I don't expect the US to be worse than China. That is my point.You should rather be interested how much worse US will be than China in 20-30 years.
Is Capitalism Evil?
The more free market (and I'm not talking about crony capitalism - what was once called fascism) the faster the poor advance.Skipjack wrote:Well yeah, they are on the end of the scale. If you asked me, even Austria is to much of a socialist country for its own good. I am considered a rightwinger in Austria. I am for more market freedom, less social network, less government and less government spending than we have now. BUT, I am still butting heads with you every now and then ;)Greece is too much obviously. Spain as well. Italy - yep.
Why? Because you see the world more as a pure black and white, I dont.
I see a grey world, a world that requires balance, not extremes.
I guess that is pretty extreme.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Only that this "trickle down" system does not work as advertized. The poor in the US are quite a bit poorer than the poor here and that even though the US is (supposedly) the richer country. I have not seen any convincing evidence that this system works. Besides, it seems pretty reasonable that the right of the strongest (or nowadays, the right of the richest) is not the ideal way to build a society.The more free market (and I'm not talking about crony capitalism - what was once called fascism) the faster the poor advance.
Let me put it that way: The existance of both sides guarantees that either one of them stays somewhat under control and can not go to far.
Capitalism protects the rights of those that are rich and worked hard for that, socialism protects the rights of the poor that never had a chance. Both can be abused and both can result in suffering of certain groups if brought to extremes.
Capitalism protects the rights of those that are rich and worked hard for that, socialism protects the rights of the poor that never had a chance. Both can be abused and both can result in suffering of certain groups if brought to extremes.
Sure it does. My tiny apartment has central air. Something no king had in 1850. It trickles down in other ways than cash. I live like a king on the budget of a pauper.Skipjack wrote:Only that this "trickle down" system does not work as advertized. The poor in the US are quite a bit poorer than the poor here and that even though the US is (supposedly) the richer country. I have not seen any convincing evidence that this system works. Besides, it seems pretty reasonable that the right of the strongest (or nowadays, the right of the richest) is not the ideal way to build a society.The more free market (and I'm not talking about crony capitalism - what was once called fascism) the faster the poor advance.
I have (well had, it is broke now) a 10 - Cray 1 equivalent on my desktop. No Country could afford such a machine in 1950. Mine cost under $1,000 new. I expect if I have to replace it I will pay $500. That is trickle down.
Most of our poor live better than the kings of 1850. And without servants. That is trickle down capitalism.
I'd love to see rampant capitalism (as opposed to the current anemic variety). My life will improve faster.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I think you are confusing the benefits technical progress with the benefits of a system. The chinese also have technical progress, almost to the same level we have. The iranians have cell phones (we have seen the videos of their resistance that they published using those). That does not mean that their society is great.
Btw, people here do have the same things, maybe even more, or at least the same with other benefits. But according to your ideas, this should not be possible.
Now, dont get me wrong, I am not saying that capitalism is bad, or that socialism is good. As I said, neither, by itself is good or bad. There has to be a balance. You can see it as a protection for either side. To much power, to much extreme towards one side, will inevitably anger the other side and that can, in extreme cases lead to people dying.
Btw, people here do have the same things, maybe even more, or at least the same with other benefits. But according to your ideas, this should not be possible.
Now, dont get me wrong, I am not saying that capitalism is bad, or that socialism is good. As I said, neither, by itself is good or bad. There has to be a balance. You can see it as a protection for either side. To much power, to much extreme towards one side, will inevitably anger the other side and that can, in extreme cases lead to people dying.
Someone didn't read my prior post this thread. One character of a healthy free market is that the powerful or wealthy are prohibited from forcing their will on others. At most they can make a better offer. Should they cross the line, government should fill one of its roles in a libertarian society and push back.Skipjack wrote:...the right of the strongest (or nowadays, the right of the richest)...
Without government collusion, or at least acquiescence, the wealthy have little real power over the rest us.
Not true. Big corporations will always have a very easy time undercutting a small competitor and pushing him out of the market. They also try to buy their way into certain positions. Bribery is very common. You can even deduct it from your taxes.Without government collusion, or at least acquiescence, the wealthy have little real power over the rest us.
A small company cant afford something like that and even if they manage to be competitive by working their asses of, they usually get bought out by the larger competitors really quickly. Unless you are in a completely new market, you have a tough time as a small company.
Just look at the bailouts. All the big car companies got bailed out by the government, even though they were a total failure, but very few small companies, if any, got that luxury. In a sense the economic crises benefited big companies and banks, as they were able to get rid of their debt (that was their own fault) easily and quickly. I cant express my disgust about this enough.
Well, but I think what you describe here is free market going to be not so free market. In truly free market there would be no bail-out and no bribery....Skipjack wrote:Not true. Big corporations will always have a very easy time undercutting a small competitor and pushing him out of the market. They also try to buy their way into certain positions. Bribery is very common. You can even deduct it from your taxes.Without government collusion, or at least acquiescence, the wealthy have little real power over the rest us.
A small company cant afford something like that and even if they manage to be competitive by working their asses of, they usually get bought out by the larger competitors really quickly. Unless you are in a completely new market, you have a tough time as a small company.
Just look at the bailouts. All the big car companies got bailed out by the government, even though they were a total failure, but very few small companies, if any, got that luxury. In a sense the economic crises benefited big companies and banks, as they were able to get rid of their debt (that was their own fault) easily and quickly. I cant express my disgust about this enough.
And being bought-out by large competitor is not really a bad thing. Usually it means that you capitalize your efforts much sooner than without buyout.
Well, we will see. It is equally possible that western democracy reached its wall as uninformed and unqualified voters constantly screw free markets. That is actually what happened in Europe and is happening in U.S. now.MSimon wrote:Luzr said:
I don't expect the US to be worse than China. That is my point.You should rather be interested how much worse US will be than China in 20-30 years.
The real trap there is that less free market results in less productivity, which results in worse living standards, which leads to politician to promise more interventions and market constraints, because, of course, capitalism is to blame about the misery, ya know? Yes, we can!
Government backed mortgages are a no loose situation for the banks.Skipjack wrote:Capitalism is good for progress, but it is not everything. Sometimes a little stability does not hurt, as we just witnessed with the current crisis. Economic stability does help progress as well.Nope. The more capitalist the system the faster the technical progress.
Look up "NINJA loans".
The government created the conditions for the crisis.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
There is also a bigger component to the problem:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ssing.html
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... cline.html
Money that should have gone into technical development went into real estate because real estate was a sure thing - thanks to government.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ssing.html
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... cline.html
Money that should have gone into technical development went into real estate because real estate was a sure thing - thanks to government.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
That depends on how you look at it. It is good for your company, but it is not good for the market and the customers. Competition means progress. Lack of competition means lack of progress. If there is nothing but a few large corporations left, you end up with little innovation and a lack of progress.And being bought-out by large competitor is not really a bad thing.