe the beginning of a new ice age.

The climate change arguments (the global temperature isn't right, so therefore gov't must manage the economy in new and interesting ways) lacks credibility in my mind. First it was global warming and the ozone, then it became climate change, and now experts are raising the alarm about global cooling. I mean, who are these experts? Why doesn't the gov't give me $100,000 a year, and I can give them the same official results, and then they can save billions of dollars for themselves by avoiding this crusade on the industrialized nations being the global thermometer?

 

[vici10]

Regarding drug companies, there is an interesting book
"The Truth About the Drug Companies" by Marcia Angel, former editor in chief of New England Journal of Medicine http://books.google.ca/books?id=sF3...+the+Drug+Companies&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

According to the book manufacturing and distribution does not cost that much money. Manufacturing is especially negligible amount. The basic research is most difficult because it is not predictable and take long time and it is done in universities for public money. The most money is spent in clinical trials that partly is done by universities and public research institutes and partly by the private companies. From all this the huge amount of profit is just given to private companies. I say given because it is mostly institutionalized, since it is all based on patents and intellectual property rights that are given to private companies.

 

[calculusrocks]

I think part of the problem, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone, is that Capitalism and Socialism can really only be contrasted in the philosophical, or the historical. In nature, that's not how it turns out. It's not Ivan versus Rocky in Rocky IV either.

Socialism needs to feed off of producers; it needs producers so it can redistribute wealth. Inevitably, people wake up and realize, "Why work? I'm already getting paid not to work." Capitalism the mechanism to create that wealth in the first place. Socialism must feed off of Capitalism. Even in your most oppressed countries where the government had almost total control of the economy, there was still plenty of black markets. Free exchange is totally natural.

 

[Max Faust]

USA the richest nation in the world and one of the most advanced and educated

Dude, the USA is neither rich nor educated - and certainly not advanced. Yeah they have some gadgets here and there to scare the peasants, but all in all it's nothing but a 3rd world banana republic. They haven't got ****. Just debt.

 

[Max Faust]

Socialism needs to feed off of producers; it needs producers so it can redistribute wealth.

You need to remove your head from your colon.

Do you seriously think that "producers" are some kind of demigids that just emerge?

 

[calculusrocks]

You need to remove your head from your colon.

Do you seriously think that "producers" are some kind of demigids that just emerge?

Dude, if that's what you got from my comment then I apologize. I'm a poor communicator. But, there is no reason to be rude. You can just ask for a clarification.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Dude, the USA is neither rich nor educated - and certainly not advanced. Yeah they have some gadgets here and there to scare the peasants, but all in all it's nothing but a 3rd world banana republic. They haven't got ****. Just debt.

Mind that you are in fact telling this to a person who actually lives in a "third world" country presumably while you are on a computer that just about anyone here could have access to and perhaps drinking coffee that you just nipped down to the store to buy.

Maybe you are right, but watching all those USA problems, and that's USA the richest nation in the world and one of the most advanced and educated, now how the hell will capitalism work in countries like mine in which the capitalist buy every politician, military, death squads, gangs so they can be richer plus people is very ignorant. Plus climatic change, and maybe the beginning of a new ice age. So yea for you guys in the 1st world, is fine if you go capitalism, socialism or wathever, you have the tech, money, scientist and everything, but for us, maybe we or are just gona pass to history as millions of deads or fight to change things.

This is often referred to as Corporatism. In a capitalist society there are (theoretically) no protection schemes. If a company can not survive on its own, without any government intervention, then it fails. Of course this is not the way it usually happens in reality as you can see in your own country and even here in the US. The danger is in corporations that become to big and wield too much power. When the government protects the interests of corporations, especially over the interests of individuals, then you are dealing with something not exactly capitalism any more. There are similar dangers in socialist systems where there are theoretically no bribes, black marketeers, or greedy politicians.
It seems to me that regardless of the system it all comes down to people and the choices of various individuals. We have systems that can work, we just don't have very many people we can trust to run them the way they are intended.

"Few people end up being United States senators by accident; at a minimum, it requires a certain megalomania, a belief that of all the gifted people in your state, you are somehow uniquely qualified to speak on their behalf; a belief sufficiently strong that you are willing to endure the sometimes uplifting, occasionally harrowing, but always slightly ridiculous process we call campaigns." Barak Obama - The Audacity Of Hope

To believe that any politician is a normal well grounded individual is a bit of wishful thinking.

