In defense of capitalism

[dragonfliet]

Now with the issue of hiring cheaper labor. If your main goal as a company is to make money, why would you hire somebody to do a job for $10.00 an hour when you can hire one for $2.00. Nobody is forcing that person to work for that much, why should a businessman be forced to hire someone for more than that? As for sweatshops, in third-world countries sweatshops are often better alternatives to what the people there had to start with, so those businesses are actually helping those people. Like I said, nobody is forcing people to work there. They aren't slave camps.

I'm jumping into the fray only a little bit here, but I think this is the crucial flaw in your argument.

You say, quite reasonably, that it would be insane for someone to pay $2/hr rather than $10. Okay, that's just financially sound.

From there, things go sour. You see, while you're right that nobody is FORCING these people to work for such a low rate, there is literally no access to education, no free library systems and no other jobs. Do you know why this is? The reason is that if any of these were provided, the workers would be able to demand higher wages. Ah.

You argue (throughout this thread) that people get into this position because they are too stupid or too lazy to help themselves. What you forget is that most people are BORN into such situations. You and your family and the people you know were provided with nice (SOCIALIST) systems of government funded education and access to information via libraries (yet another SOCIALIST system). Even within relatively technologically advanced societies with sweeping social systems such as the US, there are still many, many places where people simply have FAR inferior access to information and education, which pretty much kills the chances of most because they are expected to compete with others who have had far greater access.

You argue for unions but when you start off without access to technology and education, can you really afford to strike? No, because you starve to death and die. This is not a choice. Look at what happened with Jamaica, which had a large number of clothing jobs that paid only the bare minimum for survival: when the workers decided to strike, the company absconded on all wages and completely picked up their operations and left. As a result, unemployment went through the roof and people--yep--starved and died. Hooray capitalism!

You like to imagine capitalism as this completely equal playing field where the ones that work the hardest get the most. Unfortunately, you only have access to computers because two hundred factory workers are paid so little they can't even afford indoor plumbing. Capitalism necessitates a pyramid in which the bottom is the very poorest and is the majority of the people and the top is the very richest and is only a handful of people.

Capitalism is: NO public education, NO regulations on food/water, NO public roads, etc. All of these are socialist systems in which all people pay taxes and are provided (more or less) equally with a service. Of course, having gone to public schools and benefited from the FDA pulling contaminated foods and stopping cancer causing agents from being released into the water supply, you would have no realization of this. And then you called people without these benefits stupid and lazy...

~Jason

Edit: Ugh. The argument holes in this guys arguments piss me off. He argues that the interests rates were actually lower than inflation, which caused banks to want to lend money. Wait, what? They would benefit from lending at a loss? How about a better example: because of success in the market, Americans became overly confident, spending $1.22 for every $1 they earned (which is a purely individual/capitalism thing, not anything to do with regulation) and they, in their spending WILD ways met up with an increasing number of small banks that worked with immoral agents who would sell houses to people who couldn't afford it, then jack up the rate so that the bank would foreclose on the house; THEN put it back on the market. The reason this succeeded so wildly? Yep: lack of regulation. Ugh.

Seriously: If you ever listen to someone from the Ayn Rand institute, you are a moron. Ayn Rand's declarative work was Atlus Shrugged, in which she put forth her philosophy (which she called Objectivisim. This is always a bad sign. When someone calls a completely subjective idea objective, you know you're in for insane arguments) that if pure capitalism were pursued, everyone would be happy and everything would be a Utopia. Read her freaking book. They retreat to a hidden valley where former Railroad CEOs are happy manning the cash register at a grocery store because they do the job well and with pride. I am not making this up.

[Sacul15]

You argue for unions but when you start off without access to technology and education, can you really afford to strike? No, because you starve to death and die. This is not a choice. Look at what happened with Jamaica, which had a large number of clothing jobs that paid only the bare minimum for survival: when the workers decided to strike, the company absconded on all wages and completely picked up their operations and left. As a result, unemployment went through the roof and people--yep--starved and died. Hooray capitalism!

Like I said before the business does not owe those workers anything. If they choose to hire them it is of their own volition and not because they have some obligation to help feed those people. That being said if those workers do not realize that they are better off with the jobs than without them and they don't realize that the business would not find it in it's best interest to pay more, then it is their fault for going on strike. I never said that all strikes would work under capitalism.

You like to imagine capitalism as this completely equal playing field where the ones that work the hardest get the most. Unfortunately, you only have access to computers because two hundred factory workers are paid so little they can't even afford indoor plumbing. Capitalism necessitates a pyramid in which the bottom is the very poorest and is the majority of the people and the top is the very richest and is only a handful of people.

I never said the people who work the hardest get the most. Many lower class workers work a lot harder than white-collar workers do. I said it should be based on the natural system of supply and demand, which reflects a worker's level of production and contribution to society. You are right, capitalism results in a pyramid of wealth, but it also represents a pyramid of production. The people at the bottom manufacture one product for one consumer, and only one person is better off. The people at the top invent a new way of making said product, thus making everyone below them more productive, and increasing the total amount of production and wealth.

Capitalism is: NO public education, NO regulations on food/water, NO public roads, etc. All of these are socialist systems in which all people pay taxes and are provided (more or less) equally with a service. Of course, having gone to public schools and benefited from the FDA pulling contaminated foods and stopping cancer causing agents from being released into the water supply, you would have no realization of this. And then you called people without these benefits stupid and lazy...

Like I've said before, and like many economists (and teachers) teachers agree, privately owned schools and roads would result in cheaper and better services. People could afford them now because they are no longer paying the taxes on them and could use that money to pay for the services. As for the unsafe water, like Dr. Yaron Brook said (I'm pretty sure it's in this lecture, but it might have been another one) if you can show that certain food or water is doing you physical harm, you have the right to sue the company that provided it. No company wants to be sued, so they would be compelled to make sure water is safe.

Seriously: If you ever listen to someone from the Ayn Rand institute, you are a moron. Ayn Rand's declarative work was Atlus Shrugged, in which she put forth her philosophy (which she called Objectivisim. This is always a bad sign. When someone calls a completely subjective idea objective, you know you're in for insane arguments) that if pure capitalism were pursued, everyone would be happy and everything would be a Utopia. Read her freaking book. They retreat to a hidden valley where former Railroad CEOs are happy manning the cash register at a grocery store because they do the job well and with pride. I am not making this up.

Actually, I have read Atlas Shrugged, and I seriously doubt you have, since, besides not knowing the actual title, you really don't have a grasp of the book's ideas. Yes, she did put forth her philosophy called Objectivism (another word you misspelled), but it does not say that everything is objective. Her argument was that the only real absolute was reason, and because reason is absolute, many points of view interpreted through reason could be called absolutes as well. Her view, as is mine, was that the only logical system of government and economics that protects the right of people to pursue their own happiness (which is another major theme) is capitalism. In order to challenge the claim that capitalism is the absolute best system, you must challenge the reasoning behind it (which you are doing, and is good) and not use emotions to battle it (which you are also doing, which isn't). Her choosing to call it Objectivism, though, has very little to do with it. She called it that because of the law of identity (which she referred to as "A is A", meaning that reality is real, and humans are what they are, and the world we live in is the world we live in, even if you imagine it not to be, which she uses to combat many arguments that use emotion, such as religious arguments. Also, another misconception, she was not utopic in any sense. Yes her book had many utopic ideas (the chapter that introduces the hidden valley is called the Utopia of Greed), but that's because she chose to portray everything as an extreme. The bad guys are really, obviously evil, and the good guys are obviously incredible (complete with six-pack abs). The Fountainhead is a better representation of the real world, and I suggest you read that. Maybe you should read her freaking book. The hidden valley only had one person from a railroad company, and she was the vice-president, not the CEO. There was no grocery store, each person grew one or two crops which they sold to each other directly, there was no cash register, as there was no cash (all currency was gold-minted). And they didn't do simple jobs because it gave them pride, they did it because it made them money. I would suggest doing your homework before attacking a book you've obviously never read.

