Greed is good?

[Estro Felino]

Socialism has many different facets.

Exactly. So many of them.
It is so wrong to have a black and white vision on what Socialism really is.

 

[Estro Felino]

What does that mean? Capitalism isn't social darwinism.

Neo-liberism is social darwinism.
The law of the fittest.
Perfectly normalized in the Microeconomics books.

 

[Stevicus]

What does that mean? Capitalism isn't social darwinism.

Of course it is. Many 19th century industrialists took Darwinism as a justification for the world order they had favored, that it was part of "natural order." They just saw it as normal and natural that there were a few people at the top and the rest languishing in poverty. The same basic principle was applied to economics and politics and was used to justify a world order which entailed a few major powers at the top and the rest of the world as dependencies and colonies. Since such a view is ideologically related to nationalism, that was also in the mix and eventually led to the World Wars. As a result, the purist predatory capitalism of the 19th century fell out of favor and was restrained in the US and other Western democracies into the mixed Keynesian system that most people think of when they think of capitalism in the postwar era. But the capitalists of the Reagan era reacted against that kind of capitalism. They didn't like Keynesianism. They've clearly wanted to undo the last 80+ years of social and economic reform and go back to the days of mafia economics. That's social Darwinism. That's what capitalists have been advocating for, and anything less than that is decried as {gasp} "socialism."

 

[Stevicus]

People who don't succeed in business don't generally die, BTW.

Oh really?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Oh really?

Why are you blaming capitalism for lack of clean water, or hunger and so on?
You think hunger and medicine shortages don't exist in communism?
Please!
Living under communism makes countries poorer and less healthy for decades.

The single strongest predictor for a country’s health, and the second-strongest for its wealth, turned out to be whether its rulers had embraced communism.

The study said that after World War II, economic growth in Communist Eastern Europe was slower than in the West, but despite the Soviet Union’s collapse almost 30 years ago, the effects are still being felt.

The study says that communism was also behind the stagnation of life expectancy behind the Iron Curtain during the 1970s and 1980s, which has set those countries back even today.
Science proves communism makes nations poorer and less healthy

 

[Wildswanderer]

Of course it is. Many 19th century industrialists took Darwinism as a justification for the world order they had favored, that it was part of "natural order." They just saw it as normal and natural that there were a few people at the top and the rest languishing in poverty. The same basic principle was applied to economics and politics and was used to justify a world order which entailed a few major powers at the top and the rest of the world as dependencies and colonies. Since such a view is ideologically related to nationalism, that was also in the mix and eventually led to the World Wars. As a result, the purist predatory capitalism of the 19th century fell out of favor and was restrained in the US and other Western democracies into the mixed Keynesian system that most people think of when they think of capitalism in the postwar era. But the capitalists of the Reagan era reacted against that kind of capitalism. They didn't like Keynesianism. They've clearly wanted to undo the last 80+ years of social and economic reform and go back to the days of mafia economics. That's social Darwinism. That's what capitalists have been advocating for, and anything less than that is decried as {gasp} "socialism."

Socialism simply doesn't work.
Capitalism has and does work.
Under socialism, there is no good mechanism for meeting consumer demand; the socialist leaders decide what the people should have. There is no mechanism for creating and encouraging innovation – that is why socialist states normally only produce something new after it has already been produced in a capitalist country and demand for it has been demonstrated. Like von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and others clearly demonstrated, the socialist economies have no way of determining prices without relying on market-determined prices in capitalist economies as a reference of how to allocate capital and labor. That is the main reason that socialist economies are endlessly plagued by too much production of things people do not want and too little production of things people do want.

 

[Stevicus]

Why are you blaming capitalism for lack of clean water, or hunger and so on?
You think hunger and medicine shortages don't exist in communism?
Please!
Living under communism makes countries poorer and less healthy for decades.

The single strongest predictor for a country’s health, and the second-strongest for its wealth, turned out to be whether its rulers had embraced communism.

The study said that after World War II, economic growth in Communist Eastern Europe was slower than in the West, but despite the Soviet Union’s collapse almost 30 years ago, the effects are still being felt.

