Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftyHenry";p="
|
That is only true if a society has no scarcity. Every communist society so far has failed to grow economically beyond copying other nations and has left most of its citizens in poverty, then wound up having to stoop to totalitarianism to keep the population under control.
There is a paradox. Capitalism maximizes growth so that there is more wealth and resource to go around... but places it in few hands and sometimes leaves others with nothing coldly and regardless of reason.
Socialism is stagnant but allows resources to go around... but it does so in such a way that incentives are lost for work.
My take is that there are three ways to handle it:
1. Capitalism until society and the world reaches maximum growth... meaning that the utility to be gained from economic growth would be so marginal that it would not be worth it to grow more... ie a stabilized world population, all countries more or less maximized in production, technology replacing most labor, enough resources for all to get maximum utility from. Problem: It's Utopian. We'll never reach that point. And with no regulation, the elites will change society to maximize their growth, making life more difficult to the poor either leading to totalitarianism or to a revolution... which leads to unstable conditions and more tyranny.
2. Going back and forth...
meaning that we take a purer capitalist model when the economy is good and switch to more (but not totally) socialist policy during times of strife... But the system must always be flexible enough to change with economic circumstances. Problem is the lag of each phase.
3. A mixed economy...
Capitalism with a safety net and some programs to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds compete. This is IMO y=the best system. It might give up a little speed on growth, but it ensures we maintain a compassionate society and helps to stunt the flaws of capitalism... provided bureaucracy doesn't grow out of control.
Frankly with any of these I don't see the problem as the economy. Corruption, special interests, and culture are bigger problems. In a laissez faire system, people should be giving if they are rich and motivated enough to organize decent social programs. But they do this in a limited way and their charity is focused completely on safety net with little in the way of helping the underprivelaged compete. But like the issue with socialism, this expectation defies human nature. We have compassion... but no real drive to use it when we can instead ignore problems or better yet dismiss it as character flaw ($%&* Calvin, that @$$hole).
But overall, government should be a referee and setter of boundaries, not a babysitter that micromanages. We need regulation to stop corruption and programs to better the opportunities for the poor, including a safety net for the very weakest in our society.