No, it wasn't economic boom. That's exactly what I am saying. If you want to fully analyze or study the model, you can't do so without spending enough time talking about the boom-bust nature of the american economy. The fact that you want to make simplistic statements means, you aren't willing to make a critical analysis. The "boom" you're talking about was after the great depression and decades of poverty, starvation and homelessness. Just the nature of having multiple different jobs, losing them during a recession, is considered a normal lifestyle in the US, as opposed to other countries where working-class professionals usually have long careers in the same industry. Were you not in the US during the last recession or the one before that?
“Socialism” vs. “Capitalism” debate
- Thread starter Kinsella
- Start date
No, it wasn't economic boom. That's exactly what I am saying. If you want to fully analyze or study the model, you can't do so without spending enough time talking about the boom-bust nature of the american economy. The fact that you want to make simplistic statements means, you aren't willing to make a critical analysis. The "boom" you're talking about was after the great depression and decades of poverty, starvation and homelessness. Just the nature of having multiple different jobs, losing them during a recession, is considered a normal lifestyle in the US, as opposed to other countries where working-class professionals usually have long careers in the same industry. Were you not in the US during the last recession or the one before that?
Feck off Boue. I've never defended the system. I was just arguing against the perceived solutions which are high on publicity and nil on impact.
"feck off"
"feck off"
"youre bitter"
hmmm. not sure that comes across the way you want it to.
All you do in this forum is have idiotic opinions and quote posts from years ago. At least Muffled Funk was funny occasionally.
wow youre definitely proving yourself to be not bitter
@berbatrick US GDP in 1940s is probably the lowest when it was regulated due to WW2. As an example, it is absurd. I'd discount that from this argument as a exception and not a normal trend,
Eboue, imo is one of those pseudo-elitist people who probably has had a decent upbringing yet feels he's an expert on third world upbringings and career paths. Has no idea on what people do to drag their career up, but just sits back and posts idealistic nonsense.
you are literally a banker in manhattan
Says a lot.
All rich are evil. All success is evil. You're just bitter. We have bankers in Manhattan earning less than $50k pa and I can attest to it.
You have no idea on what I had to give up to reach this. And being a banker in Manhattan is no feckin big deal. Id be happy to give it up for other options...which I can't get as of now. Moving to US is probably the worst financial decision I've made till date.
Last edited:
the very obvious point is that government can direct production in more efficient ways than markets depending on the circumstance. you have to define what you mean when you say regulated markets are generally worse than free ones or whatever otehr general statements you made. there are many ways in which markets are not better, and wartime is a perfect example. even though the demand-supply conditions exist, free competition would be wasteful.
the use of marginal definitons of value means that a free market is by definition value-maximising. th free-market optimum outcome could mean a thousand deaths for someone to have an extra yacht, and that would still be regarded as optimal and defended here.
The very obvious response is that most governments cannot. They are inefficient and politically driven as against economically. You have no proof to attest to above.
i gave you some examples, i can give more. you've been assserting statement after statement yourself.
plus, once again, its wrong to divorce politics and economics. once again, relying on marginal theories of value means that it is possible that a 1000 people dying for an extra yacht for a billionaire is the "economically" optimal outcome.
Do you think Modi and India government are more efficient in regulating markets?
Do you think Boris and UK government are more efficient in regulating markets?
Do you think Trump and US government are more efficient in regulating markets?
Give me some significant examples of how government is better.
When the alternative is the 160 million Americans being poorer and the 3 billionaire's being significantly poorer they should stop paying attention.
I accept envy and jealousness are a part of human nature though so can't really be switched off even if often irrational.
Exactly this. There is no such thing as economics if wealth is infinite.
How about bootlicking? Is that human nature or just part of yours?
Except that’s not what that graph shows...
@berbatrick US GDP in 1940s is probably the lowest when it was regulated due to WW2. As an example, it is absurd. I'd discount that from this argument as a exception and not a normal trend,
Another overly simplistic view. I don't self-identify as a socialist. I don't support governments owning all the means of production or trying to set price points for everything like the Soviets.