[dragonfliet]

Good lord you're simple.

The problem is that you are assuming choice and an equal starting plain. The fact that these companies 'choose' to give people a job ignores the fact that this company has swallowed up all other methods of producing a living. They have by de facto forced these people into the "choice" of working with no chance of ever advancing and death. You are right, the pyramid of wealth does create a "pyramid of production," but what you don't understand is that the people on the bottom exclusively produce for people at the top, without a chance of any better life. It is a system that NECESSITATES a poor standard of living for the majority of the people with absolutely no chance of rising up.

You talk about how much better private schools are, but here is the issue you fail to comprehend: before public schooling the ONLY people who went to private schools were very rich people. The poor could not afford to pay the VERY high tuition rates, thus they could not get ANY education (also there would be NO free systems such as libraries), therefore they could not afford an education. This was a simple fact of life until in the Victorian times (in Western History at least) some sort of publicly financed education was made available. Cheaper though? Sorry, but no. Cheaper for the richest of people (who pay the brunt of the taxes supporting the public school), prohibitively more expensive for the lower. Of course, you are imagining efficiency, but even private industry gets mucked up with bureaucracy, and bogs down when you have the volume such as public systems have and private industry is by no means necessarily more efficient.

You will have to excuse me not picking up the book on my shelf and thumbing through it, accidentally spelling Atlas and misspelling an imaginary word(oh no! I accidentally slipped in an extra "i"). There are NUMEROUS interviews with Ayn Rand and she very much believed her book to be the pinnacle of her philosophy (and she relegated The Fountainhead as "only an overture to ATLAS SHRUGGED"--from the "about the author" at the end of Atlas Shrugged) and she claimed that the people that she portrays in the book are the only kinds of people she knows. She was very, very, very obsessed with the Utopia that could be created.

The Hidden Valley had not only the main whatever her face was (who came last) but the Competing (New Mexico?) Railroad CEO or president or whatever as well as the very competent worker who abandoned the heroine on the train in the middle of the night, among others. I have indeed read the book, but you'll have to forgive me not having all of the details immediately in mind, it's a 1069 page book full of 3 hour speeches and I read a lot of books.

The reason she called it objectivism is she believed reason was an objective thing and that all capable people would believe in the same things, more or less. The problem is that reason is by no means objective, it is wholly subjective.

Maybe you forgot what happens when people get all of the power in a monopoly, how the lives of the majority are.

A purely capitalist system works great if all of your villains are stupid and ugly and all of your heroes are brilliant and handsome and all profitable work benefits the largest majority of people and all humanitarian goals only end up hurting everyone. If such a society existed, I would be ALL for it. Unfortunately, things don't work like that.

Sure people could sue over bad water, but how would they know that it was a wide-ranging thing without a MASSIVE monitoring organization? You can't just take a single example, you need a massive range and random testing which is time consuming and expensive. You wouldn't be able to block harmful drugs because why would the drug company research if it might be deadly and without a committee overseeing things, noone would ever know. You can't have people rising up on their own when they literally have zero tools to do so. No pure system works. Not pure socialism, pure capitalism, pure communism. They are all basically flawed in that they require people to behave exactly as the model hopes. There are a billion different branches of thought for every single foot of idea and any pure system requires you to ignore them. I mean honestly, there has never been anything even remotely resembling a perfect system in the entire history of humanity. It all breaks down. Do you think that this is because that simple systems (let the market decide) simply cannot account for the massive degree of variability and complicated systems are in constant need of reform? Trial and error, unfortunately, is the only thing that works. We tried the closest ever to pure capitalism during the industrial revolution which saw life expectancy drop significantly and the divide between the super rich and super poor massively inflate. It doesn't work.

~Jason

[Sacul15]

The problem is that you are assuming choice and an equal starting plain. The fact that these companies 'choose' to give people a job ignores the fact that this company has swallowed up all other methods of producing a living. They have by de facto forced these people into the "choice" of working with no chance of ever advancing and death. You are right, the pyramid of wealth does create a "pyramid of production," but what you don't understand is that the people on the bottom exclusively produce for people at the top, without a chance of any better life. It is a system that NECESSITATES a poor standard of living for the majority of the people with absolutely no chance of rising up.

I never denied that the system necessitates a wealth gap, but take a look at the "poor" of today. They have homes, cars, television, clothing, easy access to food, etc. etc. Look at the poor a few hundred years ago. Cheap huts, not even horses, ragged clothing, starving all the time. Just because a person is poor relative to another does not mean he has a bad standard of living by any means. Like I said before, the lower class under capitalism would have it much better off than the middle class would under socialism.

You talk about how much better private schools are, but here is the issue you fail to comprehend: before public schooling the ONLY people who went to private schools were very rich people. The poor could not afford to pay the VERY high tuition rates, thus they could not get ANY education (also there would be NO free systems such as libraries), therefore they could not afford an education. This was a simple fact of life until in the Victorian times (in Western History at least) some sort of publicly financed education was made available. Cheaper though? Sorry, but no. Cheaper for the richest of people (who pay the brunt of the taxes supporting the public school), prohibitively more expensive for the lower. Of course, you are imagining efficiency, but even private industry gets mucked up with bureaucracy, and bogs down when you have the volume such as public systems have and private industry is by no means necessarily more efficient.

Yes, in the early years of education, when it was first starting to be valued highly, it was very expensive and only the rich could afford it. Just like every other good or service was at first! Why is education different than any other thing that people value? As for the bureaucracy in the private industry, yes there will be some, but like all industries the more efficient a body is, the more it can produce (in this case, a better education), and eventually the schools that provide better educations will be the ones that survive in the market, thus improving education's overall quality.

You will have to excuse me not picking up the book on my shelf and thumbing through it, accidentally spelling Atlas and misspelling an imaginary word(oh no! I accidentally slipped in an extra "i"). There are NUMEROUS interviews with Ayn Rand and she very much believed her book to be the pinnacle of her philosophy (and she relegated The Fountainhead as "only an overture to ATLAS SHRUGGED"--from the "about the author" at the end of Atlas Shrugged) and she claimed that the people that she portrays in the book are the only kinds of people she knows. She was very, very, very obsessed with the Utopia that could be created.

Yes, Rand believed very much in the philosophy she develops in Atlas, but she recognized that our imperfect world could never be anything like Galt's Gulch. She didn't believe that capitalism and individualism could create a type of paradise, just that they could create a world that is much better off than a socialist and collectivist mindset would.

We tried the closest ever to pure capitalism during the industrial revolution which saw life expectancy drop significantly and the divide between the super rich and super poor massively inflate.

I suggest you check your facts. In the US during the 19th century, the average life expectancy rose 15 years. Yes there was a divide, but I would much rather be a poor person in 1850 than an middle class person in 1750.

I think the main reason you can't see my point of view is that you think that systems of government and economics are in place to alleviate hardship and make life better for people, while I maintain that it's the government's duty to protect the rights of its citizens. Sure it would be nice to have one that did both, but the fact is that one can't improve the lives of the poor without stealing the wealth of those who have earned it first.

