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

[calculusrocks]

Well that sounds a reasonable answer.

Yes, I was playing some word-games. I do apologize. The reason why 16 hour days wouldn't happen because it simply isn't logical. Companies need labor, so labor is in demand. When labor is in demand, then laborers will be able to pick and choose the terms of their own labor. If labor is in vast, vast, quantities of supply then you may see that so it's not technically impossible.

 

[BoomBoom]

The reason why 16 hour days wouldn't happen because it simply isn't logical. Companies need labor, so labor is in demand. When labor is in demand, then laborers will be able to pick and choose the terms of their own labor. If labor is in vast, vast, quantities of supply then you may see that so it's not technically impossible.

The 10% of Americans that are currently unemployed might disagree with your assessment of labor being in demand.

The fact of the matter is that before regulation, 16 hour workdays (and worse) did happen...so logic be damned.

 

[calculusrocks]

The 10% of Americans that are currently unemployed might disagree with your assessment of labor being in demand.

The fact of the matter is that before regulation, 16 hour workdays (and worse) did happen...so logic be damned.

Labor is not in demand, because who would rationally hire right now? If the employee is a hassle and has to be fired, he gets 99 weeks of unemployment. An employee is becoming a liability! Besides that, there's the uncertainty surrounding the health insurance, cap and tax, and whatever policy the gov't decides to do next. What companies are doing now is trying to adapt by bringing more output with less human resources.

Unemployment is much higher here in Las Vegas, especially among males. Tourism took a hit, and Las Vegas rode the housing market to the top.

I don't approve of cities that are built entirely to trap workers inside. No doubt there were some unpleasant examples in the past, but we've grown out of it through the wealth of technology now available. If a programmer, for instance, wants to work 16 hours a day, why should I force him to not work? Also, voluntary unions did come out of that.

 

[BoomBoom]

If a programmer, for instance, wants to work 16 hours a day, why should I force him to not work?

He can...it just requires that he be paid overtime wages if he does. So the only reason you would force him not to, is that you would rather not pay him time and a half.

 

[CRGreathouse]

He can...it just requires that he be paid overtime wages if he does.

Not likely as a programmer. They're usually on salary, not wage.

 

[edpell]

If the employees are not willing to work 16 hours for 8 hours of pay the company can always move to India, China, Egypt, Russia were people will work 16 hours for 8 hours pay. Or more realistically 12 hours and day for 1 hours pay (US).

 

[CRGreathouse]

Or more realistically 12 hours and day for 1 hours pay (US).

Right, at exchange rates, but more like 12 hours work for 3 hours pay PPP. (Where's the 'ha ha only serious' smiley when you need it?)

 

[Al68]

The fact of the matter is that before regulation, 16 hour workdays (and worse) did happen...so logic be damned.

And they happen now. I personally work >16 hrs/day routinely.

The current limit on voluntary work for adults in the U.S. is 24 hrs/day.

It was never private companies, or capitalism that ever made anybody ever work a single hour. The only involuntary work ever performed in the U.S. is demanded by government.

How about a vote for the most influential person in modern history? My vote goes to Karl Marx by a landslide.

 

[Al68]

If the employees are not willing to work 16 hours for 8 hours of pay the company can always move to India, China, Egypt, Russia were people will work 16 hours for 8 hours pay. Or more realistically 12 hours and day for 1 hours pay (US).

Are you aware that the dollar has no intrinsic value? Its value is determined by how hard a dollar is to obtain.

Making dollars easier to obtain only reduces their buying power.

 

[edpell]

Right, at exchange rates, but more like 12 hours work for 3 hours pay PPP. (Where's the 'ha ha only serious' smiley when you need it?)

Yes forgive me purchasing power parity is an important factor. ;)

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yes forgive me purchasing power parity is an important factor. ;)

I was, of course, supporting your point. (I trust you knew this, but for the benefit of others...)

 

[edpell]

I was, of course, supporting your point. (I trust you knew this, but for the benefit of others...)

Yes I understood. I was just sharing the humor with you. :)

 

[jgens]

And they happen now. I personally work >16 hrs/day routinely.

The current limit on voluntary work for adults in the U.S. is 24 hrs/day.

It was never private companies, or capitalism that ever made anybody ever work a single hour.

True, but historically private companies have been able to pay their employees so little that they needed to work 16 hours/day in order to afford the food for their family; not to mention the fact that 16 hour work days were often mandatory.

