Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
I think the best system takes what is good from both systems an utilzes them simultaneously.
I look at nations like Sweden, Canada, Finland for examples of this to greater and lesser degrees.
Capitalism can be a force for good but left unchecked it can run roughshod over people and the environment (in other words, like Communism it is a sytem that looks good on paper but doesn't take into account human nature).
The key is to find the sweet spot between the two.
|
Couldn't agree more.
When we practiced true Capitalism (what the neo-cons want today) in the late 1880's and up until the depression, our country was very rich or very poor.
It wasn't until we started labor boards, unions, laws that protected the worker that the US truly grew. By the 1950's through the early 70's capital was as equally distributed as it could possibly be in a socio-capitalistic society.
The government spent more on defense but the contractors (US Companies only) would take the money and put it into the labor market, research and development and profit. Education was also greatly funded and we were the envy of the world financially and socially.
We left things like transistor radios and small "inconsequential" items to the Japanese and other countries to develop. We were producing the steel, cars, appliances, and so on.... that for our companies didn't show enough profit to warrant a labor market.
However, as had happened in the early days, the unions had gotten too powerful and the companies instead of R&D had to put that money into labor, due to exorbitant wages.
This created a vacuum that allowed other countries not as bogged down to really come in. By the late 70's inflation and unemployment were high, and people started going to foreign durables because they were cheaper. They were made cheaper also and didn't last as long but the consumer looked at short term.
By the 80's the nation was highly educated, (reaching a height in white collar jobs), we looked to be on the road to recovery, the unions had been weakened not severely but enough for companies to start showing profit.
However, what we hadn't counted on was the countries that had come in and taken advantage of the pricing wars were now producing the durables that we had, and they were still doing it at a cheaper level.
During the 80's we saw the shift, and our trade deficits reached new heights almost every year.
Now our companies were losing money, the labor market had over-priced itself here and so the companies started moving offshore in order to save themselves.
The government really started cutting into unions and labor and tried to keep jobs here.
In doing so they all but weakened the unions to nothing, gave to many rights back to management and believed this would help. This allowed temp services to become the BIG labor market and thus wages dropped.
We also started complaining about our federal deficit and the fact a hammer may cost $1,000. So government contracts started being low-bid and given to anyone whether US or foreign.... (that was our true big killer and still is.)
Had it not been for the WWW. boom in the 90's, we would have been crushed. That bubble and anomoly saved us.
That brings us to today.
Today we are seeing a bit of resurgence, and had oil not gone up the way it has, we may well have been on the road to somewhat of a recovery. But the problem is, management is capitalizing on the weak labor and being as greedy themselves as the unions once were.
What the middle ground is, is making sure the laborers make enough to live on and buy product and management to make enough to be able to develop better ideas.
The neo-cons don't see this, they want management to be heavily favored and if that does happen, we will most definately fall. That's why neo-conservativism is dying fast.
The only way to bring us back to the force we were and to not continue our downward spiral, is to bring back US only contracts, and maintain the middle ground.
We can do it, it just takes true leaders who won't give the advantage to one side over the other. Which, in today's political atmosphere is almost impossible, but has to be done.