[BillyDa59]

This might sound ridiculous at first BUT do put a little bit of thought in before you label it as blasphemous, like an angry bible-wielding priest. My opinion is: feudalism is an excellent form of government. Feudalism is actually what capitalism is based off of. The most notable difference would probably be that capitalism has more overall unity. But I think feudalism would be a great idea for the modern age especially if you could make it somewhat socialistic so that each territory or manorship or whatever would compete to be the most desirable. I hope I've made it clear what I'm trying to say here.

[Sacul15]

Feudalism was created to protect people from invading forces. The lords would use their power to repel any invaders, and serfs and peasants would work for this protection and for their basic sustenance. I don't think this kind of system is necessary anymore and I certainly don't think it would be best, but before I label it as blasphemous, as you said, what aspects of feudalism do you think we should keep and which should we abandon?

[dragonfliet]

I never denied that the system necessitates a wealth gap, but take a look at the "poor" of today. They have homes, cars, television, clothing, easy access to food, etc. etc. Look at the poor a few hundred years ago. Cheap huts, not even horses, ragged clothing, starving all the time. Just because a person is poor relative to another does not mean he has a bad standard of living by any means. Like I said before, the lower class under capitalism would have it much better off than the middle class would under socialism.

You are still making the same essential errors. You are talking about the poor people in America, where minimum wage is rising above $8/hr, not the poor people in developing countries who don't even have access to clean water. These people are starving to death with barely clothing to live, forced into living a life of subsistence living that traps them in their squalor. They live in cheap huts or filthy barracks-style dormitories and can barely care for themselves. You are talking about the wage gap between the poor of America who DO have it better because of (bing bing! socialist systems) and the rich, but you forget that all of the cheap labor goes to the people who make our poor rich. You're happy to have them sew your clothes, but you forget they exist when it suits your purpose to talk about their increased standard of living.

Yes, in the early years of education, when it was first starting to be valued highly, it was very expensive and only the rich could afford it. Just like every other good or service was at first! Why is education different than any other thing that people value? As for the bureaucracy in the private industry, yes there will be some, but like all industries the more efficient a body is, the more it can produce (in this case, a better education), and eventually the schools that provide better educations will be the ones that survive in the market, thus improving education's overall quality.

Wait, when did private education suddenly become so affordable? I would love to see your evidence please. Also, I don't know if you're aware, there are still loads of private schools that don't provide a very good education, they exist outside of regulatory standards for the most part, however, and so that information is kept mostly below the radar (unless you actually look).

Yes, Rand believed very much in the philosophy she develops in Atlas, but she recognized that our imperfect world could never be anything like Galt's Gulch. She didn't believe that capitalism and individualism could create a type of paradise, just that they could create a world that is much better off than a socialist and collectivist mindset would.

I'm going to have to dig through her effing essays to find it (will have to wait until I finish reading Cryptonomicon), but she explicitly states that her utopia would indeed be achievable through objectivism. I'm only sorry I don't have a quote handy (she freaking wrote too much stuff in big fat blocks of text to skim).

I suggest you check your facts. In the US during the 19th century, the average life expectancy rose 15 years. Yes there was a divide, but I would much rather be a poor person in 1850 than an middle class person in 1750.

Here an interesting link on the subject. While it partly supports the idea of life expectancy increase, you are grossly wrong to suggest that it would be better to be a poor person in 1850 than a middle class person in 1750: life expectancy is broadly applied across all economic classes and the upper class doing significantly better would most certainly skew the results upward. I wasn't able, unfortunately to find anything discussing the issue.

I think the main reason you can't see my point of view is that you think that systems of government and economics are in place to alleviate hardship and make life better for people, while I maintain that it's the government's duty to protect the rights of its citizens. Sure it would be nice to have one that did both, but the fact is that one can't improve the lives of the poor without stealing the wealth of those who have earned it first.

The problem isn't that I don't see your point of view. I understand it very much. Hell, I'm very much pro capitalism, but only with many caveats. Making money is a great thing. If you do something very well, you should be allowed to do it very well--I have no objection to this. The problem is that the lives of all need to be improved. A purely capitalist system says that poor people deserve to be there and that rich people deserve to be there too, because the system will support innovation and hard work. It simply doesn't happen that way. Even if the system started out like that, the children of poor people are NECESSARILY forced into the same poverty without a chance to escape. Without socialist structures such as education and health, there is simply no way to rise up. Even with checks in place as much as possible there is still a ridiculous amount of poverty and lack of education and basic health in places where major corporations are getting their labor.

You use your parents as an example but you keep forgetting they had FREE access to education, FREE access to library system, FREE screening of drugs and food for any possible contaminants. Good job on the hard work for them! Your parents embody the epitome of why capitalism laced through with socialism (the US system) is a good thing. Since they were poor, they took advantage of the free basic education, the lowered costs of state college tuition (hint: the reason private colleges are more expensive isn't because they're "better"--in fact many state schools are better than many private ones--it is because they aren't government subsidized) and the FDA keeping toxins from killing them.

You also asked for a single piece of legislation that benefited everyone: The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, a public act regulating private industries that the FDA regulated which pulled countless unsafe products from the shelves (and gave them the power to continually do so) which benefits everyone in a number of ways: consumers are benefited because they don't die horrible deaths (for the most part) and drug companies benefit in that consumer confidence remains high because they know that testing will eliminate the majority of the risk for them. There are LOADS of things like this, but you wanted one and I'm SURE you should get the picture.

Also, you presented the very dire (and HORRIBLE) example of the USSR as a example of socialism/communism. Hmm. Well, look at the highest life expectancy and quality of life and looky looky, it's populated with very socialist states such as Sweden and Norway that tax the hell out of you, but then make life worth living for everyone. Not too shabby if you ask me. If you look at the Mercer study of most livable cities, the top five in the Americas...are ALL in Canada(and it's COLD there!)

~Jason

[Sacul15]

You are still making the same essential errors. You are talking about the poor people in America, where minimum wage is rising above $8/hr, not the poor people in developing countries who don't even have access to clean water. These people are starving to death with barely clothing to live, forced into living a life of subsistence living that traps them in their squalor. They live in cheap huts or filthy barracks-style dormitories and can barely care for themselves. You are talking about the wage gap between the poor of America who DO have it better because of (bing bing! socialist systems) and the rich, but you forget that all of the cheap labor goes to the people who make our poor rich. You're happy to have them sew your clothes, but you forget they exist when it suits your purpose to talk about their increased standard of living.

Most of the countries where people suffer that kind of gross poverty (In fact, I can't think of any, but I may be wrong) have been subject to constant warfare, thieving governments, and other things of that nature, and their situation did not result from capitalism. You may say that the greedy corporations brought this upon them, but ask yourself this: Would their situation be any better if the corporations never opened so called "sweatshops" there?

Wait, when did private education suddenly become so affordable? I would love to see your evidence please. Also, I don't know if you're aware, there are still loads of private schools that don't provide a very good education, they exist outside of regulatory standards for the most part, however, and so that information is kept mostly below the radar (unless you actually look).

It isn't affordable now. It's hard to compete with a product that is free. If there wasn't this unbeatable competition, the price would be forced to go down as more competitors entered the market.

You use your parents as an example but you keep forgetting they had FREE access to education, FREE access to library system, FREE screening of drugs and food for any possible contaminants. Good job on the hard work for them! Your parents embody the epitome of why capitalism laced through with socialism (the US system) is a good thing. Since they were poor, they took advantage of the free basic education, the lowered costs of state college tuition (hint: the reason private colleges are more expensive isn't because they're "better"--in fact many state schools are better than many private ones--it is because they aren't government subsidized) and the FDA keeping toxins from killing them.