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

Have you forgotten about slavery?

 

[AlexES16]

I was reading many coments and looks like the comentators think tha USA gov is a socialist gov but in fact is not. In socialist society the workers own the means of production and they run it democratically, the same with goverment. A workers democracy by the majority and for the majority.

So i think is a not good comparation.

 

[AlexES16]

I have doubt about capitalism in this aspects:

-How does capitalism protects the enviroment?
-How does capitalism improves the health of population?

If company A uses mercury in X product to save money and increase profits at the expense of destroying the environment and the health of population. How you regulate things like this.

Are consumer rights from capitalism?

Wich is the role of government in a capitalist oriented society?

And the point of the hours of work is still not clear. A popular tactic used by companies in my country is to pay little to people in the 8 hours of work, forcing them to work extra hours and they still live in precarius conditions.

 

[AlexES16]

 

[jgens]

Thanks. And you contend that if I research their writings I will find they argue . . .

I should clarify my point here. Neither Palmer nor Powaski argue that the oppresiveness of stalinism was solely responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union; however, they do argue that it was a significant contributing factor along with other important issues like a stagnant economy. Both historians address the thesis that the oppressive nature of stalinism catalyzed the collapse and note that this thesis does draw support from some members of the historical community. Since I think that both of these historians are reasonably trust worthy and because the thesis that they argue blends both the oppressiveness of stalinism and the eventual failure of the soviet economy, I'm inclined to believe their claims about what other historians believe.

One immediate and obvious issue with that contention requiring clarification is timing. The USSR collapsed in ~1991, Stalin died in 1953. Do you contend (or these historians) that Stalinism (vice socialism) lingered on as the USSR's political system all the way through Gorbachev and Glasnost?

While the USSR didn't suffer purges on a stalinist scale after his death in 1953, the KGB was still very active until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. I don't think that anyone doubts that the USSR was an extremely oppressive nation, even after the death of Stalin.

 

[mheslep]

...
While the USSR didn't suffer purges on a stalinist scale after his death in 1953, the KGB was still very active until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. I don't think that anyone doubts that the USSR was an extremely oppressive nation, even after the death of Stalin.

I agree. The question then is what is and what is not Stalinism, or better yet, how does one go about labeling one aspect of the USSR Stalinist, and another somehow different aspect of the society as Socialism?

 

[Max Faust]

Well, I would challenge anyone to point at an existing PURE "capitalist" system anywhere. It simply doesn't exist. It couldn't. It's just a word that has been invented by propaganda specialists. Claiming that the USA is capitalistic is just ridiculous. The people gets taxed out of their ears all the time. The only real difference between the USA and, say, France; is that in the USA the people gets taxed by private interests (through the boom-bust cycles of inflation-driven economy) whereas in France they get taxed by the state. Whereas it's possible for an individual to get "rich" in both places, it's a lot easier to get "poor" in the USA.

The whole idea of "socialism" is to insure society as a whole against the very real and very predictable problems that will arise when the wealth of the nation gets too unevenly distributed. Why would anybody need to be a billionaire? What use does society have for billionaires? In a perverse way, it represents a return to a feudal system where the ownership of land is exchanged with the ownership of economical power. The Lords of America are the people who have so much money that they can dictate the politics of the nation.

 

[AlexES16]

Well, I would challenge anyone to point at an existing PURE "capitalist" system anywhere. It simply doesn't exist. It couldn't. It's just a word that has been invented by propaganda specialists. Claiming that the USA is capitalistic is just ridiculous. The people gets taxed out of their ears all the time. The only real difference between the USA and, say, France; is that in the USA the people gets taxed by private interests (through the boom-bust cycles of inflation-driven economy) whereas in France they get taxed by the state. Whereas it's possible for an individual to get "rich" in both places, it's a lot easier to get "poor" in the USA.

The whole idea of "socialism" is to insure society as a whole against the very real and very predictable problems that will arise when the wealth of the nation gets too unevenly distributed. Why would anybody need to be a billionaire? What use does society have for billionaires? In a perverse way, it represents a return to a feudal system where the ownership of land is exchanged with the ownership of economical power. The Lords of America are the people who have so much money that they can dictate the politics of the nation.

Yeah that's why socialism or a very controlled market economy is the way. Capitalism works great for the central capitalist countries but for the 3rd world capitalist countries it fails a lot or it have to be regulated or forget it.

