YouTube - Make Mine Freedom ~ 1948 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6H63CD7uQA)

This cartoon is, in essence, every single argument in favor of free-market capitalism and against every incidence of government intervention that I have ever made. While rather simplistic, it makes some very good points. It was made in 1948 in response to FDR's New Deal policies and Truman's Fair Deal policies that expanded government and posed limits on free-market capitalism.

It is particularly noteworthy at this time, when the Obama admin is trying to expand government, nationalize industry, take control of health care, and curtail free-market capitalism all the more.

Those folks back in the 40s knew what they were talking about.

Enjoy.

Elliot

YouTube - Make Mine Freedom ~ 1948 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6H63CD7uQA)

This cartoon is, in essence, every single argument in favor of free-market capitalism and against every incidence of government intervention that I have ever made. While rather simplistic, it makes some very good points. It was made in 1948 in response to FDR's New Deal policies and Truman's Fair Deal policies that expanded government and posed limits on free-market capitalism.

It is particularly noteworthy at this time, when the Obama admin is trying to expand government, nationalize industry, take control of health care, and curtail free-market capitalism all the more.

Those folks back in the 40s knew what they were talking about.

Enjoy.

Elliot

Just a little home spun story that belongs exactly where it is, in the past. Did you fail to see that it suggested the threats to an American utopia were foreign? The threats aren't foreign they exist in your own thinking, a thinking that capitalism and exploitation of labour is good and an end in itself instead of a tool. No one should be exploited for the benefit of industry and Elliot you, with your background should know this

Just a little home spun story that belongs exactly where it is, in the past. Did you fail to see that it suggested the threats to an American utopia were foreign?

Where did it do that?

The film specifically stated that the threats to "American Utopia" were in the GOVERRNMENT'S CONTROL OF ALL AREAS OF LIFE and limitations on personal freedoms. Where did you get the idea that this was in any way talking about foreign threats?


The threats aren't foreign they exist in your own thinking, a thinking that capitalism and exploitation of labour is good and an end in itself instead of a tool.

Actually the threat is in the assumption that government can take control of industry without limiting personal freedoms. That's the same mistake you make.


No one should be exploited for the benefit of industry and Elliot you, with your background should know this

Can you show me an industrial worker who is being exploited by industry today? The days of sweatshops are long over, but businesses are treated as if they still exist.

In fact, the greatest threat to our industrial workers today is the unions who are supposed to be protecting them. They create contracts that force industry out of business or to seek cheaper labor overseas, thus putting the worker on the unemployment line. They collude with government to force those who do not wish to belong to the union to join anyway. The only threat to industrial workers is the unions, not the businesses.

The film is right on the money.

Elliot

"The film specifically stated that the threats to "American Utopia" were in the GOVERRNMENT'S CONTROL OF ALL AREAS OF LIFE and limitations on personal freedoms. Where did you get the idea that this was in any way talking about foreign threats?"

Because Elliot I listened carefully to the script. Did you happen to notice the colour of the exploiter by the way. The "to be exploited characters" were clearly white and the exploiter wasn't. The negro wasn't part of the American utopia, The exploiter was of interesting appearance, somewhat middle eastern I would say, dark complexion, not very representative of government and very much representative of national socialism

"Actually the threat is in the assumption that government can take control of industry without limiting personal freedoms. That's the same mistake you make."

Elliot, I haven't made any mistakes. Your mistake is assuming that every other system of government in the world is wrong and more exploitative than your own

"Can you show me an industrial worker who is being exploited by industry today? The days of sweatshops are long over, but businesses are treated as if they still exist."

I'm sure there are many sweatshops in the world, Elliot, and owned by American companies, but just because they are offshore, they are ignored. How exploited are those foreign workers in your own industries? Why do you think you can buy cheap goods produced in Asia or latin America? Capitalism is still the great exploiter of labour and was the ISM bottle that those fellows all drunk from

Think on this Elliot America is far from utopia and the statistics used in that film clip demonstrate clearly the excesses of the American economy You may think you are better educated that the rest of the world but in fact you are not

"The film specifically stated that the threats to "American Utopia" were in the GOVERRNMENT'S CONTROL OF ALL AREAS OF LIFE and limitations on personal freedoms. Where did you get the idea that this was in any way talking about foreign threats?"