Yes, I agree. My parents were willing to achieve more because of some of the socialist programs than they would have without them. But that doesn't make it acceptable. I have never once denied that socialist programs make life better for the poor. My objections are that they do so at the expense of the wealthy. They essentially steal from them. And in my book, stealing is stealing, no matter who or how many people do and no matter whom it benefits. Are my parents better off because of some socialism? Yes. Would they still have succeeded without it? I believe so. It still would have given me, their child, the opportunities to succeed more. I may never become a millionaire or the president of a company, but I know that I can make it possible for my children to do so. Economic improvement does not have to be immediate, it often has to be generational. But under capitalism it is definitely possible.

Another point I tried to make with that story was that some people succeed and some don't. Because my grandparents made it damn important for my parents to get good educations, they did. Often, poor people fail to do this or make similar mistakes, such as having too many kids to send to school, and as a result can't rise economically.

You also asked for a single piece of legislation that benefited everyone: The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, a public act regulating private industries that the FDA regulated which pulled countless unsafe products from the shelves (and gave them the power to continually do so) which benefits everyone in a number of ways: consumers are benefited because they don't die horrible deaths (for the most part) and drug companies benefit in that consumer confidence remains high because they know that testing will eliminate the majority of the risk for them. There are LOADS of things like this, but you wanted one and I'm SURE you should get the picture.

It benefited many, but not all. If it truly benefits the companies, why don't they make it optional? The companies will see it as a marketing tool and utilize it (meaning pay for the service), and those companies that have the FDA approval will triumph over those who don't because the now informed consumer (one of the problems of capitalism, right?) will want a safe product over an unsafe one. Also, what about the taxpayer whose tax money is worth more to him than not having the risk? Shouldn't he be able to make that decision?

Also, you presented the very dire (and HORRIBLE) example of the USSR as a example of socialism/communism. Hmm. Well, look at the highest life expectancy and quality of life and looky looky, it's populated with very socialist states such as Sweden and Norway that tax the hell out of you, but then make life worth living for everyone. Not too shabby if you ask me. If you look at the Mercer study of most livable cities, the top five in the Americas...are ALL in Canada(and it's COLD there!)

I don't consider life expectancy a sure statistic, simply because it is an average, so it's not on an individual basis. Case in point, in America you have more opportunities to stay healthy than most countries, but many people choose to become fat because they can afford it, so they die early and lower the average. Quality of life is a little more suitable, but it's still sketchy because that report doesn't give how it was measured. If it's measured by happiness of the population, than that is also flawed because frankly, in America, though we may have it better off than many nations we tend to bitch and complain a lot.

If you look at average income and production per capita, you will see that more capitalist nations, such as the US, the UK, Australia, and Japan prevail. (Luxemburg, I don't know wtf their problem is. Get out of my list!)

[dragonfliet]

Most of the countries where people suffer that kind of gross poverty (In fact, I can't think of any, but I may be wrong) have been subject to constant warfare, thieving governments, and other things of that nature, and their situation did not result from capitalism. You may say that the greedy corporations brought this upon them, but ask yourself this: Would their situation be any better if the corporations never opened so called "sweatshops" there?

Look at Jamaica, a country that has been completely screwed due to the introduction of free-market capitalism. If suggest the Documentary Life and Debt. Not due to wars, not due to governments: due to capitalism.

It isn't affordable now. It's hard to compete with a product that is free. If there wasn't this unbeatable competition, the price would be forced to go down as more competitors entered the market.

Education has NEVER been affordable and it won't suddenly start. You cannot simply mass produce more, as it is something that requires educators. You cannot state that the cost of education will go down without giving, I don't know, a single fact to support yourself.

Yes, I agree. My parents were willing to achieve more because of some of the socialist programs than they would have without them. But that doesn't make it acceptable. I have never once denied that socialist programs make life better for the poor. My objections are that they do so at the expense of the wealthy. They essentially steal from them. And in my book, stealing is stealing, no matter who or how many people do and no matter whom it benefits. Are my parents better off because of some socialism? Yes. Would they still have succeeded without it? I believe so. It still would have given me, their child, the opportunities to succeed more. I may never become a millionaire or the president of a company, but I know that I can make it possible for my children to do so. Economic improvement does not have to be immediate, it often has to be generational. But under capitalism it is definitely possible.

Another point I tried to make with that story was that some people succeed and some don't. Because my grandparents made it damn important for my parents to get good educations, they did. Often, poor people fail to do this or make similar mistakes, such as having too many kids to send to school, and as a result can't rise economically.

You don't understand they didn't "achieve more" because of the programs, EVERYTHING THEY ACHIEVED was because of the availability of the programs. Hard work and dedication mean nothing when you are uneducated and too poor to save money. You wouldn't have any of the opportunities you have now (I'm guess you go to public school, n'est pas?) and they would still be in the situation they were in before. Yes, some people succeed and some don't UNDER A SYSTEM LIKE IN THE US WHERE CAPITALISM IS REGULATED WITH SOCIALISM, but the entire reason that the good education (which was important to them) was even available in the first place was because of the socialist structures. You keep forgetting how useless your argument is without free/subsidized education.

It benefited many, but not all. If it truly benefits the companies, why don't they make it optional? The companies will see it as a marketing tool and utilize it (meaning pay for the service), and those companies that have the FDA approval will triumph over those who don't because the now informed consumer (one of the problems of capitalism, right?) will want a safe product over an unsafe one. Also, what about the taxpayer whose tax money is worth more to him than not having the risk? Shouldn't he be able to make that decision?

You're really reaching for straws here. Make it optional? The reason it is effective is that it ISN'T optional, but that negates the fact that the entire apparatus of the FDA is a massive one requiring a large investment that no single company could afford to set up, and so the country had to do it. Also, I have yet to meet any taxpayer who's money is worth more than his life...

I don't consider life expectancy a sure statistic, simply because it is an average, so it's not on an individual basis. Case in point, in America you have more opportunities to stay healthy than most countries, but many people choose to become fat because they can afford it, so they die early and lower the average. Quality of life is a little more suitable, but it's still sketchy because that report doesn't give how it was measured. If it's measured by happiness of the population, than that is also flawed because frankly, in America, though we may have it better off than many nations we tend to bitch and complain a lot.

If you look at average income and production per capita, you will see that more capitalist nations, such as the US, the UK, Australia, and Japan prevail. (Luxemburg, I don't know wtf their problem is. Get out of my list!)

Um... What list are YOU looking at? HERE I see Luxembourg Norway Switzerland Denmark Iceland Ireland United States Sweden Netherlands Finland United Kingdom Austria Belgium Japan in that order. Hmm? Also what is quality of life? http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/quality_of_life.pdf

[Sacul15]

Look at Jamaica, a country that has been completely screwed due to the introduction of free-market capitalism. If suggest the Documentary Life and Debt. Not due to wars, not due to governments: due to capitalism.

They are $4 billion in debt because they accepted a series of loans from the IMF (whose goal is to help eliminate poverty. Sounds pretty socialist to me.) which they couldn't pay back. It was their own misjudgment and impatience that got them into this mess, not capitalism.

Education has NEVER been affordable and it won't suddenly start. You cannot simply mass produce more, as it is something that requires educators. You cannot state that the cost of education will go down without giving, I don't know, a single fact to support yourself.

There's no sure way to say exactly what a private education industry will yield, but if it's anything like every other industry then the results are obvious. Competition will bring prices down, and wages up. Because there is no room for waste or fraud, efficiency will go up, resulting in better educations. The succeeding market will attract many people to become teachers or administrators, etc. etc. True, education won't suddenly start to be affordable. It takes time, which is why I think that the transition will have to be gradual, but all these effects are still very possible.