At the same time I studied too must history and economics to believe in the laissez-faire mantras of market fundamentalism that glorify the overly simplistic profit motive across all sectors. History shows us the ills of laissez-faire capitalism for the bottom 90% such as the early factories of industrialization under laissez-faire models or the reasons why the FDA was even created (hint: because many "capitalists had no problem putting out rotten, dangerous food, see The Jungle by Upton Sinclair).
When you've studied microeconomics and game theory its really very simple: laissez-faire market fundamentalism has massive problems with misaligned incentives. Just look at private prisons which have been a disaster for the US as a whole but profitable for a few cnuts. The entire financial crisis of 2006-08 was the result of completely deregulated financial services "products" and misaligned incentives as well. History shows that market fundamentalism has been a massive negative for the bottom 90% while benefiting only the top .01%.
To equate the benefits of technological advance entirely with laissez-faire market fundamentalism as you seem to be doing is just not accurate history (ignoring examples like DARPA and NASA that have been mentioned).
The reality is, neither pure, state-owned socialism nor pure laissez-faire, market fundamentalist capitalism works. Both, in their purest forms, are non-viable, non-sustainable systems.
And nothing you said disproves that chart which is explained in detail here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
You have to look at the entirety of political economies of industrial societies in the context of history to accurately analyze things not just throw up a few regurgitated statements ("guvment bad for the bottom 90%") from biased market fundamentalists with incentives to spread this myth because they profit from it.
You realize saying all this only makes you come across as more unlikable, right?
No. It quite clearly was not the simplistic result of "capitalistic free market" fundamentalism. And anyone that studied history like berba and Carolina knows this.
It was the result of, among many things: massive US government investment during WWII, the social welfare safety net of things like Social Security, the technological advances that came out of both WWII government investment and post-WWII investment like the Space Race and, for the US, the fact that Europe and Japan were rebuilding from facing the massive negative effects of the war that the US largely avoided (the Soviets lose the bulk of an entire generation of young men).
Typical heated Redcafe thread. 11 pages of arguing, shouting at each other, calling names and yet - no attempt to first define the terms? Are you guys sure you are even talking about the same thing? Because, based on some posts - no, you are not.
So, maybe we dial back and start with the definitions, because these words don't really mean what some here think they do.
Socialism - the main and necessary characteristic of the system is that government should own/control the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods. It can be planned (as in Soviet Union) or market-based (market defines how much to produce and what). It can be directly owned by government or owned through public, collective or cooperative ownership, but not - private.
This kind of system has never proven to be more successful than capitalistic economies anywhere in the world. But more importantly, we don't live in fecking 19th century, anymore. In 21st century "means of production" are increasingly digital – how do you even control such production or distribution effectively? It's not about just factories, anymore.
Anyway, equally important is to define the notion of "social-democratic", because that is what Bernie claims to be and it is most definitely not the same as a socialist government, let alone - communist.
"Social democracy is an ideology that has similar values to socialism, but within a capitalist framework. The ideology, named from democracy where people have a say in government actions, supports a competitive economy with money while also helping people whose jobs don't pay a lot."
Very, very different things! Can't be going around calling social democracy a "socialism" and secretly meaning "communism", because social democracy is essentially capitalism, just with way wider social protections, so some would argue - more humane. And there are certainly very economically successful countries that practice social democracy.
Personally, I think social-democrats have a terrible branding issue and they really should chose a name that doesn't make people call them "socialists". Maybe go with "humane capitalism", but - oh, well.
So, now - where were we?
So, maybe we dial back and start with the definitions, because these words don't really mean what some here think they do.
Socialism - the main and necessary characteristic of the system is that government should own/control the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods. It can be planned (as in Soviet Union) or market-based (market defines how much to produce and what). It can be directly owned by government or owned through public, collective or cooperative ownership, but not - private.
This kind of system has never proven to be more successful than capitalistic economies anywhere in the world. But more importantly, we don't live in fecking 19th century, anymore. In 21st century "means of production" are increasingly digital – how do you even control such production or distribution effectively? It's not about just factories, anymore.
Anyway, equally important is to define the notion of "social-democratic", because that is what Bernie claims to be and it is most definitely not the same as a socialist government, let alone - communist.
"Social democracy is an ideology that has similar values to socialism, but within a capitalist framework. The ideology, named from democracy where people have a say in government actions, supports a competitive economy with money while also helping people whose jobs don't pay a lot."
