$1 USD, that's like $1 CAD?

[Dante]

So society is better served by the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

[chatfsh]

That's being extreme, hardly the definition of capitalism. 

When I look at the existing examples of socialist countries, I

[Edric O]

Ah, a discussion about socialism! Time for the resident communist to step in. :)

So let

[Edric O]

For the short and personal answer:  As I

[Tatar Khan]

If capitalism is not capable of providing housing to everyone without a financial crash, then that's another argument against capitalism.

Those people lived somewhere before they bought those houses.

A lot of blame is passed around on the banks, but let us this who signed on the dotted line. The final decision to take on the mortgages they could not pay was done by the people. They should have done their homework and consulted financial advisors before jumping into the mess.

[chatfsh]

Mhmm, I was wondering when you might join the conversation.  Where to begin

[SandChigger]

The bottom line is - if you made bad choices in life and did not avail yourself of the opportunities that were before you, frankly, you don

[chatfsh]

Agreed.  Just for the record, I have voluntarily given to charities for years now and will continue to do so for as long as I am able. :)  But I would like for my charity to be administered at my discretion.  I believe that it is wrong for my government to force me into charitable giving  by taxing me up the yinyang to fund various social programs designed to take care of those who made foolish life decisions.

I realize that people may temporarily fall on bad times due to no fault of their own, so I

[Andrew]

I simply don

[Tatar Khan]

I realize that people may temporarily fall on bad times due to no fault of their own, so I

[Edric O]

Agreed. Just for the record, I have voluntarily given to charities for years now and will continue to do so for as long as I am able. :)

Well, that is commendable. Charity is very good, but it never was and never will be enough. Let's be realistic here: Charity has been around since the dawn of civilization, and it never solved the problem of poverty or economic insecurity anywhere.

But I would like for my charity to be administered at my discretion.

Hmm, what do you mean by "at your discretion?" A democratic government also administers its finances at the discretion of the people (to the extent that existing governments fail to do that, they fail to be sufficiently democratic).

I believe that it is wrong for my government to force me into charitable giving by taxing me up the yinyang to fund various social programs designed to take care of those who made foolish life decisions.

Oh, I agree. Except that I don't know of any programs designed to take care of those who made foolish life decisions. I know only of programs designed to help people who fell upon bad times, for whatever reason. Yes, maybe some of them made bad life decisions. But it is better to help both the worthy and the unworthy alike than to help no one and let innocent people suffer just to make sure that the guilty suffer as well.

Completely agree with that. As a member of immigrant family that worked up to get to the point we are today I see no reason why I should be forced to help people who are not trying to help themselves.

"I made it safely out of the hole, screw everyone else who is still down there"? I can't say I share those feelings.

Of course, talking about "people who are not trying to help themselves" is a red herring. Those people are a tiny minority. The vast majority of the population have full-time jobs. So even if it were true that all the unemployed people were lazy, the fact remains that the vast majority are not lazy - and the point of socialism is to serve the interests of the vast majority.

There are no welfare payments under socialism (except for the disabled, of course). There is no free income for doing nothing. Instead, everyone has the right to a job. Everyone is given a chance to work for a decent pay, but if they choose not to work then they do not receive any pay.

I simply don

[Dante]

[shameless plug]

Capitalism: giving you bountiful economies since 1929.

[/shameless plug]

[Tatar Khan]

"I made it safely out of the hole, screw everyone else who is still down there"? I can't say I share those feelings.

What I mean is the fact that I do not help those who do not try to help themselves. People who work hard will succeed and they do, I help people when I see that they are working hard to succeed.

Of course, talking about "people who are not trying to help themselves" is a red herring. Those people are a tiny minority. The vast majority of the population have full-time jobs. So even if it were true that all the unemployed people were lazy, the fact remains that the vast majority are not lazy - and the point of socialism is to serve the interests of the vast majority.

There are no welfare payments under socialism (except for the disabled, of course). There is no free income for doing nothing. Instead, everyone has the right to a job. Everyone is given a chance to work for a decent pay, but if they choose not to work then they do not receive any pay.

As you mentioned the vast majority is not lazy and has jobs and it is lazy ones that do not. Since the lazy would not be employed in socialism either than what is the difference.

I understand people who are unemployed and looking for work. They will find it because they are helping themselves.

[SandChigger]

One lazy rich person (say, Paris Hilton) is responsible for throwing away thousands of times more money than a whole crowd of undeserving welfare recipients.

Yes, but the difference is that it is her or her family's money being thrown away.

I guess what I don't get is where does the incentive to excel come from in a socialist/communist system?