 

[AlexES16]

Mind that you are in fact telling this to a person who actually lives in a "third world" country presumably while you are on a computer that just about anyone here could have access to and perhaps drinking coffee that you just nipped down to the store to buy.


This is often referred to as Corporatism. In a capitalist society there are (theoretically) no protection schemes. If a company can not survive on its own, without any government intervention, then it fails. Of course this is not the way it usually happens in reality as you can see in your own country and even here in the US. The danger is in corporations that become to big and wield too much power. When the government protects the interests of corporations, especially over the interests of individuals, then you are dealing with something not exactly capitalism any more. There are similar dangers in socialist systems where there are theoretically no bribes, black marketeers, or greedy politicians.
It seems to me that regardless of the system it all comes down to people and the choices of various individuals. We have systems that can work, we just don't have very many people we can trust to run them the way they are intended.

"Few people end up being United States senators by accident; at a minimum, it requires a certain megalomania, a belief that of all the gifted people in your state, you are somehow uniquely qualified to speak on their behalf; a belief sufficiently strong that you are willing to endure the sometimes uplifting, occasionally harrowing, but always slightly ridiculous process we call campaigns." Barak Obama - The Audacity Of Hope

To believe that any politician is a normal well grounded individual is a bit of wishful thinking.

I think you are right, so maybe is better to have a mixed economy with democracy so the socialist criticize the capitalist and viceversa and that will keep both in its place. And that guy who says that USA is a banana republic is crazy or something, i have traveled 2 times to LA and its like traveling to another planet. Their homes, streets. laws, etc.

 

[AlexES16]

Dude, the USA is neither rich nor educated - and certainly not advanced. Yeah they have some gadgets here and there to scare the peasants, but all in all it's nothing but a 3rd world banana republic. They haven't got ****. Just debt.

Dude I've traveled to USA and they are not a banana republic, USA is like another planet compared to mine, they are ligth yeas ahead of us.

 

[Max Faust]

they are ligth yeas ahead of us.

Ahead? In which direction?
I advice you to pay attention to what is going to happen over the next 10 years.

 

[calculusrocks]

Dude I've traveled to USA and they are not a banana republic, USA is like another planet compared to mine, they are ligth yeas ahead of us.

All we have is a really big credit card. When the rest of the world figures it out, our credit card is going to get declined.

Corporatism is one of the biggest untold stories in America. Bank bailouts, GM, GE, Microsoft, FED, etc. . They all collude with Washington.

ADD: Okay maybe that's not all we have, but you get the point.

 

[Al68]

The only involuntary work ever performed in the U.S. is demanded by government.

Have you forgotten about slavery?

No, I meant currently. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[mheslep]

This is often referred to as Corporatism. In a capitalist society there are (theoretically) no protection schemes. If a company can not survive on its own, without any government intervention, then it fails. Of course this is not the way it usually happens in reality as you can see in your own country and even here in the US.

Yes, too-big-to-fail news hogs aside, usually that is exactly what happens here in the US when a company can not survive on its own - companies fail at the rate of ~55,000 businesses per year.
http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/2009/bankrupt_f2table_jun2009.xls

 

[Al68]

The Libertarianism Socialism is good and communism is an ideal. Striving for a better tomorrow is not a bad thing sounds like "eyes on prize". At the end i think the healthy thing do in life is find happiness and money helps to ensure the basic need and not being poor, after that money doesent have impact on happiness.

For many people, happiness is impossible without individual liberty, which precludes any government imposed economic system, including socialism and communism.

Are you advocating the use of force to take away the liberty (happiness) of some to make others (who don't value their liberty as much) happier?

If socialism/communism is so great, why the need to force it on anyone? Plenty of people in the U.S. and elsewhere practice voluntary socialism/communism. It's not like there's some law against it. The objection isn't to practicing socialism/communism, the objection is to forcing it on people against their will.

 

[calculusrocks]

For many people, happiness is impossible without individual liberty, which precludes any government imposed economic system, including socialism and communism.

Are you advocating the use of force to take away the liberty (happiness) of some to make others (who don't value their liberty as much) happier?

I think what he's saying in regarding libertarian socialism is that libertarians voluntarily join a socialist society. Yes I know, it seems like a contradiction in terms, but I guess it's possible to make a libertarian socialist society. Although I remain a capitalist.