Because Elliot I listened carefully to the script. Did you happen to notice the colour of the exploiter by the way.

So... now you think the cartoon is racist.

What I noticed was that the exploiter was a well-dressed, articulate, polished character with tanned skin that would have been common among the rich layabouts of the 40s and 50s. What did you see?


The "to be exploited characters" were clearly white and the exploiter wasn't. The negro wasn't part of the American utopia, The exploiter was of interesting appearance, somewhat middle eastern I would say, dark complexion, not very representative of government and very much representative of national socialism

So you think that the exploiter in the cartoon is black.

Sorry, but racism in cartoons has been thoroughly examined. And there was plenty of it. But this cartoon doesn't come close to it. Black characters in cartoons of the 40s and 50s were BLACK not tanned. They looked like chartacters with blackface. They had OBVIOUS negro facial characteristics. The antagonist in this cartoon had NONE of those features.


"Actually the threat is in the assumption that government can take control of industry without limiting personal freedoms. That's the same mistake you make."

Elliot, I haven't made any mistakes. Your mistake is assuming that every other system of government in the world is wrong and more exploitative than your own

I make no such assumption. The only claim I have made here is that Capitalism is the best system ever devised, and that this cartoon makes that argument extremely well, as well as making a strong argument against letting government put limitations on that system. I never mentioned any other form of government anywhere in the world. (Hint: Capitalism isn't a system of government, it's an ECONOMIC system. YOU are the one talking about political systems.)


"Can you show me an industrial worker who is being exploited by industry today? The days of sweatshops are long over, but businesses are treated as if they still exist."

I'm sure there are many sweatshops in the world, Elliot, and owned by American companies, but just because they are offshore, they are ignored. How exploited are those foreign workers in your own industries? Why do you think you can buy cheap goods produced in Asia or latin America? Capitalism is still the great exploiter of labour and was the ISM bottle that those fellows all drunk from

Interesting. What I see is that American companies go to foreign countries and employ those who were previously unemployed, pay them wages which, by the standards of their countries, are small fortunes, help pay for infrastructure rebuilding and improvements so that the companies can grow in those countries, and generally lead to the beterment of everyone in those countries. You see exploitation.

It's fine to complain of "exploitation" in the third world when you are sitting in Australia, earning a good wage and living pretty well by anyone's standards. But that third-world worker's "meager salary" is enough to feed his or her entire family, where before being employed by that American company, he or she was starving to death. By the standards of that country, that "poor exploited worker" is doing pretty darn well. And as that worker's lot improves, so does the lot of everyone around him or her... because that worker spends what he or she earns. EVERYBODY does a little bit better because that "exploitive" company employed that one "exploited" worker.

What you see as exploitation, I see as opportunity.


Think on this Elliot America is far from utopia and the statistics used in that film clip demonstrate clearly the excesses of the American economy You may think you are better educated that the rest of the world but in fact you are not

Yes, America is far from a utopia. But socialism, communism, tyranny, despotism, etc. are much farther from utopia than we are. Simply put, our poorest are better fed, better housed, better clothed, receive better medical care, have better entertainment, receive more income, and live generally better lives than any country in which government has curtailed freedom and/or the free markets in the name of building utopia. That was true during the Great Depression, and it is even more true today when we are "in the midst of the greatest recession since the Great Depression" (as Obama has put it). That higher standard of living is a product of capitalism and the free markets. And that higher standard of living defines us as being closer to utopia than anyone else. And that is one of the main arguments made in the cartoon.

Far from being exploitive, capitalism is the greatest promoter of individual freedoms and the growth of personal wealth at all levels of society in existence.

Elliot

"So... now you think the cartoon is racist."

YES I do there was a clear racial distinction between the exploiter and the exploited

"So you think that the exploiter in the cartoon is black."