[Sneakgab]

''They will find it because they are helping themselves.''

And what basis do you have for saying that?. How does wanting a job guarantee that you will find it?.

Even if somebody is employed, a decent wage with human conditions and a human living standard is not guaranteed. In many places people work hard while living in near empty (except for the other people they often share it with) shacks.

''As you mentioned the vast majority is not lazy and has jobs and it is lazy ones that do not. Since the lazy would not be employed in socialism either than what is the difference''

Well actually he didn't mention that he was only speaking of an ''if''/hypothetical scenario.

The difference in the hypothetical scenario is the serving of the interests of the non lazy employed people ensuring decent pay and effectively diverting underserved pay gained from sources other than one's own work (which is generally diverted from other people's labor. In the possible event that ''fortune'' is bestowed upon the system [eg: An alien shuttle lands on earth filled with food, gold, you name it] it is hard to say what would happen in capitalism [maybe it landed on some guy's land {complete with rights to anything on, below or above it} who therefore claimed it all] while in socialism this would probably be even divided as the philosophy would suggest it).

The difference in a real scenario includes all that as well as the guarantee of offered labor (if you want it) and pay.

''I guess what I don't get is where does the incentive to excel come from in a socialist/communist system?''

When it comes to what I have in mind when socialism is referred to, people are still paid according to performance. The only difference is that they only receive pay for their own labor, not for the labor of others or from profit on an item.

The monetary incentive is there as always in socialism along with every other incentive other than material gain. You just can never make wealth from anything other than you're own labor (how can you go wrong there in the ''deserving'' department) and thus cannot make ludicrous wealth that no human being could possible deserve.

In communism, there are all the other incentives other than material gain.

''Capitalism may have the very wealthy and the very poor, but it also supports a very large middle class'' (Hwi)

That is such a broadly sweeping statement considering the state of the world that there is virtually no chance of it being true.

Btw, why is all this going on here instead of in PRP? Anyone think we should continue this in a properly designated topic in PRP (not sure if that would be better or not).

[nemafakei]

"Yes, but the difference is that it is her or her family's money being thrown away."

Ah, but is it?

[SandChigger]

You trying to get all philosophical on me, Nema? Is this shirt on my back really "mine"? Can we really be said to OWN anything? That kinda sheet? :O

I guess some of the money is actually from those TV shows stupid enough to pay her to do her thing.

I don't know what all the Hiltons are into now, but they started as hotel owners, right? I guess provision of a service is only "noble labor" if you're a grunt behind the front counter, cook in the kitchen or maid changing sheets? God forbid someone should be recompensed for having an idea, building a business, etc etc etc. ::)

(Um...I'm lazy and not really interested in wading through Marx or some equally droll theorist. Is there a convenient list of those purported "other incentives"? :D )

[nemafakei]

I'm saying unless you're prepared to claim that earnings under capitalism are perfectly deserved for some other reason than "because that's how capitalism works", then argument is tautologous, it seems to amount to "There's nothing wrong with a system which creates stupidly rich people who waste money so long the money they waste is money given to them by the system."

(Edit, to clarfy: Yes, if you want to call it philosophical, I am disputing that the philosophical basis of modern capitalism is necessarily the correct one, just as many years ago the philosophical orthodoxy of feudalism, slavery, and all sorts of other social norms were questioned. As it happens, I don't have any problem at all with personal property, I'm not after your shirt or your sheet.)

[Anathema]

I'm saying unless you're prepared to claim that earnings under capitalism are perfectly deserved for some other reason than "because that's how capitalism works", then argument is tautologous, it seems to amount to "There's nothing wrong with a system which creates stupidly rich people who waste money so long the money they waste is money given to them by the system."

Incentives and competition are the reason why the standards of living for everyone has increased so much these last two centuries. Getting rich is an incentive, and outplaying your competition means you've earned being rich. In a system with incentives and competition, being able to set up and run a business is a genuine skill that does, indirectly, produce wealth.

[Edric O]

Incentives and competition are the reason why the standards of living for everyone has increased so much these last two centuries.

That argument might hold some water if you could show me an industrial society where the standards of living for everyone have NOT increased so much these last two centuries. But you can't. Standards of living have increased dramatically in each and every industrial society, regardless of the economic system, the incentive structure, or the existence of competition.

The only places where average standards of living have not increased are the societies that remain based on agriculture. I therefore conclude that the rise in living standards is due to the introduction of industry, not incentives or competition.

You can't give capitalism credit for doing what every other industrial economic system is equally capable of doing.

