Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

I think you hit the nail on the head. Unions built the Middle Class in this country, but they have also caused their downfall by being to greedy. I have been a union man my whole working life and I enjoy a good pension because of them. Not even counting the better working conditions they brought us. But by their very nature, they felt they always had to take more and more. Not taking into consideration the financial condition of the company they were negotiating with. The best example of that is the American automotive industry which they almost put out of business, if not for the government saving them. The unions drove up wages and benefits on companies so high, that profits were reduced and America became uncompetitive to other nations. Then Free Trade and NAFTA gave companies an out. Middle class jobs flew to other countries and the standard of living in America fell drastically. It als dramatically changed the wealth of this country making the gap between the rich and poor, greater than it's ever been.

Is there a way out of this mess? I think so. As wages, benefits and transportation cost rise and conditions here remain fairly steady, companies will come back. It will no longer be profitable for some to build it in China, India and etc. and ship it back here. I'm not saying they will all come back, because they won't, but we are already seeing some like Whirlpool, GE and Apple bringing some jobs back. Of course we also see Whirlpool moving factories to Mexico. So we still have to keep reins on this economy to compete with Mexico, who isn't faced with high transportation cost as China and India will be. We are going threw a transition period right now. Things will get better if we don't screw it up demanding high wages for menial jobs and we don't put on more, harder regulations and expenses on business. We just have to have patience till this transition period is over.

 

Again, the labor movement did not build the middle class. We just have a hard time distinguishing between correlation and cause and effect.

The mess will improve on its own, it will just take time. We are in a transition time where much of the worlds production occurs in developing nations who in a generation will become developed nations. Productivity is always improving and so will our standard of living. We are only in a brief slump of non growth, we aren't even in decline.

Our big concern should be the real threat of an aging population, decreasing fertility rates, and ever increasing reliance on the entitlement system due to a break down in the family. The real threat is us not foreign competition. Once the boomers retire we be hit from both ends. The youth are remaining single and relying on benefits to raise a family and there will be a massive glut of retired boomers who think there will be some money for them when they retire lol. There won't be enough tax payers left to support them.

 

No doubt wages do come up even without unions. But unions are known to drive them up much faster. That also helps drive up wages in non union companies so they don't lose people to union shops. Also you might also understand that China isn't union free. I doubt China has a shortage of labor.

Wages, conditions improve as workers in China form unions ...
usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/world/2010-11-19-China... Cached
Workers' growing awareness and willingness to take action is pushing up wages and improving conditions in China's manufacturing industry.

 

Ehh they can have an effect, as in a union member may make more than the going rate. And it would be easy to show anecdotal evidence to support the argument, hence why the misconception persists. But if we look at things in the aggregate unions are minor disruptions. It's a rising tide that raises all ships so to speak.

A five fold increase in real wages over a decade has nothing to do with unions or labor laws. Unions may exist but they represent but a tiny tiny fraction of the work force. And a five fold increase in wages over a decade is break neck speed, to say it would be faster with unions seems silly.

And also, yes much of the country is still rural but many of the industrialized areas have exhausted the local supply of labor. Give it a generation.

 

The issue is always the same: the government or the market. There is no third solution.

Ludwig von Mises Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism. The Anti-Capitalistic

Ludwig von Mises Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management. Bureaucracy

Ludwig von Mises If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. Planning for Freedom p. 44 Capitalism vs. Socialism

Ludwig von Mises Tyranny is the political corollary of socialism, as representative government is the political corollary of the market economy. Planning for Freedom p. 218

Ludwig von Mises A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings. Human Action p. 676; p. 680

Ludwig von Mises The desire for an increase of wealth can be satisfied through exchange, which is the only method possible in a capitalist economy, or by violence and petition as in a militarist society, where the strong acquire by force, the weak by petitioning.

Ludwig von Mises For it is an essential difference between capitalist and socialist production that under capitalism men provide for themselves, while under Socialism they are provided for.

 

Ludwig von Mises Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts. Socialism p. 460 Capitalism vs. Socialism

Ludwig von Mises The salesman thanks the customer for patronizing his shop and asks him to come again. But the socialists say: Be grateful to Hitler, render thanks to Stalin; be nice and submissive, then the great man will be kind to you later too. Omnipotent Government p. 53 Capitalism vs. Socialism

Ludwig von Mises There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way. Liberalism p. 79 Capitalism vs. Socialism

Ludwig von Mises There are many socialists who have never come to grips in any way with the problems of economics, and who have made no attempt at all to form for themselves any clear conception of the conditions which determine the character of human society. Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth p. 1 Socialism

Ludwig von Mises One may anticipate the nature of the future socialist society. There will be hundreds and thousands of factories in operation. Very few of these will be producing wares ready for use; in the majority of cases what will be manufactured will be unfinished goods and production goods. (1920) Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth pp. 2223 Socialism

Ludwig von Mises In the socialist commonwealth every economic change becomes an undertaking whose success can be neither appraised in advance nor later retrospectively determined. There is only groping in the dark. Socialism is the abolition of rational economy. Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth p. 26 Socialism

Ludwig von Mises Under socialism production is entirely directed by the orders of the central board of production management. The whole nation is an industrial army . . . and each citizen is bound to obey his superiors orders. Planning for Freedom p. 72 Socialism

Ludwig von Mises In the bureaucratic machine of socialism the way toward promotion is not achievement but the favor of the superiors. Bureaucracy p. 100 Socialism

Ludwig von Mises Socialism and democracy are irreconcilable. A Critique of Interventionism p. 79 Socialism
Ludwig von Mises The critics of the capitalistic order always seem to believe that the socialistic system of their dreams will do precisely what they think correct. A Critique of Interventionism pp. 15657 Socialism

Ludwig von Mises A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings. Human Action p. 676; p. 680 Socialism

Ludwig von Mises Every socialist is a disguised dictator.

