Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
Precapitalist societies were not bastions of fine education, housing and health, Will. Capitalism has raised the floor and expectations in each of those categories. When we say now that someone has poor housing it's a <i>relative</i> term. They're not in caves, they're not in corrugated shacks - they're in what was 150 years ago luxury housing (at least in NY that's the case).
|
Finland's public schools are by far the best in the world, better than the US's private schools. Health? Well we've covered that ad nauseum, but here you go again: France is the best in the world and they pay less per capita in taxes on healthcare than we pay per capita in healthcare insurance. And they have socialized healthcare. As for housing, have you been watching our private housing market lately? Had I not gotten out years ago, I'd be in serious financial trouble.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
False. Concentration of power in the govt leads to fascism.
|
FALSE! Well, actually it's partially true. Actually it's half of what I said. Did you read what I wrote in my next post?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel, the wise
It's a parabola, actually. The best place to be, for the common man, is having some governmental control and some liberty. Complete liberty means we're at the mercy of those who have more money, complete government means we're at the mercy of those in government.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
Departure from markets (by seeking govt favor) increases govt power and could lead to fascism. Regulation leads to concentration of economic power because it raises barriers to entry. Govt tends to try to increase its own power, and that's why corps end up lobbying and making contributions - it's protection money. Remember, it's the govt that has the guns.
|
Wait, so you think that governments are capable of concentrating economic power, but corporations aren't? The government has the guns, and the market has the money. Both are dangerous.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
Oh yeah? Then why was the USSR such a marvelous economic engine if that's the case? The US has the richest poor people in the recorded history of mankind. Poverty level today exceeds in living standard what middle class people had in 1900. The reason for that is capitalism.
|
It's simple economics, actually. When a country enters a recession, the ability to invest in new resources becomes scarce, so those resources compound while the market begins to rebuild. What we saw during and after World War II was that kind of recovery. It's one of those interesting natural phenomena in economics. The recovery from a recession can often lead to very healthy economic growth, as it did in the US. It has nothing to do with the free market, as more socialist countries like the UK and Japan also saw great economic growth after the war and reconstruction.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
If you would look at how well off people are rather than fetishizing economic equality you'd understand that the greatest emancipator from misery in history is capitalism.
|
I only fetishize women, thank you very much.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
My comment was in the context of has been at the root of great societies and what has been at the root of those societies failing. Nothing more. I think if we understand what makes societies thrive and what makes them die we would then can have a better understanding of finding balance.
|
Oh.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I fundamentally agree that being at either extreme would not work in a complex society.
|
Sweet.