The study says that communism was also behind the stagnation of life expectancy behind the Iron Curtain during the 1970s and 1980s, which has set those countries back even today.
Science proves communism makes nations poorer and less healthy

All of this is beside the point. Those statistics address your earlier point that "People who don't succeed in business don't generally die." You were obviously incorrect in that statement.

As for the study you're citing, it should also be noted that the nations of Eastern Europe, including the USSR, suffered far greater damage and loss of life in WW2 than was felt in the West. So naturally, their recovery would take longer than in the West, which also had the benefit of the Marshall Plan and the wealth and resources of the U.S., which was virtually untouched in the war. Lucky us. But this would have been true irrespective of the economic system either of us had. The U.S. economic system during WW2 was decried by some as "communistic," with price controls, rationing, and other centralized programs to mobilize the nation's resources and industries.

It just goes to show that capitalism is okay during fair weather and when there's not much pressure, but when there's a crisis and the government actually needs things to work efficiently and productively, they impose more stringent controls over the private sector.

 

[osgart]

Social programs, and capitalism regulation is not socialism. Some things are in the common good interest and welfare of all the people of a nation: healthcare, education, roads, transportation, workers rights, fair wages, homelessness crisis, defense, retirement benefits, disability. There is no community ownership of resources. The wealthy are merely asked to pay their fair share for social services for the common good.

Conservatives typically show no social responsibility to the common good. They want more police, more military, and never get at the root causes of crime, and poverty. If anything they always slash and cut social programs and undermine anyone who wants fair rules to the system of capitalism.

Without fair rules in capitalism we have oligarchies. Oligarchs want all advantages, and all perks to become even more obscenely wealthy. There is no give back, and no charity toward those who work hard for entrepreneurs, and those who are poor and work two jobs just to exist.

Capitalism has to work for everybody. Right now it's insanely ridiculous how rigged the game is. You'd have to be deaf, and blind not to see that.

It's a conservative lie, that progressive liberalism is socialism. Conservative government is more like jungle politics, where empires are made at the expense of the working class, and people become poor by oppressive work conditions.

 

[Wildswanderer]

All of this is beside the point. Those statistics address your earlier point that "People who don't succeed in business don't generally die." You were obviously incorrect in that statement

No I wasn't. Blaming poverty on capitalism was your mistake. It's actually the governments socialist politics that keep people poor.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you live by the principles of social Darwinism, then those are your principles. You can't have it both ways. It has been said that a lawyer can steal more with a briefcase than a hundred men armed with machine guns. You might say that lawyer is "good at business," and probably more savvy than the ones armed with machine guns. But if you can't see the connection between the two, then that's on you.

That really seems to be the problem here. I've seen you complain about socialism and how bad it is, yet you apparently fail to recognize that, historically, socialist governments came about as a consequence of the political system that came before it. Cause and effect.

So, if you truly detest socialism, it might be worthwhile considering a more equitable and fair system which promotes greater political stability and harmony. A system which rewards corruption and greed and other such dishonest, malicious behavior seems to produce just the opposite.

We're only about a food shortage away from it happening here.

 

[Stevicus]

No I wasn't. Blaming poverty on capitalism was your mistake. It's actually the governments socialist politics that keep people poor.

Then how does that explain 140 million poor people in the United States? Is our government socialist?

Supplemental Poverty Measure - Institute for Policy Studies (ips-dc.org)

 

[Wildswanderer]

Then how does that explain 140 million poor people in the United States? Is our government socialist?

Supplemental Poverty Measure - Institute for Policy Studies (ips-dc.org)

If you were listening you would know that I said our government does, in fact, have socialistic policies that keep the poor down.

 

[Stevicus]

If you were listening you would know that I said our government does, in fact, have socialistic policies that keep the poor down.

That's debatable. Our government had socialistic policies from 1945-1970, and as a result, America saw the greatest period of economic growth, improvements in standard of living, and increased affluence across the board. People moved from crowded tenements into suburban homes for the first time thanks to the policies of the FDR administration.