Very, very different things! Can't be going around calling social democracy a "socialism" and secretly meaning "communism", because social democracy is essentially capitalism, just with way wider social protections, so some would argue - more humane. And there are certainly very economically successful countries that practice social democracy.
Personally, I think social-democrats have a terrible branding issue and they really should chose a name that doesn't make people call them "socialists". Maybe go with "humane capitalism", but - oh, well.
So, now - where were we?
I didn't feel the need to state history because it was implied....and simply you can't make any discussions about that era without factoring in post war boom.
You're talking events, I'm talking economy which took advantage of those events and enabled them to success. That era is called as golden era of capitalism for a specific reason.
the question is about delivering things more efficiently than markets.
ok, let's imagine a fully free market for food. suppose there is 1kg rice unsold. Person A, worth rs. 100, is willing to pay rs. 100 for the rice to not starve. another person B, worth rs. 1,00,00,000, is willing to pay rs. 150 for the rice. this can go in 2 ways - A starves to death, and B spends rs. 150 to decorate his floor with rice, OR the seller gets only Rs. 100 from A, and B's floor is undecorated. which is the optimal outcome, and how do you arrive at that conclusion?
thanks to the hindu hriday samrat distorting the market with his PDS, people don't starve to death when they're short of cash.
...
govt can invest in things the private sector cannot, things where the return on investment is far in the future or is uncertain. for example, President Trump, through the NSF, is funding research on the chemical storage of hydrogen. There are multiple ways this might be solved, there is a good chance it might never be solved, and there is an even better chance it might never be needed, depending on the future energy mix. so as a market investment it may not be a good bet. however, Trump and US government by intervening and distorting the research economy, are making this research possible.
...
because of the cursed reign of boris johnson and his unjust powers over the free market (specifically the labour market for healthcare workers), people in his country get care for free at a lower cost than most other european countries.
New Capitalism. Diet Capitalism. Capitalism II - This Time It's Merciful.
why is social democracy losing election after election in europe? what is the viable social democratic answer to climate change?
First we need to define what we mean by Europe...
I don't know. What's your theory?
There are competing definitions between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism.
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/democratic-socialism-social-democracy-nordic-countries
Yeap. It seems important that Sanders qualifies himself as social democrat and not: democratic socialist.
No, he usually calls himself a democratic socialist. The platform of his 2020 campaign is social democracy, obviously, though.
He does? I haven't seen him do so and this article states the opposite: https://qz.com/1805692/bernie-sanders-isnt-a-democratic-socialist-he-is-a-social-democrat/
But then again, he's said a lot of weird shit over the years
so - who knows. Do you have any credible sources showing he calls himself democratic socialist?P.S. Ironically, I don't think it will matter if he wins the primary, because the majority of US electorate cannot tell the difference between social democracy and "socialist"/"communist" and Republicans will dig into that confusion like hell, so he is very likely to repeat the path of Jeremy Corbin, even if Sanders is in reality much more moderate and sane than Corbin.
There's a vid in this NYT piece from June last year. He did an entire speech promoting 'democratic socialism'.He does? I haven't seen him do so and this article states the opposite: https://qz.com/1805692/bernie-sanders-isnt-a-democratic-socialist-he-is-a-social-democrat/
But then again, he's said a lot of weird shit over the years
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000006555488/sanders-democratic-socialism.html
EDIT - Also the link you posted there says
I think most Americans think social democracy is Facebook posts about Russian meddling, so it's probably easier just to lean in to the 'socialist' tag.
I wasn't a massive fan of Capitalism until it rebranded from Sweatshop Shallow Base Jumpers to Make money money Take money money Monay!
On my AirPods.
On my AirPods.
actually it's good
If you want to call the "golden age of capitalism" an era when taxes on the top 1% were 75-85% of income and the average CEO to worker compensation was 20-1 instead of over 220-1 then go right ahead:
"In contrast, the CEO-to-typical-worker compensation ratio (options realized) was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 58-to-1 in 1989. IN 2018 it was "by a ratio of 278-to-1 or 221-to-1"
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
Hobsbawm had me convinced that capitalism’s high age coincided with the third quarter of the 19th century:
