Upward Mobility or Equality?

[First Crusader]

My take on the matter is expressed quite clearly by the facts stated in this link.

Failure of Socialism

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory.Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives. In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter! Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter! In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the "evil capitalist empire" when they were only 50 miles from the "workers' paradise" of Cuba? The Marxist admitted that many "socialist" countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing "pure" socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn't work.

[Kanaric]

Capitalism doesn't work as well, that is another form of economy that doesn't exist, so go figure, lol.

Neither does democracy, that doesn't work because it doesn't actually exist outside of VERY small communities.

Socialism is something where you take many of the ideas and combine them with work works in the other ideas. The ideal form of economy/government is a combination of the best of what works in other forms. You can't go 100% hard line down one path and not look at others, it goes against progress. Thats why "democratic" nations aren't 100% socialist.

Socialism doesn't mean nobody can become entrepeneurs. Its not communism for christ sake.....

[First Crusader]

Capitalism doesn't work as well, that is another form of economy that doesn't exist, so go figure, lol.

Maybe, but its certainly working better than all of the other systems we've tried out...

Neither does democracy, that doesn't work because it doesn't actually exist outside of VERY small communities.

Socialism is something where you take many of the ideas and combine them with work works in the other ideas. The ideal form of economy/government is a combination of the best of what works in other forms. You can't go 100% hard line down one path and not look at others, it goes against progress. Thats why "democratic" nations aren't 100% socialist.

Socialism doesn't mean nobody can become entrepeneurs. Its not communism for christ sake.....

But that makes inequality, and everyone is "enslaved to capitalism". I thought that was bad!

And if the government is controlling all of the important industries, its kind of difficult to become a corporate giant.

[Aristophanes]

Capitalism doesn't work as well, that is another form of economy that doesn't exist, so go figure, lol.

Neither does democracy, that doesn't work because it doesn't actually exist outside of VERY small communities.

Socialism is something where you take many of the ideas and combine them with work works in the other ideas. The ideal form of economy/government is a combination of the best of what works in other forms. You can't go 100% hard line down one path and not look at others, it goes against progress. Thats why "democratic" nations aren't 100% socialist.

Socialism doesn't mean nobody can become entrepeneurs. Its not communism for christ sake.....

Oh, I'm very confident that you can both define capitalism, and explain how this mythical 'capitalism' is a failure.[by what measure] So, until then, I'll wait patiently twiddling my thumbs, not the least bit concerned that you may have absolutely no idea what it is you're talking about.

I'm also interested in hearing how Erik attributes China's success[i.e. to what cause], and exactly why he thinks Europe's obviously unsustainable welfare states represent a model which should be duplicated in the future.

Erik your sad 'measure of whatever'[who cares what it was] doesn't matter. People who compose these indices pick variables in order to select for a certain result, that hardly translates to 'scientific'. I'm sorry, but that is not a metric for long-term societal viability, which is by far the most important question any nation faces.

[Erik]

I'm also interested in hearing how Erik attributes China's success[i.e. to what cause],

I think it comes down to good economic planning.
It took them several decades to get it right but it looks like the Chineese government has found the perfect balance between private ownership and government involvement.

and exactly why he thinks Europe's obviously unsustainable welfare states represent a model which should be duplicated in the future.

"Obviously unsustainable" ????
What do you base this on?

Erik your sad 'measure of whatever'[who cares what it was] doesn't matter. People who compose these indices pick variables in order to select for a certain result, that hardly translates to 'scientific'. I'm sorry, but that is not a metric for long-term societal viability, which is by far the most important question any nation faces.

I said GDP doesn't matter, and for good reason.
GDP sais nothing about livingstandards or the sustainability of the economy.
I'm only interested in those two things.

@TIGERCAT: What does that CIA article have to do with "upward mobility" vs "equality".
All it does is point out that the EU seeks equality and the US doesn't.
But we already knew that.

[Kanaric]

Maybe, but its certainly working better than all of the other systems we've tried out...

It can't work if it doesn't exist anymore. The US is even more socialist than capitalist...... it was realized it wouldn't work in the late 1800s when corporations were abusing their power every other day.

But that makes inequality, and everyone is "enslaved to capitalism". I thought that was bad!

Thats communism, in socialism not all corporations have to be controlled by the government. The whole "equality" and "comrade" thing, etc, is a communist ideal.

I agree socialism is terrible, but it has good ideas. Same with capitalism.... America's having groups that protect the consumers like FDA, for example, having problems like pentions and veterans benifits, are all good things you have to agree, others are arguable like welfare. However with true capitalism corporations are pretty much given free reign. They can form all the trusts, monopolies, etc, they want. Also they can do things like sell bad meat or drugs that actually dont work and get away with it. Plus people who serve our military should get benfits, and people who are harmed by accidents caused by neglect on a companies part should be helped as well (workers comp).

Socialism has done a lot of good in this country and still does today. We just have to realize what parts we should/shouldn't use or come up with new ideas entirely.

[First Crusader]

It can't work if it doesn't exist anymore. The US is even more socialist than capitalist...... it was realized it wouldn't work in the late 1800s when corporations were abusing their power every other day.



Thats communism, in socialism not all corporations have to be controlled by the government. The whole "equality" and "comrade" thing, etc, is a communist ideal.

I agree socialism is terrible, but it has good ideas. Same with capitalism.... America's having groups that protect the consumers like FDA, for example, having problems like pentions and veterans benifits, are all good things you have to agree, others are arguable like welfare. However with true capitalism corporations are pretty much given free reign. They can form all the trusts, monopolies, etc, they want. Also they can do things like sell bad meat or drugs that actually dont work and get away with it. Plus people who serve our military should get benfits, and people who are harmed by accidents caused by neglect on a companies part should be helped as well (workers comp).