You don't understand they didn't "achieve more" because of the programs, EVERYTHING THEY ACHIEVED was because of the availability of the programs. Hard work and dedication mean nothing when you are uneducated and too poor to save money. You wouldn't have any of the opportunities you have now (I'm guess you go to public school, n'est pas?) and they would still be in the situation they were in before. Yes, some people succeed and some don't UNDER A SYSTEM LIKE IN THE US WHERE CAPITALISM IS REGULATED WITH SOCIALISM, but the entire reason that the good education (which was important to them) was even available in the first place was because of the socialist structures. You keep forgetting how useless your argument is without free/subsidized education.

If that is so, that everything they accomplished was because of socialism, then why isn't everyone as successful as they are? They are under the same circumstance, and they have access to even more programs now. So why do some succeed while others don't. Obviously I have no way to prove that my parents would still have succeeded, but they are very economic savvy and, though this probably means nothing to you or this argument, I'm sure they would have made it. As for me going to public education, yes I do (well, did), since the nearest private school is about an hour and a half away and is one of the most expensive in the state. But, if they had no other option, my parents certainly could afford it. Besides that, under capitalism, they would have many options, all of which would be cheaper than that one is now.

You're really reaching for straws here. Make it optional? The reason it is effective is that it ISN'T optional, but that negates the fact that the entire apparatus of the FDA is a massive one requiring a large investment that no single company could afford to set up, and so the country had to do it. Also, I have yet to meet any taxpayer who's money is worth more than his life...

Effective, yes, but not beneficial to all. And I have met people who would value the money over the fact that they would die from cancer in 50 years.

Um... What list are YOU looking at? HERE I see Luxembourg Norway Switzerland Denmark Iceland Ireland United States Sweden Netherlands Finland United Kingdom Austria Belgium Japan in that order. Hmm? Also what is quality of life? http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/quality_of_life.pdf

I was looking at an old per capita personal income chart, and confused a GDP per capita Luxembourg in there, and now I feel rather stupid. Forgive me, it was late and I was tired.

Personal income per capita is a much better indicator than GNI or GDP, since it subtracts all taxes from the amount of money a person has made. People from Sweden and Norway might make more, but after taxes they have less spending money. Far less than the US, the UK, Germany, and Switzerland.

(Yes, I know it's wikipedia, but get over it. All the info is in the two reference sites if you want to dig for it.)

[dragonfliet]

Look at Jamaica, a country that has been completely screwed due to the introduction of free-market capitalism. If suggest the Documentary Life and Debt. Not due to wars, not due to governments: due to capitalism.

They are $4 billion in debt because they accepted a series of loans from the IMF (whose goal is to help eliminate poverty. Sounds pretty socialist to me.) which they couldn't pay back. It was their own misjudgment and impatience that got them into this mess, not capitalism.

Um, the IMF makes loans and gets back interest. That's capitalism. The reason that Jamaica is in debt like they are is because of the power of monopolies strangling their economy--because of capitalism. There are a LARGE amount of reasons why this has so crippled the country, hence why I pointed you to watch the documentary. At least read the"about" section, which is very insufficient but gives a glimpse of what the film really dives into

There's no sure way to say exactly what a private education industry will yield, but if it's anything like every other industry then the results are obvious. Competition will bring prices down, and wages up. Because there is no room for waste or fraud, efficiency will go up, resulting in better educations. The succeeding market will attract many people to become teachers or administrators, etc. etc. True, education won't suddenly start to be affordable. It takes time, which is why I think that the transition will have to be gradual, but all these effects are still very possible.

You still don't understand at all. Think for a second: Why is education so expensive? Is it because of the extravagant buildings? Is it because of the awesome laser shows? Is it because Mick Jagger speaks to all 10th graders? No. It is so expensive because TEACHERS are so expensive. Why are teaches so expensive? In order to be a teacher, you have to go through High school (which would cost significantly more if there was no public school), THEN you have to go through College (private school prices mind you, so at least $30,000/yr for 4 years). You see, a LOT of money has to be invested in a teacher, which is why they command salaries of $30,000/yr on the LOW end for starting out (high school ages). If you had 30 kids/class and 8 subjects a year (thinking high school, which was about what I had, more or less), that's at LEAST $8,000/yr in just teacher cost--for a brand new teacher. If you assume that your faculty is a wide range of ages, you're going to have a variance of some magnitude with salaries exceeding $70,000/yr. If you have 8 teachers (4 at min, 4 at max) that brings the cost up to $13,000/yr. But that doesn't cover administration, which would exceed $100,000/yr, or support staff Cafeteria personel, janitors, building maintenance, nurses, guidance counselors, secretaries, etc; nor does it include building costs (air conditioning and heating is expensive). So there you go and the price rises higher and higher until, Whoop, that's expensive, and they have fairly large classes to boot. Tell me EXACTLY how you think you can Simultaneously "bring prices down, and wages up." I'm really dying to know. Education has existed for as long as civilization has and it has NEVER been cheap. Ever. Public schools made it so that anyone could go (by subsidizing it through taxes--mostly from the rich), but the cost is still very, very high. Hell, plus the salaries would be significantly higher because every one of these teachers would have had to pay the VERY steep tuition of private school for 12 years of primary-highschool education AS WELL AS college.

If that is so, that everything they accomplished was because of socialism, then why isn't everyone as successful as they are? They are under the same circumstance, and they have access to even more programs now. So why do some succeed while others don't. Obviously I have no way to prove that my parents would still have succeeded, but they are very economic savvy and, though this probably means nothing to you or this argument, I'm sure they would have made it. As for me going to public education, yes I do (well, did), since the nearest private school is about an hour and a half away and is one of the most expensive in the state. But, if they had no other option, my parents certainly could afford it. Besides that, under capitalism, they would have many options, all of which would be cheaper than that one is now.

Let's address this question in two parts:

part 1) Why doesn't everyone succeed? Well, this is where I'm on your side. Your parents did well because they worked hard and worked smart. This is still a capitalist society, more or less. They wouldn't have had ANY opportunity if it were a PURELY capitalist society like the Ayn Rand idiots are advocating, because they simply wouldn't have been able to afford an education and they would have had no springboard. You see, I believe in capitalism: I believe that people should be rewarded for working hard and for working smart, but I do NOT believe that people should be punished by starting off poor. That's what socialist systems do, they say everyone gets education, everyone gets health care, don't worry about that stuff, worry about INNOVATING and working hard. Sure, this comes at the cost of taxes, but the payoff is A CHANCE for EVERYONE, not just the rich kids.

part 2) I'm sure your parents are economically savvy, but what good would that have done them if they couldn't read because there was no public system in place and they couldn't afford the high tuition? You cannot keep ignoring the fact that all of these basic starting blocks were ESSENTIAL for your parents but are DENIED to people who are on the bottom rungs of the ladders--the people who dig up diamonds, who sew your clothes, who make your electronics, who carry the brunt of the unfortunate labor needed to make the world turn. Coming from poverty is very, very tough, and I was in a very similar situation myself growing up and I am proud of my parents for working hard and I am proud of myself for working hard to climb up out of that poverty. That being said, as hard as we all worked (and it was hard), it was only possible due to free education. You are FAR too sheltered to have any idea what working that hard is like.

Effective, yes, but not beneficial to all. And I have met people who would value the money over the fact that they would die from cancer in 50 years.

