quote:At about the same time a hodgepodge of protesters descended on Washington, D.C. last month to protest capitalism, globalization and free trade, the United Nations and the Institute for International Studies released a triad of studies declaring that humanity is, for the most part, in the best condition it’s ever been.
World poverty is down. Income gaps are narrowing. And the reasons for all of this are, to the protesters’ chagrin, none other than capitalism, globalization and free trade.
quote:The first study is the 2002 edition of the United Nations’ annual "Human Development Report." The report informs us that as of 2002, 140 of the world’s 200 countries -- 70 percent -- now hold multi-party elections. Eighty-two countries representing 57 percent of the human population are fully democratic, the highest percentage in human history. After a century in which totalitarianism -- Nazism, fascism and communism -- killed more than 170 million people, a clear move toward universal political freedom is afoot.
The numbers on world economics are good, too. World poverty fell more than 20 percent between 1990 and 1999, a decade of aggressive globalization. The number of world Internet users is expected to double by 2005 to one billion. In those regions of the world most sympathetic to liberal reform, the news is even better. In ten years, poverty halved in in East Asia and the Pacific regions.
Since 1990, 800 million people have gained new access to improved water supplies, and 750 million to improved sanitation. In the last 30 years, infant mortality rates have dropped from 96 deaths per 1,000 live births to just 56.
Posted by Tora Buttercup (Member # 53) on :
What happened to corporate greed and Enron and MCI-Worldcom? Have the homeless people on our streets disappeared? This patting ourselves on the back is false complacency when capitalism in this country hasn't even stopped producing poverty.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The homeless problem would largely disappear if we reopened long-term-care mental health facilities. I believe last I recall estimates were that 75% of the homeless were suffering from some form of mental illness. Poverty is much less of an issue there than it seems.
And lets take "Irish Travellers," those who live similar lifestyles, and itinerant workers (people who live one place for a month or so, until they get booted out for not paying the rent or other crimes) off the rolls, while we're at it.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Have the homeless people on our streets disappeared?
Relevant how? No one's claiming this is a miracle instant fix-all. Regardless, things ARE getting better. Do you have a better proposal?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
If you read closer, the UN report never says that the capitalist system is perfect. It never addresses Enron or other related problems.
The sad fact is, homeless people in the USA probably are better off overall than many people in the Third World. And in those same Third World countries, many of the relief and development projects are gaining some strength thanks to better government.
Capitalism may not be the perfect system, but it's certainly better than the alternatives.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: And lets take "Irish Travellers," those who live similar lifestyles, and itinerant workers (people who live one place for a month or so, until they get booted out for not paying the rent or other crimes) off the rolls, while we're at it.
It would appear you have a somewhat limited conception of the Irish Traveller culture.
Posted by Tora Buttercup (Member # 53) on :
If the "experts" would have it, most of us have mental illnesses of some kind. I have seen large groups of homeless people and I have read about people who have been among them. Mentally ill people don't just congregate like that unless it's serious and they're confused or don't know who they are, etc.
Omega: It matters because capitalism creates losers. The system is failing them and everybody else who is near poverty--and there are plenty of those, too.
But why have other systems like communism failed? I think the number one problem is the leaders. They used the system to gain themselves more power rather than give power to the citizens. Take China for example, if communism actually worked there, you wouldn't see Mao Zedong's picture everywhere because the system would be about the people rather than all about HIM.
The second problem is that the communities are too large. Communism works best when people know each other and leaders know their subjects as people rather than ants.
The third problem, but no less important than the previous two, is that people are forced to work, sometimes at something they don't like, rather than motivated to work.
The fourth problem is the lack of freedom of expression.
I listed these problems because it IS possible for a Marxist-type lifestyle to work. Look at the Findhorn community in Scotland.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
It matters because capitalism creates losers.
Again, propose a better system.
But why have other systems like communism failed? I think the number one problem is the leaders.
No, the number one problem is human nature. Communism is fine if there's not a shred of greed in anyone. But try finding THAT group. That LEADS to the problem with the leaders, like...
They used the system to gain themselves more power rather than give power to the citizens. Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
hm.. i was discussing this issue with some friends recently.. the best we were able to come up with was that a better system would be to socialize housing and basic food needs, as well as health care. unfortunately, housing the homeless on the public dime would probably lead to 'sanctuary districts' like in ds9's 'past tense'.. institutionalized ghettoes.
basically, the best system would gurantee everyone a place to live, food to eat and basic health care. but, to keep the rest of the capitalist challenge: if you wanted to live better than the basics, you would work for it. that would be the incentive to keep society moving. of course, this system would also possibly cause the collapse of our culture as we know if not implemented correctly. hmph.
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
The system in Soylent Green was pretty good...
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
as was the system in Planet of the Apes. and Ben-Hur.
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
Everybody eats in Soylent Green. Far superior to a planet ruled by apes, or romans.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
shouldn't there be a spoiler warning for that? Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, you're saying the solution is to put Charlton Heston in charge? I'm scared...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: the best we were able to come up with was that a better system would be to socialize housing and basic food needs, as well as health care.
