How compatible are democracy and capitalism?

Social Democracy was "invented" by the European Union, because it is is the only entity on earth that actually employs it.

So, that would put its age since the start of the Common Market in 1957 ...

In terms of GDP per capita, the EU (19 countries) is presently a considerable distance behind the US. Ranking in dollars/person:
US: $54.4K
EU: $39.0K
So, the US is 40% higher than the EU.

But, more Importantly is how the GDP is shared by income-groups; and in that regard the difference between Gini Values of Income Disparity is:
US: 39%
EU: 30%

So, the US has a way to go to get that number down ...

 

That's a deflection from your previous posts.

 

Well I think your post is pathetic nonsense, you completely ignore the effect of Liberal policies on Democracy and on Capitalism. I even posted actual examples of how destructive these polices are.... I can only state that you are so blinded by your own garbage, you cannot see what is happening right in front of you.

It also demonstrates a failure to learn from mistakes on your behalf. You will blunder into the exact same destructive scenario because you ignore what have already been proven. You are reaching around in hypothetical heaven when there are case studies to examine and learn from

 

if you bothered to look
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ocracy-and-capitalism.557315/#post-1070763489

 

capitalism is economic democracy; they are perfectly compatible

 

I address your accusations. You can either take it or leave it.

 

Try writing your argument and using external evidence to substantiate them. Simply pointing to supposed external evidence is NOT ON in a Debate Forum.

You don't seem to understand that I am living in a Social Democracy where there is not just "talk" about implementing its provisions. There is real implementation on a scale that the US cannot even imagine.

Whyzat? Because the US far too wedded to the notion that a market-economy should provide everything and only competition can set the real price.

Any well trained economist will tell you that there are many different types of market-economies and many are significantly different when it comes to "internal competition"..

Moreover, in the US economy, what has happened these past 30-years is a Mad Rush to buyout markets and consolidate them. So, what happens is "non-collusive price fixing" amongst major Suppliers. Moreover, since there is no overt collusion, there is no illegality. It is up to governments to assure that markets are truly competitive.

And whenever market-consolidation occurs, that outcome is NEVER ACCEPTABLE in a truly competitive market-economy. Why?

Because it defies the fundamental logic of a fully competitive market-economy!

And what is a "market-economy"? This (from the on-line dictionary):

And when a market-economy cannot or does not provide true-competition in products/services, and IF the service is a great public necessity (as are both Healthcare and Education), then the state MUST ASSUME the full-responsibility to see that both are offered to the general public at affordable costs.

MY QUESTION: Why are firefighting and policing both public necessities provided by local authorities? Moreover, why are Public Healthcare and Free Tertiary Education not amongst these public necessities? Because these are both public-services that the people must decide they want to be offered as necessities and therefore the lowest cost feasible.

 

Yet another referral that is a NON REPLY in a debate-forum ...

 

But, I do not do this!

Last time I looked this was an Economics debate-forum. And I provided you statistical evidence of inhumane poverty that should not exist in a country as rich as the USofA. But, it does. And why? Because we as a nation chose to look the other way!

Moreover in terms of Public Services, two of them (Health Care and Tertiary Education) are so COLOSSALLY EXPENSIVE that they must be made affordable to all by means of truly Public Services.

Moreover, you are demonstrating that you have very little understanding of what Liberal policies should be in a True Democracy. That is, the political meaning of "liberal".

For your edification, a definition:

PS: I went to high-school in the US at a time when Civics was an important course to take. I don't know what has happened since. You (plural) live in a country that you "call" a democracy, but employs two mechanisms that manipulate the popular-vote - and has done so for the past two-centuries. (Having elected 5 false-presidents in the process.) Neither was I taught the meanings of Gerrymandering and the "first past the post rule" of the Electoral College that negates the popular-vote! So, everybody thinks both are right and proper. Oh, WOW!

 

No you're not. You're ducking and dodging and dancing to falsely make me "wrong" and yourself "right".

 

I don't need to "make you" anything. If I said something wrong, I'll address it. If you said something wrong, I'll address that as well.

There is no false dichotomy. Two things can both be right and wrong at the same time.

 

You can't narrow the entire debate down to one single country. So what you're saying your theory is applicable ONLY to the USA, that's ridiculous and rather childish since you're basically denying each point with a "oh but that doesn't count because it's not in America.

Nethertheless, Liberalisms effects on Capitalism & Democracy will have the same effect on America as it did on South Africa albeit at a slower pace depending on the number of people crossing your border.

Strain on infrastructure, loss of private property, conflict and civil unrest

btw since you have little knowledge of anything outside of the USA let me inform you that South Africa was a very wealthy country.

 

Simply replying to your referral that was a NON REPLY in your NON debate forum.....