Finally we find something we agree on!

I actually support monopoly prevention, as it keeps other people down and denies them opportunities.

I think socialism overall failed, and is still failing miserably, but that doesn't mean that I don't support improving the capitalistic system.

One can learn from failure just as much from success. So we should continue studying socialism - but just be careful that we don't fall into the same fallacies.

[Erik]

Failure of Socialism

[/quote]
Who are the "LITHUANIAN LIBERAL UNION"
And why are you quoting from this obviouslty political website?

ps: check my new sig.

[Sétanta]

people have to work to make themselves worthwile in society. government cant make you worthwile

[sephodwyrm]

My take on this.

As one moves a level upward, there will be at least 10 that is needed to support him or her. Upward mobility and the unequal distribution of wealth is the creator of the social castes and social divides.

[RusskiSoldat]

Here's my take on this (I call it bastardized socialism): it should be a strictly meritocratic mobility.
Most people do not have the capacity to move up anyway, and are doomed to remain low.
All of these can be grouped into the low class, which is to enjoy what the Soviet worker enjoyed: their basic needs fullfilled completely, and a luxury here and there.
The people who are now mildly succesful could be put in charge of small managing projects and local level government work, enjoying a few more luxuries, but not substantially many.
The higher level officials would be put in charge of the military, be made heads of industries, competition would be simulated to promote better choice of prospects at the top. By simulation I mean, say, the soda industries is broken into rival companies, and whichever one is most succesful, gets benefits so that there is an incentive, but not too much of it.
Finaly there needs to be a leader at the top capable of keeping everyone else in line.
That is his main job, to make sure every does what they are supposed to, although that leader having a special skill himself would be a bonus, it is not necessary, he needs to be a strong disciplinarian.
That way, we get a compromise system, where people enjoy being provided for completely and recieving everything they need(socialism) strong central rule to ensure everything gets done, competition (capitalism) and only very minor benefits for all but the highest, who are to be taught discipline and rejection of excess from birth, like everyone. A person is not to be born into a class, but make himself into one. If he proves worthy, the son of a poor georgian shoemaker can become the leader, and the son of a field marshall can be made into a farmer.
Needless to say such a system needs abuse prevention measure, which I won't write here for they could fill a book, but basically it's a system of checks and ballances (as that has proven effective) adapted into this type of society.

[sephodwyrm]

But market competition is probably the best sifter to separate the people on merit...

[Pra]

What's wrong with a system that allows for both?

I refuse to vote in such a poll as the options are far too totalistic.

[sephodwyrm]

No...because one would still need a selector for meritocracy, but the best selection out there will still be market competition. Just randomly appointing people into various departments with no checker on their efficiency and clear criteria would open a passageway to the world of CORRUPTION.

[imb39]

How incredibly biased... The sort of socialism we have inBritain (and Europe) allows, indeed needs, entrepeneurship. Oh, I forgot, the American Dream is the way to go. Sorry, but for the vast, vast majority of people it is just that - a dream. No matter how hard they work.

[leeho730]

How incredibly biased...

Agreed, especially the choice in the poll like 'nobody is allowed to become entrepeneurs.'

Then we have 12 or 13 year old in a TV program, pretending to be successful by riding a limousine, sipping an expensive beverage in a crystal, and posing for a photo shot. WTF.
Such a narrow-minded interpretation of the term 'success,' I believe. Money is not everything.

NZ is a socialistic country in general but if a person is successful and he/she wants to by 25 or 50-million dollar yacht, then why not? My father is working in a yacht company and yes, these custom-built yachts are bought by NZ businessmen...

[First Crusader]

Agreed, especially the choice in the poll like 'nobody is allowed to become entrepeneurs.'

Then we have 12 or 13 year old in a TV program, pretending to be successful by riding a limousine, sipping an expensive beverage in a crystal, and posing for a photo shot. WTF.
Such a narrow-minded interpretation of the term 'success,' I believe. Money is not everything.

NZ is a socialistic country in general but if a person is successful and he/she wants to by 25 or 50-million dollar yacht, then why not? My father is working in a yacht company and yes, these custom-built yachts are bought by NZ businessmen...

Probably because your country is still capitalist, with some socialist tendencies! :laughing:

When "true" socialism is established, everyone is equal!

[leeho730]

Probably because your country is still capitalist, with some socialist tendencies! :laughing:

When "true" socialism is established, everyone is equal!

Yes. But we had 2 TV presenters who were receiving more than NZ$400,000 a year as a salary. Guess what? TVNZ (State-owned television station) was forced to fire one, decrease salary of the another one but tackled by the Employment court.

Yes, our economy is definitely based on capitalism, but employment law is definitely socialistic (it is quite hard to fire employee without a good reason), we have some draconic measures to prevent monopolies (government control, anyone?), people do not like high salary of CEOs, and our deputy prime minister goes as far as saying that "we don't want turn NZ into US."

I believe capitalism is a failure because it has failed to address the problem of poverty.

[Pra]

Probably because your country is still capitalist, with some socialist tendencies! :laughing:

When "true" socialism is established, everyone is equal!

The poll, however, doesn't establish this...it is operating under the assumption that there are only two extremes.

[First Crusader]

The poll, however, doesn't establish this...it is operating under the assumption that there are only two extremes.

Yes. That was my point. Comparing unlimmited capitalism, as seen in The Wealth of Nations , or total socialism.

There are a million different combinations, of course. But I only wanted to focus on the extremes for now.