This was something that came up in one of my politics classes recently; we were talking about the NHS and it came up that most Americans were opposed to the creation of a similar system over there. Just wondering; why is this?
Theoretically communism is the most perfect form of government, everyone equal and all that. Unfortuneately it doesn't seem to have worked too well in practice; not that what we've seen in the USSR and other places is 'true' communism but there we go. Overall i think capitalism has served humanity well BUT I think that perhaps a fusion of capitalism and socialism is what is needed to improve condition furthur.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Except that that doesn't work, either. You can't have capitalism and socialism in the same system, or they both just screw each other up. Example: How much does the government pay for your medical costs? Well, either they dictate a price, the seller dictates the price, or the market sets the price. If the government dictates the price, it screws up the economy. Since there's only one buyer, there IS no market. That leaves the seller dictating prices. Either way, someone's gonna get screwed.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: No, the number one problem is human nature. Communism is fine if there's not a shred of greed in anyone. But try finding THAT group. That LEADS to the problem with the leaders, like...
They used the system to gain themselves more power rather than give power to the citizens.
I'll have to agree with Omega at this point, though we have not seen such evidence in China or Cuba.
And yes, it is difficult (but not necessarily impossible) for Capitalism and Socialism to co-exist, their values and policies somewhat contradict with each other. While Cuba is still the same old rusty little island, China has been opening itself up to the world, bit by bit. Capitalism is beginning to rear its head in that nation (McDonalds, fancy clothes, fancy jewellry etc), though the government is not practising the true aspects of democracy. But it doesn't necessarily mean that Capitalism is the only good social policy out there.
It's anyone's guess when China will be able to shake the curse of Mao Tse Tung. But it will be a long time indeed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Heh, this reminds me of:
quote: "The major problem -- one of the major problems, for there are several -- one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get the people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well known fact that those who want to rule are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone capable of getting made president, should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are the problem." -- Douglas Adams
I got that quickly off the Internet, and had to fix a spelling error, so I don't know if thats the exact quotation...but close enough.
Omega: Uh, even your beloved US has regulated industries and services. Whats with the theoretical tone?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Now, now, I don't love this government. I believe in loyalty to principles, not to places, things, or (in most cases) people.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Couldn't there be some sort of hybrid? Couldn't there be some sort of model which made the goal the furthering of humanity/knowledge/science/art/etc.? My problem with capitalism (and I must say that it is a system which has worked remarkably well over the years) is that the primary motivating factor is greed. Any system with this as the primary drive is going to have competition, gentry stratification and as Tora put it 'losers'. There is something frightfully wrong with a system when executives have become so hyper-aggressive that they take to siphoning off millions of dollars from their workers pensions and futures to purchase multiple mansions and extravagant luxuries, and don't feel the slightest twinge of guilt in doing so. There is more than enough wealth that we could all live very comfortable lives (perhaps with only a single home, and without our very own private jetliner). Certainly there must be some way to marry the benefits of a socialist system with the ample merits of a capitalist one. Couldn't we migrate the value of wealth from material possesions and power to accomplishment, prowess, serenity or some other less arbitrary commodity?
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
One flaw with capitalism is evident everywhere it's used: Executives abuse the power they have.
It would make sense for lower level workers to have a major veto capability over execs after certain requirements are met.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"You can't have capitalism and socialism in the same system, or they both just screw each other up."
Works just fine in many European countries, dud. Free healthcare, imagine that!
"No, the number one problem is human nature."
No, it's the fact we've let ourselves grow too addicted to acquiring little pieces of paper and metal.
"Communism is fine if there's not a shred of greed in anyone."
So is capitalism, but hey, the Emron fiasco never happened.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Free ThoughtCrime America: One flaw with capitalism is evident everywhere it's used: Executives abuse the power they have.
It would make sense for lower level workers to have a major veto capability over execs after certain requirements are met.
Yeah, they call it a union. The only problem is that unions tend to give unskilled service workers a disproportionate amount of power.
i.e. The military simply can't go on strike when an enemy invades, the engineers at the hydro company can't go on strike, etc. Besides, a strike is a rather unprofessional thing to do. Its rather like organised blackmail.
Of course the system fixes itself, because once the unions get salaries and benefits for unskilled jobs up to a certain level, the companies just leave for cheaper foreign destinations, that slowly get more expensive, etc.
Its like a big cynical rendition of "The Circle of Life" Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tahna Los: It's anyone's guess when China will be able to shake the curse of Mao Tse Tung. But it will be a long time indeed.[/QB]
Because China is obviously going to have to eventually give in and adopt to the goold ol' US way of life.
I'd give you fair odds on China being a superpower within a couple of decades. Unless the US manages to find an excuse to bomb them or something.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
well, if they want to be a superpower, they'd better build more than 35 modern warplanes.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Works just fine in many European countries, dud. Free healthcare, imagine that!