NO! I told you I thought the exploiter was of middle eastern appearance, the absence of blacks was emphatic, not even the worker was black. If you really want my impression of the exploiter, I though he was depicted as Jewish

"It's fine to complain of "exploitation" in the third world when you are sitting in Australia, earning a good wage and living pretty well by anyone's standards. What you see as exploitation, I see as opportunity."

Yes we do live well here but not because we exploit the workers of the third world or our own, in fact, I think the average American would envy us and those opportunities you see are the ability to exploit others

"Yes, America is far from a utopia. "

AH! So the capitalist system doesn't produce utopia, how interesting

"Far from being exploitive, capitalism is the greatest promoter of individual freedoms and the growth of personal wealth at all levels of society in existence."

Capitalism the promoter of freedom, surely you jest. If your capitalist system promotes wealth at all levels of society, how come you have so many living in poverty in the US. Capitalism only promotes the wealth of those with the resources to take advantage of it, obviously you are one of those since you laud capitalism so loudly

That film was anti-communist propaganda and belongs in the waste basket of history

Cracke Barrel philosopher's huh?
Interesting.
Did you catch the flick-flub?
The guys name was Dr.Utopia the serum was called ISM,then after explaining capatalism they called him Dr.Ism
Great cartoon I remember as a kid and now I think it was what inspired me to take apart my mothers alarm clock.

Morning All

Interesting Cartoon, reminds me of the propaganda films produced during WW2!

Unfortunately business has demonstrated time and time again they will use the work force as they see fit

This does not provide a stable environment

The cartoon showed no health and safety precautions, again business has demonstrated a total lack of care to its workers

Eliot, how often do you hear of buildings collapsing because there were too many people in the building, or stadiums collapsing causing the deaths of many many people

Nobody should die for their job, especially when it could be prevented, however, that film makes remarks that protecting people from businesses is against freedom

So what you are stating elliot, is people must be put in harms way for freedom to exist

Dodgy!

"So... now you think the cartoon is racist."

YES I do there was a clear racial distinction between the exploiter and the exploited

"So you think that the exploiter in the cartoon is black."

NO! I told you I thought the exploiter was of middle eastern appearance, the absence of blacks was emphatic, not even the worker was black. If you really want my impression of the exploiter, I though he was depicted as Jewish

As an Orthodox Jew, I have to tell you I don't see a resemblance or a caricature of Judaism in there. The picture doesn't fit ANY of the traditional caricatures of Judaism. Jews are NOT darker skinned, don't have waxed mustaches, and don't wear clothing that is so fashionable for the time, at least not in traditional caricatures of Jews. Sorry, but your assumption is just that, and assumption with no basis in fact. It is your opinion.


"It's fine to complain of "exploitation" in the third world when you are sitting in Australia, earning a good wage and living pretty well by anyone's standards. What you see as exploitation, I see as opportunity."

Yes we do live well here but not because we exploit the workers of the third world or our own, in fact, I think the average American would envy us and those opportunities you see are the ability to exploit others

Exactly my point... you live in a capitalist society in which the people are NOT exploited and have great opportunity, despite your cries and protestations of exploitation by industry. Thanks for proving my point.


"Yes, America is far from a utopia. "

AH! So the capitalist system doesn't produce utopia, how interesting

Nor did the cartoon claim that capitalism creates utopia. In fact, the first thing that the protaginist of the cartoon argues is that the system is perfect... it's just the closest to perfect that we have yet invented, as proven by the greater standard of living in countries where free-market capitalism is practiced over those where it is not.. And that has been my stance all along... the system isn't perfect, but any attempts to get the government to create utopia result in less freedom, more poverty and the failures of statism, whereas free-market capitalism promotes opportunity, freedom of choice and wealth creation.

What, exactly, do you disagree with in that statement?


"Far from being exploitive, capitalism is the greatest promoter of individual freedoms and the growth of personal wealth at all levels of society in existence."

Capitalism the promoter of freedom, surely you jest. If your capitalist system promotes wealth at all levels of society, how come you have so many living in poverty in the US.

First of all, define poverty?

In the USA, those supposedly living in "poverty" generally have homes to live in, food on the table, clothing, cell phones, cars, computers, TVs, etc. In the USA, those living in poverty live better lives than average people in most other countries in the world.