We're not talking about cancer in 50 years, we're talking about dying from Salmonella NOW because there is no organization that tracks the MASSIVE quantities of jalapeno peppers sold through different vendors to different grocery stores. We're talking about dying in two months because of an unfortunately nasty complication not tested by the drug company. We're talking about dying HORRIBLY within weeks because of Mad Cow Disease. Maybe you should read the news, see the FDA and related organizations stepping in to stop these from happening and think, OH-that's why we give up a few bucks in taxes each year!

I was looking at an old per capita personal income chart, and confused a GDP per capita Luxembourg in there, and now I feel rather stupid. Forgive me, it was late and I was tired.

Personal income per capita is a much better indicator than GNI or GDP, since it subtracts all taxes from the amount of money a person has made. People from Sweden and Norway might make more, but after taxes they have less spending money. Far less than the US, the UK, Germany, and Switzerland.

(Yes, I know it's wikipedia, but get over it. All the info is in the two reference sites if you want to dig for it.)

1) UK, Germany and Switzerland all have sponsored heath care systems, btw. Sure the US has more spending money, but then we have to spend it on the things already provided by other governments. While you can look at that spending money and think how grand it is, you would be stupid to do so. That's like saying if you earn $1,000/mo at your job after taxes, you get to spend it all on electronic gear. Only you have to pay $600/mo for rent, $100/mo gas (for house) $50/mo for electric, $10/mo for water and $70/mo for internet+cable (okay, the last one is a luxury). Would you really brag about your "spending" money to someone who only makes $400/mo but has free rent, utilities and internet? THAT is why quality of life surveys are important, they take into consideration the environmental conditions, the amount of money earned, the amount of money spent on essentials, the amount of money spent on luxuries, the amount of time spent working (hint: all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy), the amount of time spent on vacation, overall health and life expectancy, etc.

[dragonfliet]

Look at Jamaica, a country that has been completely screwed due to the introduction of free-market capitalism. If suggest the Documentary Life and Debt. Not due to wars, not due to governments: due to capitalism.

They are $4 billion in debt because they accepted a series of loans from the IMF (whose goal is to help eliminate poverty. Sounds pretty socialist to me.) which they couldn't pay back. It was their own misjudgment and impatience that got them into this mess, not capitalism.

Um, the IMF makes loans and gets back interest. That's capitalism. The reason that Jamaica is in debt like they are is because of the power of monopolies strangling their economy--because of capitalism. There are a LARGE amount of reasons why this has so crippled the country, hence why I pointed you to watch the documentary. At least read the"about" section, which is very insufficient but gives a glimpse of what the film really dives into

There's no sure way to say exactly what a private education industry will yield, but if it's anything like every other industry then the results are obvious. Competition will bring prices down, and wages up. Because there is no room for waste or fraud, efficiency will go up, resulting in better educations. The succeeding market will attract many people to become teachers or administrators, etc. etc. True, education won't suddenly start to be affordable. It takes time, which is why I think that the transition will have to be gradual, but all these effects are still very possible.

You still don't understand at all. Think for a second: Why is education so expensive? Is it because of the extravagant buildings? Is it because of the awesome laser shows? Is it because Mick Jagger speaks to all 10th graders? No. It is so expensive because TEACHERS are so expensive. Why are teaches so expensive? In order to be a teacher, you have to go through High school (which would cost significantly more if there was no public school), THEN you have to go through College (private school prices mind you, so at least $30,000/yr for 4 years). You see, a LOT of money has to be invested in a teacher, which is why they command salaries of $30,000/yr on the LOW end for starting out (high school ages). If you had 30 kids/class and 8 subjects a year (thinking high school, which was about what I had, more or less), that's at LEAST $8,000/yr in just teacher cost--for a brand new teacher. If you assume that your faculty is a wide range of ages, you're going to have a variance of some magnitude with salaries exceeding $70,000/yr. If you have 8 teachers (4 at min, 4 at max) that brings the cost up to $13,000/yr. But that doesn't cover administration, which would exceed $100,000/yr, or support staff Cafeteria personel, janitors, building maintenance, nurses, guidance counselors, secretaries, etc; nor does it include building costs (air conditioning and heating is expensive). So there you go and the price rises higher and higher until, Whoop, that's expensive, and they have fairly large classes to boot. Tell me EXACTLY how you think you can Simultaneously "bring prices down, and wages up." I'm really dying to know. Education has existed for as long as civilization has and it has NEVER been cheap. Ever. Public schools made it so that anyone could go (by subsidizing it through taxes--mostly from the rich), but the cost is still very, very high. Hell, plus the salaries would be significantly higher because every one of these teachers would have had to pay the VERY steep tuition of private school for 12 years of primary-highschool education AS WELL AS college.

If that is so, that everything they accomplished was because of socialism, then why isn't everyone as successful as they are? They are under the same circumstance, and they have access to even more programs now. So why do some succeed while others don't. Obviously I have no way to prove that my parents would still have succeeded, but they are very economic savvy and, though this probably means nothing to you or this argument, I'm sure they would have made it. As for me going to public education, yes I do (well, did), since the nearest private school is about an hour and a half away and is one of the most expensive in the state. But, if they had no other option, my parents certainly could afford it. Besides that, under capitalism, they would have many options, all of which would be cheaper than that one is now.

Let's address this question in two parts:

part 1) Why doesn't everyone succeed? Well, this is where I'm on your side. Your parents did well because they worked hard and worked smart. This is still a capitalist society, more or less. They wouldn't have had ANY opportunity if it were a PURELY capitalist society like the Ayn Rand idiots are advocating, because they simply wouldn't have been able to afford an education and they would have had no springboard. You see, I believe in capitalism: I believe that people should be rewarded for working hard and for working smart, but I do NOT believe that people should be punished by starting off poor. That's what socialist systems do, they say everyone gets education, everyone gets health care, don't worry about that stuff, worry about INNOVATING and working hard. Sure, this comes at the cost of taxes, but the payoff is A CHANCE for EVERYONE, not just the rich kids.

part 2) I'm sure your parents are economically savvy, but what good would that have done them if they couldn't read because there was no public system in place and they couldn't afford the high tuition? You cannot keep ignoring the fact that all of these basic starting blocks were ESSENTIAL for your parents but are DENIED to people who are on the bottom rungs of the ladders--the people who dig up diamonds, who sew your clothes, who make your electronics, who carry the brunt of the unfortunate labor needed to make the world turn. Coming from poverty is very, very tough, and I was in a very similar situation myself growing up and I am proud of my parents for working hard and I am proud of myself for working hard to climb up out of that poverty. That being said, as hard as we all worked (and it was hard), it was only possible due to free education. You are FAR too sheltered to have any idea what working that hard is like.

Effective, yes, but not beneficial to all. And I have met people who would value the money over the fact that they would die from cancer in 50 years.

We're not talking about cancer in 50 years, we're talking about dying from Salmonella NOW because there is no organization that tracks the MASSIVE quantities of jalapeno peppers sold through different vendors to different grocery stores. We're talking about dying in two months because of an unfortunately nasty complication not tested by the drug company. We're talking about dying HORRIBLY within weeks because of Mad Cow Disease. Maybe you should read the news, see the FDA and related organizations stepping in to stop these from happening and think, OH-that's why we give up a few bucks in taxes each year!

I was looking at an old per capita personal income chart, and confused a GDP per capita Luxembourg in there, and now I feel rather stupid. Forgive me, it was late and I was tired.

Personal income per capita is a much better indicator than GNI or GDP, since it subtracts all taxes from the amount of money a person has made. People from Sweden and Norway might make more, but after taxes they have less spending money. Far less than the US, the UK, Germany, and Switzerland.

