gregjohn wrote:
> The key point here is nagging. "Capitalists" are tired of nagging about what
> they do in the marketplace and, to echo Scrooge, say, "I wish to be left alone."

I think capitalism works if you can impose the costs of externalities and 
distribute them to those it costs. If you could actually charge companies 
making Freon with the costs of the damage caused by the ozone hole, you 
could make that work.

It just so happens that government regulations on stuff like that (say, 
"carbon tax") is how that gets implemented. Of course the people making 
money would rather not pay that cost.

And capitalism really only works perfectly in a perfect-knowledge world. I 
would rather have building inspectors making sure buildings are safe than to 
have to do that myself with every building I go into. There are some 
"tragedy of the commons" type problems where it really is more efficient to 
have something like that enforced by force rather than the market, because 
it's much cheaper overall.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> In short: to Europeans the difference is huge. Americans using the term 
> 'socialism' are generally regarded with a friendly sort of paternalism. 

It doesn't seem that way to an American.

You're talking about the political differences. There doesn't seem to be 
much *economic* difference, except in the way the government manages to take 
the capital to be redistributed.

I think the Americans are talking about economics and you're talking about 
government forms.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 13:45, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> In short: to Europeans the difference is huge. Americans using the 
>> term 'socialism' are generally regarded with a friendly sort of 
>> paternalism. 
> 
> It doesn't seem that way to an American.
> 
> You're talking about the political differences. There doesn't seem to be 
> much *economic* difference, except in the way the government manages to 
> take the capital to be redistributed.
> 
> I think the Americans are talking about economics and you're talking 
> about government forms.
> 

Might be. I wouldn't know if there is a standard definition of socialism 
that everybody agrees to, but for me the economic policies of socialism 
are conceptually hard to separate from the economic policies of our 
socialists. Wikipedia does not seem to support your view of what a 
socialist economics is, but that is just one source.

The US does not have or had a socialist party that plays any significant 
role. So I don't think an American can comment on what socialism is or 
should be, at least not when Europeans are present ;) Or would you want 
me to refer to all Christians and neo-conservatives in the states as 
Mormons?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 11:35, Stephen wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 29-12-2009 20:16, m1j wrote:
>>> [snipped warp text]
>>>>
>>
>>>  It is just like talking to a Scotsman and don't hear a word because 
>>> he has such an interesting accent.
>>>
>>

>>
> Why? I really love listening to it. Trying to figure out what they do to 
> their vowels and consonants. What phrases and words they use. Really 
> fantastically interesting. Sorry, what were you saying?

LOL ;)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of 
>> “Communism”
> 
> What do *you* think the difference is?  They sound pretty similar, 
> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by 
> "the people".
> 

Yes but the devil is in the difference. :)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Wikipedia does not seem to support your view of what a 
> socialist economics is, but that is just one source.

There are lots of definitions, since enforcing economics is part of 
government, so the two get confused a lot.  I usually look at multiple 
definitions for words like that. Try googling "define:socialism"

> The US does not have or had a socialist party that plays any significant 
> role. 

It depends on what you mean by "socialist party". It's true we wind up with 
only two parties primarily represented, but the policies of those two 
parties change over time.

> So I don't think an American can comment on what socialism is or 
> should be, at least not when Europeans are present ;) 

I'm not. On the other hand, I don't think you can pick one definition and 
say it's the "right" definition, either.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And there isn't any "pure" communism, either. Even in the depths of the 
> "communist" part of China's history, you still had to pay for food and pay 
> to use the subway. You'd think something like the subway, where carrying an 
> additional rider is practically free given you've already invested in the 
> capital of building the thing, would be free under communism.  Show me a 
> communism that doesn't have a currency before you tell me it's "pure 
> communism". :-)

  Curiously, there are many capitalist countries (ok, those countries
probably don't call themselves "capitalist" because of the negative
connotations, but as said, that doesn't change the fact) where there
*are* lots of public services which don't cost anything (well, not in
cash at least; of course they are funded by taxes). And I'm not talking
just about public libraries and such, but in some cities eg. public
transporation is free. (This actually makes a lot of sense especially
nowadays because free public transportation induces reduction of car
driving, which reduces pollution.)

  Of course there's also an opposing view to that, which also has its
merits. It's a well-known fact that the economy of a country prospers
when there's a lot of money traffic. The more people consume, the more
they get and spend money, the better the economy. High taxes and free or
low-cost services, however, stagnate the economy because money doesn't move.
If a large quantity of money goes directly from employers to the government
in the form of taxes, never going through the hands of employees, that doesn't
help economy much.

  Of course it makes sense that there is no silver bullet to economy either.
No extreme form of economy can work, and one has to always find a good
balance.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> marketplace will provide them.  If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> the marketplace will prove them.  If they want the absolutely cheapest
> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.

  I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
a long time.

  You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
comparison I have ever heard in my life.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   You are equating capitalism with racism? 

No, I think that last bit is equating capitalism with unrewarded labor of 
poor people who don't get to participate in the capitalism they're driving. 
Child labor, "sweatshop" labor, etc. Of course, in a lot of cases, 
"sweatshop" labor is better than the current alternatives in that place. 
It's just a question of whether there would be better alternatives if the 
sweatshop type factories weren't there at all.

It just happens that Africa has (and always had) a lot of slavery-type stuff 
going on, regardless of economic system being used. It's not racist per se, 
but just a fact that most of the economies where this abusive-type labor is 
prevalent are of a different "race" than the economies that benefit (whether 
it be in china, africa, or whatever).

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
>> marketplace will provide them.  If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
>> the marketplace will prove them.  If they want the absolutely cheapest
>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
> 
>   I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> a long time.
> 
>   You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> comparison I have ever heard in my life.

That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments 
I heard in a long time.

Post a reply to this message