Poverty is defined in comparison to others in the same area... if you are below the norm, you are considered to be in poverty. But since the norm in the USA is so high, those living in "poverty" in the USA would be the envy of the rest of the world.

In point of fact, in the United States, "poverty" is defined by the "poverty threshhold", which measures the availability or ability to acquire goods and services that are commonly taken for granted by society. Thus, a person who cannot afford cable TV might be considered to be living in poverty even though he has a home, a car, a TV, a cell phone, and many other conveniences that you and I own. As a point of fact, according to that rather nebulous and random measure, 59% of Americans will spend at least one year below the "poverty line" between the ages of 25 and 75. Sorry, but such people are NOT poor by any real measure of poverty, especially when measured against the true poverty of the third world. A guy who can't afford cable TV is not living in "poverty".

Secondly, how many people in the USA actually live in poverty? You've said that there are "so many" living in poverty, intimating that the number of people living in poverty is high. How many are there living in poverty in the USA? How widespread is that poverty? Is it epidemic? Is it widespread? How badly does poverty effect the USA?



Capitalism only promotes the wealth of those with the resources to take advantage of it, obviously you are one of those since you laud capitalism so loudly

Actually, as I have explained, capitalism promotes wealth for everyone, because when one person becomes wealthy enough to purchase additional goods and services, others must be employed to provide those goods and services, which serves to make them wealthier too, so that THEY can now afford additional goods and services which employ a third tier or workers to provide them. Thus the improvement of the wealth of one individualk effects those around him positively, and improves their wealth too. EVERYONE'S position improves under capitalism.


That film was anti-communist propaganda and belongs in the waste basket of history

Actually, it was anti-New Deal and anti-Raw Deal propaganda, and it is as relevant in today's government-power-grab environment as it was in the 1940's government-power-grab environment. The arguments are the same, and the result will be the same.

Elliot

First of all, define poverty?

In the USA, those supposedly living in "poverty" generally have homes to live in, food on the table, clothing, cell phones, cars, computers, TVs, etc. In the USA, those living in poverty live better lives than average people in most other countries in the world. Hello again, p:

I see why Elliot thinks the way he does... He doesn't pay attention. That, or his right wing blinders prevent him from seeing all those people standing on the off ramps with their ragged signs.

Let me see, if you counted EVERY off ramp in the country, you'd come up with quite a few people who live under bridges and beg for food every day - that Elliot pretends aren't there.

excon

First of all, define poverty?

Poverty is usually defined as having to go without meals or some other basic at least part of the time. In world terms it is defined as living on less than $2 a day


In the USA, those supposedly living in "poverty" generally have homes to live in, food on the table, clothing, cell phones, cars, computers, TVs, etc. In the USA, those living in poverty live better lives than average people in most other countries in the world.

Is this a justification, that people have the opportunity to spend their money and so they are not in poverty?


Secondly, how many people in the USA actually live in poverty? You've said that there are "so many" living in poverty, intimating that the number of people living in poverty is high. How many are there living in poverty in the USA? How widespread is that poverty? Is it epidemic? Is it widespread? How badly does poverty effect the USA?


Some Statistics on Poverty in America (http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp)

According to this article 37 million that's 12.7% of the population and the statistics are little different in my own nation. I think it might be that many of these people don't live near you or I but they exist. This is the utopia capitalism produces;

Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined.

I'll let the argument rest on that statistic so you can reflect on it. Bill Gates may have produced wealth for some but a society that concentrates wealth in this manner is not a good society and it will eventually pass

I have no problem with the Bill Gates in this world, just his product :)

If you reflect on History and see what poverty was like a hundred years ago or two, you will see that the poverty line has moved up for the better

Are people really saying that we shouldn't try to increase this further?

Or are those in poverty at the moment, adequate and shouldn't be changed?

If you reflect on History and see what poverty was like a hundred years ago or two, you will see that the poverty line has moved up for the better

Are people really saying that we shouldn't try to increase this further?

Or are those in poverty at the moment, adequate and shouldn't be changed?

I think we can all agree that improving the lot of those in poverty is desired. The debate is on how and who should do it.