(Yes, I know it's wikipedia, but get over it. All the info is in the two reference sites if you want to dig for it.)

1) UK, Germany and Switzerland all have sponsored heath care systems, btw. Sure the US has more spending money, but then we have to spend it on the things already provided by other governments. While you can look at that spending money and think how grand it is, you would be stupid to do so. That's like saying if you earn $1,000/mo at your job after taxes, you get to spend it all on electronic gear. Only you have to pay $600/mo for rent, $100/mo gas (for house) $50/mo for electric, $10/mo for water and $70/mo for internet+cable (okay, the last one is a luxury). Would you really brag about your "spending" money to someone who only makes $400/mo but has free rent, utilities and internet? THAT is why quality of life surveys are important, they take into consideration the environmental conditions, the amount of money earned, the amount of money spent on essentials, the amount of money spent on luxuries, the amount of time spent working (hint: all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy), the amount of time spent on vacation, overall health and life expectancy, etc.

[Sacul15]

Um, the IMF makes loans and gets back interest. That's capitalism. The reason that Jamaica is in debt like they are is because of the power of monopolies strangling their economy--because of capitalism. There are a LARGE amount of reasons why this has so crippled the country, hence why I pointed you to watch the documentary. At least read the"about" section, which is very insufficient but gives a glimpse of what the film really dives into

The IMF was set up by the UN to help solve economic problems and alleviate poverty. They get their lending money from participating nations, who get their money from taxes. It doesn't matter what exactly their methods are, but they are still interfering with the global economy. Governments promoting competition through incentives is not capitalism.

The facts about Jamaica are that they chose to borrow from an institution where they knew that the consequences may include a dependency and thus a worsened economy, and this brought them into the situation they are in now. If capitalism is truly to blame and those monopolies are keeping the Jamaican people in poverty, do you think that if all those greedy foreign exploiters left, Jamaica would be any better?

You still don't understand at all. Think for a second: Why is education so expensive? Is it because of the extravagant buildings? Is it because of the awesome laser shows? Is it because Mick Jagger speaks to all 10th graders? No. It is so expensive because TEACHERS are so expensive. Why are teaches so expensive? In order to be a teacher, you have to go through High school (which would cost significantly more if there was no public school), THEN you have to go through College (private school prices mind you, so at least $30,000/yr for 4 years). You see, a LOT of money has to be invested in a teacher, which is why they command salaries of $30,000/yr on the LOW end for starting out (high school ages). If you had 30 kids/class and 8 subjects a year (thinking high school, which was about what I had, more or less), that's at LEAST $8,000/yr in just teacher cost--for a brand new teacher. If you assume that your faculty is a wide range of ages, you're going to have a variance of some magnitude with salaries exceeding $70,000/yr. If you have 8 teachers (4 at min, 4 at max) that brings the cost up to $13,000/yr. But that doesn't cover administration, which would exceed $100,000/yr, or support staff Cafeteria personel, janitors, building maintenance, nurses, guidance counselors, secretaries, etc; nor does it include building costs (air conditioning and heating is expensive). So there you go and the price rises higher and higher until, Whoop, that's expensive, and they have fairly large classes to boot. Tell me EXACTLY how you think you can Simultaneously "bring prices down, and wages up." I'm really dying to know. Education has existed for as long as civilization has and it has NEVER been cheap. Ever. Public schools made it so that anyone could go (by subsidizing it through taxes--mostly from the rich), but the cost is still very, very high. Hell, plus the salaries would be significantly higher because every one of these teachers would have had to pay the VERY steep tuition of private school for 12 years of primary-highschool education AS WELL AS college.

Education has never been cheap because until recently (a couple centuries ago), it wasn't valued as much as it is today. When the demand for an educated work force increased, that was about the same time when public education started taking off. You say that I can't prove that a privately run industry would work, but for the same reason you can't prove that it wouldn't. There has never been an instance of a completely private education industry, same as how there has never been a completely capitalist society.

Let's address this question in two parts:

part 1) Why doesn't everyone succeed? Well, this is where I'm on your side. Your parents did well because they worked hard and worked smart. This is still a capitalist society, more or less. They wouldn't have had ANY opportunity if it were a PURELY capitalist society like the Ayn Rand idiots are advocating, because they simply wouldn't have been able to afford an education and they would have had no springboard. You see, I believe in capitalism: I believe that people should be rewarded for working hard and for working smart, but I do NOT believe that people should be punished by starting off poor. That's what socialist systems do, they say everyone gets education, everyone gets health care, don't worry about that stuff, worry about INNOVATING and working hard. Sure, this comes at the cost of taxes, but the payoff is A CHANCE for EVERYONE, not just the rich kids.

part 2) I'm sure your parents are economically savvy, but what good would that have done them if they couldn't read because there was no public system in place and they couldn't afford the high tuition? You cannot keep ignoring the fact that all of these basic starting blocks were ESSENTIAL for your parents but are DENIED to people who are on the bottom rungs of the ladders--the people who dig up diamonds, who sew your clothes, who make your electronics, who carry the brunt of the unfortunate labor needed to make the world turn. Coming from poverty is very, very tough, and I was in a very similar situation myself growing up and I am proud of my parents for working hard and I am proud of myself for working hard to climb up out of that poverty. That being said, as hard as we all worked (and it was hard), it was only possible due to free education. You are FAR too sheltered to have any idea what working that hard is like.

I don't want to make this a personal argument, and I apologize if you take offense to this, but your parents could have chosen not to have children and it would have been easier for them to get out of poverty. I'm not saying at all that this is what they should have done, and it probably isn't since they managed to succeed even with children, but you can't deny that fact. The same goes with my grandparents, and all other people stricken with similar situations. It's just something to think about.

As for your argument saying that it impossible to rise under capitalism, I've tried to show to the best of my ability that that isn't true, but frankly I'm bored arguing the practical side of it, so I'll switch to the moral. In order to help get people out of poverty, you either have to redistribute wealth or provide services that give them the tools to gain said wealth on their own. Both require taxes, and both require the efforts of people who may not want to help. Is it acceptable to take, to steal, from those who do not wish do forfeit their money, which they have earned? Why should a person who has worked all his life to provide his child with the best education possible have to give up some of his wealth, and possibly some of his child's education to help teach another to that he can able to compete with the first child? I think that all arguments about the practicality of socialism are useless against the fact that it legalizes theft.

We're not talking about cancer in 50 years, we're talking about dying from Salmonella NOW because there is no organization that tracks the MASSIVE quantities of jalapeno peppers sold through different vendors to different grocery stores. We're talking about dying in two months because of an unfortunately nasty complication not tested by the drug company. We're talking about dying HORRIBLY within weeks because of Mad Cow Disease. Maybe you should read the news, see the FDA and related organizations stepping in to stop these from happening and think, OH-that's why we give up a few bucks in taxes each year!

Well if you are perfectly healthy one day and then you eat a jalapeno and the next day you are dying, that's probably a good indicator that maybe that Jalapeno had something to do with it, and then you could prove in court that said company harmed you. The company gets sued, loses credibility, and goes out of business. Problem solved. If companies don't want this, and most won't, why not have a government agency that has optional screening, like I suggested before? Businesses pay their fees, and regular citizens can donate money if they think it is important, and we get safe products without forcing people to pay for something they don't want.

1) UK, Germany and Switzerland all have sponsored heath care systems, btw. Sure the US has more spending money, but then we have to spend it on the things already provided by other governments. While you can look at that spending money and think how grand it is, you would be stupid to do so. That's like saying if you earn $1,000/mo at your job after taxes, you get to spend it all on electronic gear. Only you have to pay $600/mo for rent, $100/mo gas (for house) $50/mo for electric, $10/mo for water and $70/mo for internet+cable (okay, the last one is a luxury). Would you really brag about your "spending" money to someone who only makes $400/mo but has free rent, utilities and internet? THAT is why quality of life surveys are important, they take into consideration the environmental conditions, the amount of money earned, the amount of money spent on essentials, the amount of money spent on luxuries, the amount of time spent working (hint: all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy), the amount of time spent on vacation, overall health and life expectancy, etc.

Fair enough, but the guaranteed health care and similar programs are all vastly inferior to privately owned and purchased goods. That's why many Canadians come here for health care. It's incredibly difficult to compare nations, since they all have unique situations, and since there are unique situations in nations themselves (Hawaii and Texas?). That's why I don't trust any one number to say which nations are better than others.

[dragonfliet]

The facts about Jamaica are that they chose to borrow from an institution where they knew that the consequences may include a dependency and thus a worsened economy, and this brought them into the situation they are in now. If capitalism is truly to blame and those monopolies are keeping the Jamaican people in poverty, do you think that if all those greedy foreign exploiters left, Jamaica would be any better?

Link to these facts that are so irrefutable?

Education has never been cheap because until recently (a couple centuries ago), it wasn't valued as much as it is today. When the demand for an educated work force increased, that was about the same time when public education started taking off. You say that I can't prove that a privately run industry would work, but for the same reason you can't prove that it wouldn't. There has never been an instance of a completely private education industry, same as how there has never been a completely capitalist society.

Don't tell the Romans or the Greeks that education wasn't valued. Almost the entire history of education has been that of private education, and yet it never got cheaper. You simply have no clue. Any facts on your side? I'd love to see your links.

I don't want to make this a personal argument, and I apologize if you take offense to this, but your parents could have chosen not to have children and it would have been easier for them to get out of poverty. I'm not saying at all that this is what they should have done, and it probably isn't since they managed to succeed even with children, but you can't deny that fact. The same goes with my grandparents, and all other people stricken with similar situations. It's just something to think about.

As for your argument saying that it impossible to rise under capitalism, I've tried to show to the best of my ability that that isn't true, but frankly I'm bored arguing the practical side of it, so I'll switch to the moral. In order to help get people out of poverty, you either have to redistribute wealth or provide services that give them the tools to gain said wealth on their own. Both require taxes, and both require the efforts of people who may not want to help. Is it acceptable to take, to steal, from those who do not wish do forfeit their money, which they have earned? Why should a person who has worked all his life to provide his child with the best education possible have to give up some of his wealth, and possibly some of his child's education to help teach another to that he can able to compete with the first child? I think that all arguments about the practicality of socialism are useless against the fact that it legalizes theft.

You can't possibly argue the practical side because you have NOTHING. Show to me 3 persons who have risen through a capitalist society in which they were born in poverty and had ZERO access to a free educational system and you win. I am going to bet you can't.

To answer your question though: If you are being oppressed by a system which forbids you to rise from your station and holds you and your family hostage, is it okay to steal?

YES. It's also okay to overthrow that entire system. Ask Thomas Jefferson

Well if you are perfectly healthy one day and then you eat a jalapeno and the next day you are dying, that's probably a good indicator that maybe that Jalapeno had something to do with it, and then you could prove in court that said company harmed you. The company gets sued, loses credibility, and goes out of business. Problem solved. If companies don't want this, and most won't, why not have a government agency that has optional screening, like I suggested before? Businesses pay their fees, and regular citizens can donate money if they think it is important, and we get safe products without forcing people to pay for something they don't want.

1) by the time you realize, you're dead. 2) how on EARTH can you find out where that pepper came from? How would you have the resources to find it? 3) Large corporations have many, many interests on their side who want their money. Since all government is corrupt, how easy do you think it will be able to sue this company when there is no widely recognized organization to present your case?

Fair enough, but the guaranteed health care and similar programs are all vastly inferior to privately owned and purchased goods. That's why many Canadians come here for health care. It's incredibly difficult to compare nations, since they all have unique situations, and since there are unique situations in nations themselves (Hawaii and Texas?). That's why I don't trust any one number to say which nations are better than others.

Link to any sort of proof? I wonder why the people of those "inferior" social health systems live longer, healthier, more satisfied lives?

You are right though, this grows tired. I have showed you why education is expensive you have showed zero facts that could bring the cost down, I have provided clear examples of why you need help to rise through society, you have provided examples of people WHO HAD HELP and then didn't acknowledge that help they've had. I've shown that socialist systems have a easily measurable system of wealth, security, happiness and long life and you have the off the cuff remark that says that their health care systems are worse.

Try some links this time instead of pursuing your nu uh arguments.

~Jason

[Sacul15]

Link to these facts that are so irrefutable?

1. http://www.lifeanddebt.org/about.html Prime Minister Michael Manley did in fact agree to borrowing from the IMF. No objections there I hope.

2. You are right, I have no proof that Manley knew the terms of the contract. I am just assuming he read it before he signed it.

3. http://www.lifeanddebt.org/about.html The documentary says so itself, borrowing from the IMF and other lending agencies ushered in the economic trouble that Jamaica is currently facing.

Don't tell the Romans or the Greeks that education wasn't valued. Almost the entire history of education has been that of private education, and yet it never got cheaper. You simply have no clue. Any facts on your side? I'd love to see your links.

"The boys of Sparta were obliged to leave home at the age of 7 to join sternly disciplined groups under the supervision of a hierarchy of officers." Mandatory, public education.

In Athens, "The schools were private, but the tuition was low enough so that even the poorest citizens could afford to send their children for at least a few years."

http://www.greeceindex.com/greece-education/greek_education_ancient_greece.html

You can't possibly argue the practical side because you have NOTHING. Show to me 3 persons who have risen through a capitalist society in which they were born in poverty and had ZERO access to a free educational system and you win. I am going to bet you can't.

Andrew Carnegie
John D. Rockefeller
Mark Twain

I win.

To answer your question though: If you are being oppressed by a system which forbids you to rise from your station and holds you and your family hostage, is it okay to steal?

YES. It's also okay to overthrow that entire system. Ask Thomas Jefferson

No! Completely, absolutely unquestionably wrong. Thomas Jefferson was one of the foremost advocates of the inalienable right to property. He wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [destructive of these rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." This means that when a government allows people to steal, it is the right and responsibility of the citizens to alter or abolish it in order to make themselves safer, not to do so to make stealing legal.

1) by the time you realize, you're dead. 2) how on EARTH can you find out where that pepper came from? How would you have the resources to find it? 3) Large corporations have many, many interests on their side who want their money. Since all government is corrupt, how easy do you think it will be able to sue this company when there is no widely recognized organization to present your case?

1. Ok.
2. If 1 is true, your relatives can use an autopsy, and still sue.
3. Hire a private investigation team. Sure, most people can't, but rich people eat jalapenos too. I'd also be willing to bet that some would be willing to investigate without profit, just for the recognition (and maybe satisfaction as well) of helping to bring down a corrupt corporation.

Link to any sort of proof? I wonder why the people of those "inferior" social health systems live longer, healthier, more satisfied lives?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/hl856.cfm
Pay attention to number 6 especially. The American system is far from laissez-faire, and I think that contributes a lot to many of our problems today. The rest I would attribute to cultural choices. Aren't we still the fattest nation?

Geez, what's with you people? Athlete criticizes me for posting links, and you criticize me for not posting links to the statistics backing up every little statement I make...