 

[calculusrocks]

Yes, too-big-to-fail news hogs aside, usually that is exactly what happens here in the US when a company can not survive on its own - companies fail at the rate of ~55,000 businesses per year.
http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/2009/bankrupt_f2table_jun2009.xls

If corporate welfare wasn't bad enough, you have companies that seek legislation to ban their competitors products. You also have companies that seek legislation to gain funding for projects by government. This isn't true competition.

 

[AlexES16]

For many people, happiness is impossible without individual liberty, which precludes any government imposed economic system, including socialism and communism.

Are you advocating the use of force to take away the liberty (happiness) of some to make others (who don't value their liberty as much) happier?

If socialism/communism is so great, why the need to force it on anyone? Plenty of people in the U.S. and elsewhere practice voluntary socialism/communism. It's not like there's some law against it. The objection isn't to practicing socialism/communism, the objection is to forcing it on people against their will.

Yeah i was wrong, you can still make co-op companies in capitalism right? Mixed Economy for the win xD

 

[CRGreathouse]

If corporate welfare wasn't bad enough, you have companies that seek legislation to ban their competitors products. You also have companies that seek legislation to gain funding for projects by government. This isn't true competition.

No, and it should be banned. Same for senators and representatives lading bills with pork for their districts -- it's bad for everyone but a small group.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes, too-big-to-fail news hogs aside, usually that is exactly what happens here in the US when a company can not survive on its own - companies fail at the rate of ~55,000 businesses per year.
http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/2009/bankrupt_f2table_jun2009.xls

In a corporatist system certain few corporations receive preferential treatment by the government because it is seen as being in the best interest of the country to keep these corporations from failing. I apologize if my wording implied that it happened for more than just the lucky few.

 

[russ_watters]

Is it too late to argue against the title of the thread? "Greatest debate in modern history..."? Really? The debate about which side of the center is better was largely settled decades ago, even if we're still moving to the left...and that's if I even concede that there ever was much of a debate at all, beyond the limited inroads it made without violence in a few countries 75 years ago. Later, perhaps at the height of the cold war in the 1960s there was a legitimate question if the Soviet system was/could be viable (whereas the early debate was before it was tested), but that's only because that side of the debate lied about how well things were going there - and very often still does lie about it! Today, it exists only as Stalin envisioned it: as a morphing of seemingly unrelated concepts: a fascist dictatorship mixed with pseudo-Marxisim.

I think that the reality of what it Is is evidence of what it is capable of. Marx had an intriguing and to some people vaguely appealing idea, but he did not develop it into a workable system of government and the current incarnation is as close as can really be gotten to his vision.

 

[AlexES16]

Is it too late to argue against the title of the thread? "Greatest debate in modern history..."? Really? The debate about which side of the center is better was largely settled decades ago, even if we're still moving to the left...and that's if I even concede that there ever was much of a debate at all, beyond the limited inroads it made without violence in a few countries 75 years ago. Later, perhaps at the height of the cold war in the 1960s there was a legitimate question if the Soviet system was/could be viable (whereas the early debate was before it was tested), but that's only because that side of the debate lied about how well things were going there - and very often still does lie about it! Today, it exists only as Stalin envisioned it: as a morphing of seemingly unrelated concepts: a fascist dictatorship mixed with pseudo-Marxisim.

I think that the reality of what it Is is evidence of what it is capable of. Marx had an intriguing and to some people vaguely appealing idea, but he did not develop it into a workable system of government and the current incarnation is as close as can really be gotten to his vision.

Yes, but what about the 3rd world? How will capitalism give the tools to starving people to develop?

 

[AlexES16]

Hey and the 3rd world, i need a explanation of how capitalism give the tools to starving people??

 

[calculusrocks]

Hey and the 3rd world, i need a explanation of how capitalism give the tools to starving people??

By teaching people how to fish rather than giving fish. By teaching people to stand, not to bow or to kneel.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, but what about the 3rd world? How will capitalism give the tools to starving people to develop?

See, e.g., China. From the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China" :

China has been the most rapidly growing economy in the world over the past 25 years. This growth has led to an extraordinary increase in real living standards and to an unprecedented decline in poverty. The World Bank estimates that more than 60% of the population was living under its $1 per day (PPP) poverty line at the beginning of economic reform. That poverty headcount ratio had declined to 10% by 2004, indicating that about 500 million people have been lifted out of poverty in a generation.