It wasn't until the Reagan era that things started back downhill for America, mainly because he and his ilk hated all those socialistic policies and did away with them. Now, things are much worse, mainly due to NOT having socialistic policies. Reagan's version of capitalism and trickle down economics has not worked in these past 40+ years. It's been a disaster for America - and not just for the poor and working classes either. All of America has suffered due to capitalism and the policies advocated by capitalists.

 

[Yerda]

All of America has suffered due to capitalism and the policies advocated by capitalists.

To be fair, the post-war growth in the West and the spectular growth in prosperity and living conditions in the East were mostly presided over by capitalists or under capitalist assumptions. While many of the people arguing against the aims and assumptions of neoliberals, who reversed the great gains made by ordinary people, were capitalist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Greed is fundamentally good.
But goodness is defeated by disregard for the
rights of others. Also by shortsightedness
& illusions. So enjoy the fruits of your greed,
but be thoughtful & ethical, people.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's debatable. Our government had socialistic policies from 1945-1970, and as a result, America saw the greatest period of economic growth, improvements in standard of living, and increased affluence across the board.

You're not addressing other important factors,
eg, less regulation, less foreign competition.

 

[Stevicus]

To be fair, the post-war growth in the West and the spectular growth in prosperity and living conditions in the East were mostly presided over by capitalists or under capitalist assumptions. While many of the people arguing against the aims and assumptions of neoliberals, who reversed the great gains made by ordinary people, were capitalist.

If you're talking about the 25-year period following WW2 (1945-1970), I agree that there was spectacular growth and vast improvements in the standard of living in the U.S. and other Western countries. Although government policies were also a primary driver towards that end, ostensibly influenced more by Keynesianism, a philosophy which later came to be severely criticized by Reagan and his followers. They sought (and continue to seek) to dismantle the economic and social reforms of that period and return American capitalism back to the bad old days of the 19th century. They've faced some resistance - and they've had to be a bit more sophisticated in how they sold it to the people.

But it still has led to a great deal of human suffering that didn't have to happen.

 

[Stevicus]

You're not addressing other important factors,
eg, less regulation, less foreign competition.

One of the key factors was during WW2 when FDR had to marshal the country's resources and industrial base to get them moving towards mass production. Government intervention and guidance were vital towards making America the industrial powerhouse it needed to be to help the Allies win the war. At the end of the war, our industries were still viable, while most of the rest of the industrialized world was wrecked and ruined (which is why there was less foreign competition).

As a result, Americans lived pretty well during those post-war years.

 

[Revoltingest]

One of the key factors was during WW2 when FDR had to marshal the country's resources and industrial base to get them moving towards mass production.

Production isn't inherently related to economic well being.
Using resources to produce weapons that are used & then
disposed of benefits no one economically. (Note that
winning the war was still worthwhile.) They don't contribute
to the standard of living. It's all about what is being produced.

Government intervention and guidance were vital towards making America the industrial powerhouse it needed to be to help the Allies win the war. At the end of the war, our industries were still viable, while most of the rest of the industrialized world was wrecked and ruined (which is why there was less foreign competition).

Government simply appropriated existing industrial capacity.
It was diverted from civilian uses. And not all survived this
event, eg, Indian Motorcycles, which suffered greatly.

As a result, Americans lived pretty well during those post-war years.

They lived well after the war because government was
no longer appropriating private resources. Also, those
living well were the ones who survived the war alive &
whole. Many others were dead or infirm. (This must be
said because many people say that war is good for the
economy. Hogwash!) BTW, people were living pretty
well before the war, the depression having ended, &
recovery being well under way.

 

[paradox]

Some of us may still remember Michael Douglas in the movie Wall Street where he uttered the infamous line "Greed is good."

Such attitudes were common for that era, and still continue to persist to this day. But some people knew that, eventually, there would be consequences for such arrogant, cavalier, dangerously myopic attitudes.


Some might attribute these disturbances and signs of unrest as caused by some flashpoint event (such as an act of police brutality or other atrocity) or some temporary crisis (such as the pandemic or the Russia-Ukraine war). However, I would suggest that the underlying causes go much deeper, with roots going much further back than the past couple of years.

greed is good until people around you figure out you're greedy, then your greed stops working.