 

I guess we all should love Big Ludwig.

The really funny thing is the propaganda begins by saying 'believe this if you are logical, not emotional,' and then most of the subsequent points contain emotional appeals.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "initiating aggression"; war is a power delegated to our federal Congress and it may require the general warfare or a common offense, as a form of aggression.

It then merely becomes a question of how to best promote the general welfare in our republic through socialism that relies on capitalism.

 

Your special pleading is telling, as an ethic regarding diagnosing the Body politic without resorting to fallacy. You have no rebuttal to my argument that a social Contract manufactures that form of Social-ism as distinguished by Capital-ism.

 

Propaganda? The words of a renowned economist, but logical and emotional.

 

Socialist programs rely on capitalism, whereas socialism is a system which robs people of initiative, motivation and ambition.

Leave out the part "through socialism" and you may have something there daniel.

- - - Updated - - -

The only one doing any special pleading around here is you, about socialism, for which you have not yet posted a single word in favor of socialism. Without capitalism there is no money to even have social programs.

 

Inflation rises with time, such to the point that everyone living today makes some multiple of what people in a similar situation did in the past.

Also, the labor in different countries is very hard to compare. While, at a macroscopic level there seems to be similarities, up close and with more information to fill in the gaps, it would be different. Therefore, I'm not so sure that wages simply rise "naturally" (the use of the word "natural" to describe events occuring in artifical systems tends to be a red alert in my book). It's very possible, but I just don't have the understanding to comment further.

However, you did introduce me to something called "Lewisian economics", which sounds interesting, though I am often wary of these packaged terms. I'll have to ask my old friend, Google

 

By initiate, I mean to be the first one to use aggression.

By aggression, I mean something along the lines of violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another. Essentially, any of the acts that constitute trespass to the person, trespass to goods, or trespass to land.

My position is that it is contrary to the general welfare for the government to initiate aggression against its citizens, whether it is called socialism or capitalism.

 

This is what ended the Great Depression; what did Capitalism have for us?

 

Socialism does nothing of the sort. Socialism may, once we "evolve" enough morals, engender the conditions for a Heaven on Earth on a not for profit basis.

I can't leave out the part about socialism, because our republican form of Government, was invented by a Social Contract not a Capital Contract.

 

It wasn't socialism which lifted us out of the great depression. It was a combination of Capitalism, social programs which were funded by capitalism and WWII.

 

You are trying to make out socialism something it is not. Socialism as defined by most reference books and definitions is government owned or controlled production and distribution with the "to each according to his need and from each according to his ability" as a standard to bear; a standard which robs people of initiative, motivation and ambition. People don't "evolve" with morals, they either have them ingrained as they grow up or they don't. The Heaven on Earth comment is an ideal, a utopia which socialists erroneously believe can exist on earth. The problem is, without a profit motive exists and people have initiative, motivation and ambition to excel as individuals there is not enough funding for the "socialists" to survive. A social contract, ie "an agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each," does not exist in reality, especially in a socialist environment. A few people make the agreement, they convince others to join in eliminating the previous controlling entity, then the few (the elite leaders) take control and run the lives of the ones that helped them to achieve power. Socialism as a government is an evil strength sapping autocratic dictatorship.

Wrong! It was perceived by people who wanted to be free of tyranny, people who engaged in capitalism, free enterprise, who hated any kind of "social contract" which dominated their freedoms.

There is no "utopia" on earth and the closest we can come is a democratically elected government which protects individuals, their rights and there property rights and their ability to excel through private enterprise.

 

George Reisman,

"Socialism is not actually a positive economic system. It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system; as such the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls"

"I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis that socialism is totalitarianism by its very nature. This concerns the allegedly socialist countries run by social democrats such as Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries which are clearly not totalitarian directorships.

"In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they're also not socialist. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it.

"While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit."​

In other words Daniel, it is capitalism which produces the income which allows the social programs to take care of the needy. The point being, a socialist society cannot exist without an autocratic government which controls production, distribution and wealth.

 

However did you reach your conclusion? It was the relative Communism of our wartime economy, that is credited with ending the Great Depression.

 

I am not trying to make anything out of socialism that is not self-evident in our political-economic reality in Nature. Most references are stuck in a non-existent Cold War of last millennium.

A social Power to do any Thing, must be a form of socialism because it cannot be any form of Capitalism. It has nothing to do with what "degree" of Statism is being employed.

Socialism must be a form of Government while capitalism is merely an economic system which relies on the socialism of States and statism to secure rights in private property.

Our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land is a form of Socialism via a Social Contract. It really is that simple to not resort to fallacy while diagnosing the Body politic.

 

How does anarcho-capitalism solve for concentrations of wealth that may be detrimental to any given market?

 

Credited by whom and what evidence do they have for that?

- - - Updated - - -

Why is a concentration of wealth detrimental to "any given market"? In a free market, wealth is not stolen from the producers in the form of inflation and put into the hands of the politically connected. The only way to accumulate wealth is to create it or exchange it for what you have created.

 

I was wondering the exact same thing.

 

The right festishizes money and markets, investing them with moral authority and god-like agency. It is as if combinations in restraint of trade are inconceivable, and when wealth acts, whatever is, is right.

 

Not at all. It was the American people, private enterprise and their willingness to endure which elevated us from the depression and WWII put the finishing touches.