Yeah. Imagine it. By the way, how's that staggeringly vibrant European economy, then?
The real big difference between Capitalism and Communism?
Capitalism: If Company A screws you over, you can always purchase from its competitor, Company B. Declining profits and a desire to profit more then give Company A incentive to change its methods.
Communism: There IS NO Government B.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Not all companies would ever take the incentive. Drops in profit would mean cuts in quality control and service, all to prop up the bottom line. And still they survive. And still customers buy from them. And even if the consumers lose out, there not a damn that they can do about it.
Flat out communism is not a good thing, that is agreed with. But then, neither is flat out capitalism.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
My problem with capitalism (and I must say that it is a system which has worked remarkably well over the years) is that the primary motivating factor is greed.
So it takes advantage of human nature (insofar as greed is the correct term to use here), instead of trying to contradict it?
Works just fine in many European countries, dud. Free healthcare, imagine that!
"Free?" Do you have any idea what tax rates they pay to pay for their supposedly free healthcare? And of the QUALITY of that health care?
Couldn't we migrate the value of wealth from material possesions and power to accomplishment, prowess, serenity or some other less arbitrary commodity?
And how do you propose we do this to the majority of the population that doesn't want to change?
No, it's the fact we've let ourselves grow too addicted to acquiring little pieces of paper and metal.
Same as above.
And still customers buy from them.
Only the ones that are willing to buy a substandard product.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Works just fine in many European countries, dud. Free healthcare, imagine that!
"Free?" Do you have any idea what tax rates they pay to pay for their supposedly free healthcare? And of the QUALITY of that health care?
I know many things, as does Tahna. But I can speak only for myself.
I know that citizens of the European Union aren't exactly threadbare.
I know that the quality of health care in Scandinavia and Canada exceeds that of the United States, as measured by the WHO.
I know that the United States government spends more on health care per capita than Canada does, even though American public money only winds up going to a small and heavily restricted group while Canadian money goes to everyone.
I know that a better health care system has been proven to lead to a more productive economy.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
What are the tax rates, by percentage please, for our fellows in the UK, Ireland and all other places that everyone comes from?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
You really want people to start wading through tax tables and factoring in the comparitive availability of deductables? Or adding in services that you pay for privately in some nations and recieve publically elsewhere? Or crunching the whole thing through some sort of cost of living equation?
Because without that, numbers, assuming we could arrive with them in the first place, are pretty irrelevant.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
...and VAT (sales tax) is 17.5%.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
scratch that.
[ October 15, 2002, 13:23: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:I know that a better health care system has been proven to lead to a more productive economy.
Where?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, common sense would suggest that better health care results in more living, non-sick people, and those are the types that earn and spend money. If you have a lot of sick and dead people, the only people making any money are doctors and undertakers.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
and autopsy equipment makers. you can't forget about them. and coffin salesman. also shroud weavers. lots of people, see?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That's the thing about "common sense." It's so rarely backed up by the facts.
Hey... Newsweek (March 27, 1995, p. 60) reported that 100,000 people a year in the U.S. die "as a result of preventable medical errors--the equivalent of a jumbo-jet crash EVERY DAY."
THIS could be better, hm? Let's fix what's wrong with the health-care system NOW, before we expose everyone to it. Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
I'm confused. Who's arguing for what now? Stop switching topics and sides...aaaaa....
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Figure base taxes isn't that hard to do....
For me: Federal 10% on anything from $124.00 to $355.00 Federal 15% on anything from $356.00 to $991.00 State 4.2% Social Security 12.4%* (Self Employed) Medicare 2.9%* (Self Employed) *it is 6.2 % and 1.45% for employees....
Only variables would be local taxes and state...
If a person hasn't a clue as to what they pay in taxes then they should really figure it out....
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Incidently the US has some of the worst immunization records in the world (particularly child immunization).
[ October 19, 2002, 07:35: Message edited by: Wraith ]
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
our immunisation is nonexistant. we switched over to immunization ages ago.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Explains why we have an awful record of it then....
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
So I can't spell, so sue me!
Your immunization record is appaling also.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
So fix it then.....
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Done (assuming that you ment the spelling, not the immunization record).
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Unless this marks and symptoms are small pox, chicken pox, and polio, then the spelling is fine by me....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
He had spelt it correctly, for those parts of the world where "English Dictionary" isn't preceeded by the letters "US".
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Actually, according to The Concise Oxford Dictionary it is immunization. One of the wierd ones the yanks actually spell the same.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Actually, we always use "-ize" and "-ization". It's the British spelling that inconsistent here. Why you guys chose not to use the French spelling like you usually do, I don't know.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Having been at the referendem that decided how we spell all our words...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I hope you did that deliberately. . .
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
l'anglais americaine, c'est merde! Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Liam's participle is dangling.
Zip up, man!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I do everything deliberatly.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, we would appreciate it if you would quit the dangling though....
You know, I was almost hoping this topic was about Marlboro Reds.... A support group to help quit smoking...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)