Keeping it Simple

[Madison]

Originally posted by vladiator

The supply and demand logic you are referring to seems to have come from an undergrad econ textbook.

Those are the things the socialism is much better taking care of.

Ahh... the delightful combination of academic elitism and idealistic socialism...

I assume someone of your educational prominence has read Moore's Utopia? Nearly 500 years after its publication, we seem no closer, despite the intensive efforts of millions of socialists and the misery of hundreds of millions of peasants...

My personal guess is that that is due to socialism's irreconcilable conflict with human nature (but feel free to disregard that opinion, seeing as how it is the product of an uncouth heathen who has never risen above the vulgarity of the 'undergrad').

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by Madison


or, maybe, neighboring landowners in a truly capitalist system like that would start competing with each other for traffic, having price wars, making travel more convenient, and providing the best possible road surface over the land to attract more customers.

There are some private toll roads and bridges in the US. They are no pleasure. They are just exploited by the owners. Talk about having a "captive audience". Give me an Interstate Highway any day! (Toll free prefered).
People will travel the roads that take them where they want to go, not the roads that have the "best possible road surface". What good is a nice road if it takes you where you don't want to go?

R

 

[Madison]

Originally posted by rs7

There are some private toll roads and bridges in the US. They are no pleasure. They are just exploited by the owners. Talk about having a "captive audience". Give me an Interstate Highway any day! (Toll free prefered).
People will travel the roads that take them where they want to go, not the roads that have the "best possible road surface". What good is a nice road if it takes you where you don't want to go?

R

The example cited was one of pure capitalism, assumedly where everyone has an equal opportunity to charge for passage. Obviously if that opportunity is restricted, so that only one road may charge, there will be the abuses that come with monopoly.

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by vladiator

But you'd not understand that anyway. You just keep looking the other way when you see someone in trouble.

Sorry to keep talking politics, rs7 ( I AM trying to keep it 'simple' ), but I can't let this one go by without commenting.

I, as a proponent of capitalism, would prefer to help someone in such a way that he learns to help himself.(and I think that Capitalism, as an ideology, would do well do adopt such a theory of 'help' as its own) The way socialsim helps a person effectively reinforces the behavior that caused that person to need to be helped in the first place.

 

[darkhorse]

hey rs7, so far I've managed to sit on my hands and stay completely out of this political debate!

aren't you proud of me?

 

[vladiator]

Originally posted by daniel_m

I, as a proponent of capitalism, would prefer to help someone in such a way that he learns to help himself.(and I think that Capitalism, as an ideology, would do well do adopt such a theory of 'help' as its own) The way socialsim helps a person effectively reinforces the behavior that caused that person to need to be helped in the first place.

Come on man, you know perfectly well I didn't mean just taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor by what I said earlier I agree with your statement in terms of helping someone in a way that will put him on his own feet etc. I know this too well from my own experience. I was born and grew up in a tiny village in Ukraine... about 20 years later I was working for a subsidiary of a US corporation at the middle mgmt level, in another year, I was done with an at MBA one of the US universities, about 3 years later (now), I'm almost done with my PhD and have a 30% stake in an investment firm that seems to be doing quite OK, thank God.
I intentionally skipped one milestone that enabled me to achieve much of what I have mentioned there (besides devine intervention ) - in my third year of college I won a grant from George Soros to come and study in the US for two semesters...
That's the kind of "assistance" I wish there was more of. Did he derive any capitalistic benefit from it?
Is Mr.Gates doing any of that??? Maybe some for PR.
I also agree that the way you saw socialism implemented in Yugoslavia and I did in Ukraine/USSR often resulted in instances of assistance that you refer to. But it doesn't imply that that was the majority of cases or that it had to be that way. Human nature often causes such abuses, but I believe it still is possible to attain and optimal balance of free enterprise, entrepreneurship and an equitable wealth distribution.
I too am watching carefully the Chinese. I think they are on the right track. They have a lot of burdens to cope with, but so far I'm impressed.
PS You also must have misunderstood me, I did not imply any need for the governemt owned enterprises. I know too well how those operate

 

[Vesperanza]

Originally posted by vladiator: While you do have a healthy middle class, I think the society would have benefited substantially from a better distribution of wealth. If the top class had about half of it's wealth taken in taxes and the $ were used for the good of society (e.g. your secondary education and health care SUCK), you'd still have plenty of incentives for people to wanna get to the top, and yet, the standards of living would be much better on average.

