Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RightatNYU Did you even read the numbers I posted a link to? It lists the figures in real dollars, as well as 2002 dollars, which means that inflation WAS counted for.
You're right that the median is a better system than the mean to look at average family income. How are you going to tell me that increasing the average families median wealth by 12% BEYOND inflation is not a booming economy?
And you're right, the capitalist system failed in 1920. For one year. 85 years ago. And it hasn't happened again since.
You're right that capitalism can't survive without government intervention. The amount we have right now is more than enough. There needs to be some basic intervention, but socialism is NOT the answer.
Much of Europe currently practices a form of socialism, and enjoys a robust 1% GDP yearly increase, as compared to our 3.5%, China's 10%, and India's 20%.
There's no point trying to prove any of this to you though. I deal daily with anarchists, anti-capitalists, socialists and communists, and despite a failure rate of 100% and no economic data to back up their theories, they keep on plugging along, not acknowledging pesky things like facts. |
If you are unwilling to debate, I'm fine with that, I suppose, but to go out of your way and say 'there is no debate' is quite arrogant on your part. The crudeness of the capitalist system as a whole cannot be doubted, and it also cannot be doubted that the US economy currently runs on cheap labor. The market today, since surpluses continually are developed, must be constantly expanded, and this, obviously, cannot go on forever. We see that capitalist countries that do 'well' by some standards like China and India have an extremely poor lower class, and very little gov't regulation, all just to put money into the hands of the fortunate. You seem quite obliged not to acknowledge pesky little facts about the system you so admire. Do not be so quick to put down the anti-capitalist movement as meaningless or inevitably unsuccessful. As a socialist, I today see more anti-capitalist feelings in the world than have existed in quite some time. The very fact that capitalism runs for and of the few at the expense of the many is reason enough for me to not support it. It seems rather odd to me that the very countries you point to as 'economically successful' (China, India) are the same ones with lower living standards, and the GDP seems quite proportional to the regulation in each country, with less regulation having a greater GDP. But, for a very pro-capitalist individual such as yourself, with an obviously closed off mind when it comes to alternative systems that, I don't know, would help the majority of people rather than the minority, perhaps anti-capitalist literature isn't a good read. I would, however, offer to you to read any book by Thomas Frank, as he offers a wonderful critique of the modern New Economy system in America.
You have claimed throughout this little debate that working class families are seeing a golden age. Apparently you missed my 1:90 ratio in '90 compared with the 1:425 in '00. In the UK, part of the EU, which you say is quite inefficient, that ratio is 1:24, and in Japan it is 1:11. I'd appreciate it is you simply acknowledged these facts.
As for you having apparent problems with anti-capitalists, and I agree, many are quite ignorant, but I have the same problems with many a capitalist. It seems that you use the facts you deem important to support your case, just as I do, but there are so many capitalists out there who have no evidence for capitalism being beneficial, and a few times in this very forum I have come across arguments for capitalism that go like this: 'Capitalism is beneficial to the worker, and it is beneficial to the majority of society'. Coming from a United States perspective, most of them, this obvious ignorance of the system as a whole is somewhat expected. Although the facts you list can be countered easily by others, which I have previously listed, atleast you make a more logical attempt to defend your cherished economic system.