YOU it seems only debate when it suits you and crap all over people when you don't agree with them... I recommend you take your debate forum back to kindergarten

 

Yes, yet another deadly embarrassment for the libcommies. I doesn't matter though, being deadly does not bother them a bit.

 

Well I don't disagree entirely with you, I think countries who have some social elements like Australia, Norway, Sweden are the best form of Capitalism,. I think schooling and education should be subsidised by the state, partially and fully for the poor. These countries are fully Democratic, yet have no issue implementing mostly capitalism and some elements of socialism... it does not influence their Democracy in any way.

 

Let me add this in for good measure

The Democratic Party in the US, will have to very carefully review their "Liberal policies" because when these policies are not compatible with Democracy... they should not still be calling themselves the Democratic Party

 

Well, there is still One Issue about capitalism and it is the distribution of Income, which is largely decided by taxation policy.

The measure of which is determined by estimates of National Net-revenues by Income Brackets. Which comparatively ls shown here (Updated June 25, 2019): The Balance -
Income Inequality in America
Causes of Income Inequality

Of course, the above is what I have been proposing as well. It is nice to find a kindred spirit as regards the acute problem of Income Disparity in America today ...

 

And nothing can or will be done about aggravated Income Inequality until Uncle Sam takes the bull by the horns.

Meaning this: The government increases significantly Upper-Income Taxation Levels.

Without which cities will continue to explode around America until some action - any action - is done to remedy the matter.

Can't be done? Well, then we are in for a Watts Redux (1992)* ...

*Which succeeded the original 1965 Watts Riots! (Must this happen 3, 4, 5, 10 times one summer in the US? Or do we keep thinking naively that as long as unemployment is down around 3.9% America should be a "Happy Nation"?)

 

What "liberal policies". America is one of the most illiberal developed countries on earth!

I have tried to show you above that What Plagues America Today is acute Income Inequality. Namely, the nitty-gritty facts (of which most Americans remain oblivious) that nearly 14% of Americans live below the Poverty Threshold. That's close to 45 million* American men, women and children who live lives of abject poverty ... !

You are not CONSIDERING THE DEADLY FACTS OF INCOME DISPARITY IN AMERICA ...

*Put another way, that is the combined populations of California and South Carolina.

 

You make no credible arguments to support this accusation. It's just blah, blah, blah - off the hip.

You are in a Debate Forum - not on a Message Board ... !

 

Which, I add, can be done by raising significantly upper-income taxation (particularly on investment vehicles, where the wealth has been "parked".

Waiting for parents to die so that the "children" could benefit from their largesse. (And maybe a money-gift here or there to a university somewhere. )

Even though the "kids" never worked a day of their lives to earn it. Which throughout the history of mankind has been the easiest way to "make a fortune"!

 

Inequality, believe me I’ve considered inequality in a way you never have…. Btw you can shove your rudeness where the sun don't shine. I sincerely hope you don’t speak like this to people every day… or hope at least one of them treats you the same way or worse.

With your question you clearly assume Capitalism is responsible for America’s inequality, therefore the threat to Democracy… I will refer to one of my favourite quotes

Indeed Inequality at its peak is a big threat to any form of Government not just a Democracy.

The question you are in fact asking and fail to articulate is…. Is Capitalism responsible for America’s Inequality?

When looking at inequality in many European countries that incorporate socialist policies ito Education, Childcare and Health you could argue towards this case, because inequality is lower in these countries than in America



Western Europe

What is clear is that inequality in America have spiralled out of control since 1980, America have been a Democracy well before the 1980’s. In fact it is not too long after the lobbying system in its current form was introduced, where wealthy companies lobby politicians for policies that benefit them,

The other main issue are International Bankers, you will find we’ve had many more financial shocks between 1970 and today than ever before… every time the world is pushed into a financial crises, inequality widens… the wealthy takes from the poor.

There are other matters, which concerns CIA policy, The IMF, World Bank in South America and other countries Also Resources, mining companies exploitation, market manipulation, sanctions, manipulation of moody’s and other credit rating agencies etc etc but since you are limiting yourself to America there’s not much point in going through these also, as America have mostly been on the financial receiving end of these issues.

Inequality in America can be placed squarely at the feet of your International Bankers and companies, lobbying politicians for disproportionate tax system, what is significant as similar to the open border policies, you can again add Liberal polices in as a point of concern. Globalism have made companies super competitive and predatory….they justify their lack of paying fairer tax levels with global competition. Influx of migrants have kept housing rentals occupied and wages stagnant while straining infrastructure.

 

What you do is insult... it is 100% not debating. I suggest you go and familiarise yourself with the art form of debating as you so clearly strive and fail to do

 

You don't "get it". A referral typically substantiates a debating point.

So "get it" ...!

 

Aint no insulting in my post ...