Originally posted by daniel_m: I, as a proponent of capitalism, would prefer to help someone in such a way that he learns to help himself.(and I think that Capitalism, as an ideology, would do well do adopt such a theory of 'help' as its own) The way socialsim helps a person effectively reinforces the behavior that caused that person to need to be helped in the first place.

I agree with both of these statements, although as it has been said, no matter how one gains one's earnings it would give the government a bit too much power to be able to take them away "just because". Quite unsettling, actually. And although it would probably help the lower classes, I would not want to give up the freedom we've fought so hard to win. The freedom to earn also means that those who are in trouble have a chance to change their circumstances. There are quite a few programs available to them if they are willing to work. Trust me, I've been there.

Perhaps the problem lies not in capitalism, but what the taxes are used for. I can only imagine, at this moment, that if the government did decide to take half of Bill Gate's assets, most of it would go toward the "war against terrorism" and the national defense - not public services.


~ Vesperanza

 

[vladiator]

Originally posted by Madison

My personal guess is that that is due to socialism's irreconcilable conflict with human nature (but feel free to disregard that opinion, seeing as how it is the product of an uncouth heathen who has never risen above the vulgarity of the 'undergrad').

Hey, I meant no disrespect for the undergrads
And you are right that it may just be that the human nature causes problems for such systems. But I think it doesn't necessarily mean they are not viable. I think that with the right people in charge and careful execution, it can work wonders.
In the extreme case of "socialism" we had in the USSR, we did have plenty of abuses of the system. But, I can assure you, having seen what has transpired since, it was NOTHING compared to what is going on there now... Capitalism doesn't necessarily solve those problems (I'd say what they have in Russia now is much closer to a case of pure capitalism than what is here in the states).

 

[vladiator]

Originally posted by Vesperanza
I agree with both of these statements, although as it has been said, no matter how one gains one's earnings it would give the government a bit too much power to be able to take them away "just because". Quite unsettling, actually. And although it would probably help the lower classes, I would not want to give up the freedom we've fought so hard to win. The freedom to earn also means that those who are in trouble have a chance to change their circumstances. There are quite a few programs available to them if they are willing to work. Trust me, I've been there.
~ Vesperanza

I didn't mean that they could take all of them but if they took progressively more the more you made (after a certain threshold), it wouldn't mean that much too you as it would to the society. Most people who are already moderately wealthy have a relatively low marginal utility of wealth at the point they are at (the utility function is concave and as we get more and more $$, we don't enjoy each incremental unit as much as we used to, there is a point when you become close to almost indifferent whether you get that extra unit or not). If they were taxed at a higher rate, would they quit doing what they are doing just b/c the benefit would be lower? Maybe some. My bet is the ones who are really good at it would still be doing it. If they are already wealthy, they are not doing it for the money as much anyway.

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by vladiator


I didn't mean that they could take all of them but if they took progressively more the more you made (after a certain threshold), it wouldn't mean that much too you as it would to the society. Most people who are already moderately wealthy have a relatively low marginal utility of wealth at the point they are at. If they were taxed at a higher rate, would they quit doing what they are doing just b/c the benefit would be lower? Maybe some. My bet is the ones who are really good at it would still be doing it. If they are already wealthy, they are not doing it for the money as much anyway.

Well comrade, i couldn't disagree more. However, these are age old issues, unlikely to be resolved by a couple of opinionated posters on ET, and I have a series 7 to study for.

(in short though, (i couldn't resist), it is my opinion that most of the social evils that trouble you CAN be resolve through education. The RIGHT KIND of education (not the crap that gets passed out presently). Meaning, that under my system, lucky rich man gets to keep his dollars AND unlucky poor man gets best possible to chance to become lucky rich man. )