 

[Dale]

-How does capitalism improves the health of population?

By encouraging the development, production, and distribution of new and innovative medical devices, procedures, and drugs through rewarding those doing the hard work required. When is the last time that you have heard of a new drug being developed outside of capitalism?

 

[AlexES16]

By encouraging the development, production, and distribution of new and innovative medical devices, procedures, and drugs through rewarding those doing the hard work required. When is the last time that you have heard of a new drug being developed outside of capitalism?

What about the enviroment?

 

[Max Faust]

When is the last time that you have heard of a new drug being developed outside of capitalism?

When is the last time you have heard about a new disease being developed outside of capitalism?

 

[BoomBoom]

When is the last time that you have heard of a new drug being developed outside of capitalism?

NIH (and similar) funding has developed many new drugs.

 

[calculusrocks]

What about the enviroment?

People have property rights, and when you own a piece of property you badly want to preserve it. If someone intentionally pollutes your land, then they are guilty of a serious crime as it is the equivalent to theft.

 

[mheslep]

Well, I would challenge anyone to point at an existing PURE "capitalist" system anywhere. It simply doesn't exist. It couldn't. It's just a word that has been invented by propaganda specialists. Claiming that the USA is capitalistic is just ridiculous. The people gets taxed out of their ears all the time. The only real difference between the USA and, say, France; is that in the USA the people gets taxed by private interests (through the boom-bust cycles of inflation-driven economy) whereas in France they get taxed by the state. Whereas it's possible for an individual to get "rich" in both places, it's a lot easier to get "poor" in the USA.

This contains several fairly specific claims about life in France and the USA. How do you come to these views? E.g. there are equivalent opportunities to 'get rich' in France and the USA, the commercial 'boom-bust' cycles approximate surplus taxation in France, etc.

 

[mgb_phys]

Well, I would challenge anyone to point at an existing PURE "capitalist" system anywhere.

Chicago in the 30s, big bits of Columbia and some US inner cities now.

There's no police so you have private armies, they extract as much extortion(tax) as possible from dealers/customers/stores in their area. The amount is naturally set by economics, if somebody can't pay they are replaced by somebody who can.

Organized crime is very efficient from an economics point of view.

 

[Dale]

NIH (and similar) funding has developed many new drugs.

Are you seriously citing the NIH as an example of something "outside of capitalism"? It is part of the US system, after all.

In any case, the NIH funding tends to focus on basic science research, which is indispensable, but is not itself the development, production, or distribution of a new therapy technology. Usually the NIH-funded research will identify a target and then private industry will develop the therapies to hit that target. Of course, that is grossly simplified and generalized, but it is a good rule-of-thumb.

 

[Evo]

NIH (and similar) funding has developed many new drugs.

NIH? Please post a link to drugs they have brought to market. Also, who do you think funds the NIH? Us capitalists do.

 

[mheslep]

Chicago in the 30s, big bits of Columbia and some US inner cities now.

There's no police so you have private armies, they extract as much extortion(tax) as possible from dealers/customers/stores in their area. The amount is naturally set by economics, if somebody can't pay they are replaced by somebody who can.

Organized crime is very efficient from an economics point of view.

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. So while I'd agree it is theoretically possible to have some kind of 'godfather' run capitalism - perhaps China qualifies - as soon as someone puts a gun to your head capitalism is out the window.

 

[Max Faust]

How do you come to these views?

A relatively long life of observation.

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

How does anyone arrive at an opinion?

 

[BoomBoom]

NIH? Please post a link to drugs they have brought to market. Also, who do you think funds the NIH? Us capitalists do.

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.

 

[BoomBoom]

Are you seriously citing the NIH as an example of something "outside of capitalism"? It is part of the US system, after all.

Are you implying that the U.S. is completely void of 'socialist' programs?

 

[mheslep]

NIH (and similar) funding has developed many new drugs.

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.

That is not what Evo asked you. The question was about drugs they [NIH] have brought to market. We are all aware that NIH does great research which inevitably impacts the development of drugs and treatments. Which drugs has NIH run through a lengthy and expensive FDA approval process? Which does it manufacturer by the billion? For which does it visit and educate physicians? In other words, which drugs does it actually ship to drug stores which can help anyone?

 

[BoomBoom]

The question was about drugs they [NIH] have brought to market.

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:

When is the last time that you have heard of a new drug being developed outside of capitalism?

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