[nemafakei]

Ah, so there's nothing wrong with a system which creates stupidly rich people who waste money so long the money they waste is money given to them by the system, because making a few people stupidly rich is an inherent part of the system.

(For the record, no, I don't agree with your views that competition and incentivisation are the necessary to increase standards of living, nor that the business acumen as rewarded by the market has much to do in practice with real wealth production).

[Sneakgab]

Dang, 3 new replies while typing this. I shall edit it at later to account for these (maybe), but frankly I feel like posting this right now. :P

(edit)

''being able to set up and run a business is a genuine skill that does, indirectly, produce wealth.''

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that capital is used to send laborers to work and to produce tools and build factories (that, by the way, are produced and built by laborers) that will increase the product of their work for the same amount of labor by a factor.

This can be done without businesses. A group only needs to decide what it wants to produce, how much, by when, e.t.c and then develop a plan for doing this, for which no businessman is needed. All planning needed is acquired from the natural sciences (incl Maths).

You may speak of inefficiency due to a process of planning and debate that may be involved. Gee, last time I checked planning and debate being carried out before doing something (according to importance) is a good thing. But apparently, capitalism results in perfect decisions being made nearly instanteously. And yet there exist obvious and extreme inneficiencies. For one thing, even capitalists agree they will never have their perfect market and efficiency, though I know little of this topic.

Take note that capitalists seem to think that a free-market requires no planners and directors whereas other systems do. last time I checked all those CEO, managers,e.t.c are pretty obviously planners and directors (obviously of a different nature) who do not contribute directly as is the case for all planners but do take enormous amounts of wealth out the system for their personal wasting (personal pay not used for investment from which yachts,personal jets and the like are typically purchased and because of which a demand is created for these frivolous, whim satisfying extremely wasteful objects on which all kinds of labor and resources are wasted.)

''outplaying your competition means you've earned being rich''

Because being better (or luckier, or having more starting capital or...) than the next CEO means that you are some kind of superman more powerful and deserving than millions (even if in the case of none of the above advantages it is some minor idea that might not even have been developed by the CEO in question but by his staff from marketing, sales, personnel, e.t.c)

(edit)

Some of the many motives on the list:

Wanting to improve oneself (via practice), wanting to improve the conditions of mankind, wanting to change the limitations of man (Wanting to have men in the skies instead of having them forever groundbound), along with glory and maybe even envy and even doing something simply because it is entertaining or, as many characters seem to cite, they don't know any other way of life (than one involving their bests efforts in their profession). Who knows how many reasons could be given, selfless or selfish, which do involve money.

I doubt Copernicus and Galileo became rich from their inventions. If we look at famous generals there don't seem to be any stories of huge monetary bonuses for success on the battlefield (obviously they were highly paid for being generals though, but they only need to keep their job for that which would be an easy task for some nobles).

I mean, is a list really needed to think of a reason for doing something other than money? I'm assuming the answer is generally no for nearly all.

[chatfsh]

Working smarter is even more important than working harder.  A manual laborer may work harder physically than a  CEO of a major corporation, but he

[Tatar Khan]

''They will find it because they are helping themselves.''

And what basis do you have for saying that?. How does wanting a job guarantee that you will find it?.

Wanting doesn't guarantee the job looking for it does. Now as you asked I looked up the stats for duration of unemployment in Canada. Since I am not familiar with unemployment definition in other countries. In Canada unemployed are the people who do not work part or full time and are constantly looking for work. The national average for unemployment duration is about 4 months based on Stats Canada Department and OECD Stats department. Judging from this it is possible to say that people who are unemployed and look for jobs find them.

Even if somebody is employed, a decent wage with human conditions and a human living standard is not guaranteed. In many places people work hard while living in near empty (except for the other people they often share it with) shacks.

This is more about the value of work being done and appropriate compensation for that work.

''As you mentioned the vast majority is not lazy and has jobs and it is lazy ones that do not. Since the lazy would not be employed in socialism either than what is the difference''

Well actually he didn't mention that he was only speaking of an ''if''/hypothetical scenario.

The difference in the hypothetical scenario is the serving of the interests of the non lazy employed people ensuring decent pay and effectively diverting underserved pay gained from sources other than one's own work (which is generally diverted from other people's labor. In the possible event that ''fortune'' is bestowed upon the system [eg: An alien shuttle lands on earth filled with food, gold, you name it] it is hard to say what would happen in capitalism [maybe it landed on some guy's land {complete with rights to anything on, below or above it} who therefore claimed it all] while in socialism this would probably be even divided as the philosophy would suggest it).

I guess we are getting into the discussion on profit. I'll start a new thread on that in  Politics, Religion, & Philosophy section.

''I guess what I don't get is where does the incentive to excel come from in a socialist/communist system?''

When it comes to what I have in mind when socialism is referred to, people are still paid according to performance. The only difference is that they only receive pay for their own labor, not for the labor of others or from profit on an item.

The monetary incentive is there as always in socialism along with every other incentive other than material gain. You just can never make wealth from anything other than you're own labor (how can you go wrong there in the ''deserving'' department) and thus cannot make ludicrous wealth that no human being could possible deserve.

In communism, there are all the other incentives other than material gain.

I'll address that in my new thread on profit.

''Capitalism may have the very wealthy and the very poor, but it also supports a very large middle class'' (Hwi)

That is such a broadly sweeping statement considering the state of the world that there is virtually no chance of it being true.

I'll look up analytical works for that

I'm saying unless you're prepared to claim that earnings under capitalism are perfectly deserved for some other reason than "because that's how capitalism works", then argument is tautologous, it seems to amount to "There's nothing wrong with a system which creates stupidly rich people who waste money so long the money they waste is money given to them by the system."

I am prepared to address that in my profit thread.

''being able to set up and run a business is a genuine skill that does, indirectly, produce wealth.''

Take note that capitalists seem to think that a free-market requires no planners and directors whereas other systems do. last time I checked all those CEO, managers,e.t.c are pretty obviously planners and directors (obviously of a different nature) who do not contribute directly as is the case for all planners but do take enormous amounts of wealth out the system for their personal wasting (personal pay not used for investment from which yachts,personal jets and the like are typically purchased and because of which a demand is created for these frivolous, whim satisfying extremely wasteful objects on which all kinds of labor and resources are wasted.)

Now considering that CEO, COO, CFO and etc are actually employees and not owners of the companies although they do become such on occasions, and considering that they represent the management side of business are you arguing that firms do not require management to manage operations?

If you arguing against their compensation that consider that running a multinational corporation that have to work with dozens of different governments each with their own practices and standards is not that easy.

''outplaying your competition means you've earned being rich''

Because being better (or luckier, or having more starting capital or...) than the next CEO means that you are some kind of superman more powerful and deserving than millions (even if in the case of none of the above advantages it is some minor idea that might not even have been developed by the CEO in question but by his staff from marketing, sales, personnel, e.t.c)

Very little luck is involved in high level businesses the only luck there is being prepared for different situations that could arise. Abilityt o secure more funding means you that much better at being at generating income since starting out as an owner you would still would have to generate cotnracts and convinces other companies to work with you and not the competition.

Some of the many motives on the list:

Wanting to improve oneself (via practice), wanting to improve the conditions of mankind, wanting to change the limitations of man (Wanting to have men in the skies instead of having them forever groundbound), along with glory and maybe even envy and even doing something simply because it is entertaining or, as many characters seem to cite, they don't know any other way of life (than one involving their bests efforts in their profession). Who knows how many reasons could be given, selfless or selfish, which do involve money.

It is all nice and philosophical the problem is that those reasons are often given by people who already have themselves financially secure and now trying to make themselves look less selfish to stroke their own ego.

I doubt Copernicus and Galileo became rich from their inventions. If we look at famous generals there don't seem to be any stories of huge monetary bonuses for success on the battlefield (obviously they were highly paid for being generals though, but they only need to keep their job for that which would be an easy task for some nobles).

Galileo actually sold his telescope idea to Venician merchants for a hefty amount since knowing that your ship is coming in and made it safely back was important. Also his theories and brain secured him patronage of many different nobles and princes, the last actually helped to keep him out of hands of Inquisition for a long time as his patrons refused to hand him over.

Copernicus also obtained his laboratories through patronages.

The only real case in scientists that readily comes to mind is Newton who was very religious and so really selfless in going after the rewards of his labour.

Also, should there be no limit to the rewards somebody receives from starting a business? When his business is making thousands or even hundreds of thousands the times it did originally is it the case that somehow this person is somehow a hundred thousands times more deserving than he once was? Did he somehow manage work a hundred thousand times harder, or did he become some kind of superman?

Well it creates interest in getting into that business and create more competition that will improve efficiency, quality and lower the price.

And I'll adress the rest of undeserving profit argument in my profit thread.

[Sneakgab]

Just because people become re-employed doesn't necessarily mean they have anything near constant employment. Doesn't looking at the unemployment % give a better idea than the average duration of unemployment periods. If stats indicate that 20% of the populace was unemployed for straight 40 years, then that is in a sense