Elliot argues that individuals or individual groups raise the standard of living higher and faster than governments do.

Ex and Clete seem to be arguing that governments are more fair in raising the standard for the entire state.

The only really clear examples of each I can think of are the laissez-faire policies of the U.S.' first century and the Soviet Union's central planning committees. Neither did their peoples a perfect job. In toto, though, I think I'll stay in the U.S.

I think we can all agree that improving the lot of those in poverty is desired. The debate is on how and who should do it.

Elliot argues that individuals or individual groups raise the standard of living higher and faster than governments do.

Ex and Clete seem to be arguing that governments are more fair in raising the standard for the entire state.

The only really clear examples of each I can think of are the laissez-faire policies of the U.S.' first century and the Soviet Union's central planning committees. Neither did their peoples a perfect job. In toto, though, I think I'll stay in the U.S.

Please don't put words in my mouth. What I am arguing here is that the unfettered capitalism that Elliot espouses has failed to address the issues of poverty because the fundamental tenet of capitalism is exploitation not fairness. The Soviet state also didn't produce a lack of poverty because it destroyed incentive through exploitation.

So, capitalism cannot not be allowed to operate laissez-faire and nor can communism. What governments are good at doing is regulation, it is just sad that the only time they are motivated to regulate is when the exploiters have ignored their social responsibility. The answer has been apparent for a long time, governments acquire the means to address poverty through taxation but the laissez-faire capitalists object because social responsibility is not part of their vision. No state can allow a large percentage of its population to live in poverty without addressing the issue, to do so is to set the stage for anarchy

Hello again, p:

I see why Elliot thinks the way he does... He doesn't pay attention. That, or his right wing blinders prevent him from seeing all those people standing on the off ramps with their ragged signs.

Lemme see, if you counted EVERY off ramp in the country, you'd come up with quite a few people who live under bridges and beg for food every day - that Elliot pretends aren't there.

excon

Really? Is that your experience in Washington State? Because that is NOT what I have been seeing on New York and New Jersey.

But we're not talking about whether there is real poverty in the USA. We're talking about how widespread that poverty is... which Clete is assuming based on GOVERNMENT NUMBERS which are based on a faulty definition. If you actually look at REAL POVERTY, the incidence is MUCH LOWER than Clete assumes. And frankly a lot lower than you are intimating.

So... just for the record... how many is "quite a few"?

Bet you can't answer that. But I'll also bet you're going to make everyone think that it's a widespread epidemic anyway, despite not actually having any real data to support your position.

Feel free, though.

Poverty is usually defined as having to go without meals or some other basic at least part of the time. In world terms it is defined as living on less than $2 a day

But that is not the definition that the US government uses... which means that your assumption about capitalism causing widespread poverty... REAL POVERTY... in the USA is false. Or at least it is not supported by the government figures that you are relying on.



Is this a justification, that people have the opportunity to spend their money and so they are not in poverty?No. It is a statement that those that the US government statistics indicate are living in "poverty" really aren't poor by any real standard. At least not in comparison to the poor in any non-capitalist society.





Some Statistics on Poverty in America (http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp)

According to this article 37 million that's 12.7% of the population and the statistics are little different in my own nation. I think it might be that many of these people don't live near you or I but they exist. This is the utopia capitalism produces;Are you aware of the fact that the poverty line that is being discussed in that article is anyone who earns less than $10,830 (for an individual)? Compare that to poverty in any other country in the world... where poverty means earning less than $2 per MONTH (like Obama's half-brother in Kenya). Are you really going to compare someone earning $10,000 per year to someone earning $24 per year? Are we supposed to buy that nonesense?

You see, that is my basic point... even someone living supposedly in poverty in the USA is earning 450 TIMES what someone in real poverty in the third world earns. Our "poverty-stricken" are infinitely better off than those living in poverty in any other country.

I am not trying to argue that there isn't poverty in the USA. I'm trying to say that because of capitalism, the poorest of the poor in the USA (or any other capitalist society) are infinitely better off that the poor of any other society.

So tell me how much better off the poverty-stricken of socialist Kenya are than the poor of the USA or the UK or Australia.



Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined. And yet he started as a lower-middle-class kid. Gates is the PERFECT example of how ANYONE can become rich in the USA... and end up employing thousands of others as well, thus making their lots in life better too. He is the perfect example of how capitalism is NON-DISCRIMINATORY and can create wealth for more than one person at a time.


I'll let the argument rest on that statistic so you can reflect on it. Bill Gates may have produced wealth for some but a society that concentrates wealth in this manner is not a good society and it will eventually passYou see economics as a net zero game where there is limited assets, and if one person gains, it must mean that someone else loses. The fact is that Bill Gates becoming rich hasn't hurt a single person, didn't take anything away from any other person, and in fact created thousands of jobs. Not only that, but the computers that he made so common have created additional wealth and opportunity for MILLIONS of people. Not to mention access to information, accessibility of communication, and incredible convenience. Because of computers, others have been able to open businesses that they otherwise would not have been able to open, and have thus created more jobs too.

Capitalism is NOT a net zero sum game... lots of people can win without hurting anyone else. ONE PERSON can win without hurting anyone else. And your example of Bill Gates is the perfect one to prove my point about capitalism.

As for those statistics, again, the poor of the USA cannot be compared to the poor of the rest of the non-capitalist world... they are infinitely better off by ANY standards than their counterparts in other countries. And this is based on the US government's definition of poverty.

Elliot

I have a question for you who clearly do not like capitalism.

Give us an honest answer.

What would YOU like to replace capitalism with?

As for those statistics, again, the poor of the USA cannot be compared to the poor of the rest of the non-capitalist world... they are infinitely better off by ANY standards than their counterparts in other countries. And this is based on the US government's definition of poverty.

Elliot

Elliot you live with blinkers or is that blinders on. I don't really care what the US government's definition of poverty is but I know this whether the income earner is in the US or Australia $10,000 is not adequate income by any means. In my country only youth or someone on welfare would have such an income. If I compare this with a third world country it would be thought such a person is living in luxury but it is an illusion and you know that. I know for example that a reasonably well off person in Pakistan, for example, earns 3000 rupees a week, that's around $60, but is that person well off my my standard, not really, in fact, I might consider that person living in relative poverty.

The question isn't whether they are better off than some third world place, but whether their income is adequate, whether they can consistently afford the basic accommodation, food and health care. What the statistics tell us is 13% cannot and that if you look behind these statistics you see that the blacks and hispanics are the ones who make up much of the numbers, the incidence among those people is above 25%. Where is the capitalist utopia for these people. A nation that can create a Gates or a Murdoch has a long way to go to address opportunity for many of its population not the lucky few who seized an opportunity. When capitalism provides all who seek work with a well paid job, tell me again how great it is

[QUOTE=ETWolverine;2098729]YouTube - Make Mine Freedom ~ 1948 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6H63CD7uQA)

This cartoon is, in essence, every single argument in favor of free-market capitalism and against every incidence of government intervention that I have ever made. While rather simplistic, it makes some very good points. It was made in 1948 in response to FDR's New Deal policies and Truman's Fair Deal policies that expanded government and posed limits on free-market capitalism.

Hello Elliot,

Having looked at the cartoon. It seems to be about the dangers of 'isms.' Whether it be unionISM, totalitarianISM ( the little politician character) and capitalISM. It also seems to be arguing for the status quo. It also seems to be saying that government intervention is important in order to maintain the status quo.

When capitalism provides all who seek work with a well paid job, tell me again how great it is

When ANY other system works as well, tell me again how bad capitalism is.

Are you aware of the fact that the poverty line that is being discussed in that article is anyone who earns less than $10,830 (for an individual)? Compare that to poverty in any other country in the world... where poverty means earning less than $2 per MONTH (like Obama's half-brother in Kenya). Are you really going to compare someone earning $10,000 per year to someone earning $24 per year? Are we supposed to buy that nonesense?

Elliot

Elliot now you are spouting total nonsense as usual

Your argument bends the stat just a little too much for me

It is down to the way that poverty is seen in your own country, it is also what you class as poverty

Surely the worst off in the best country is going to better off than the worst of the worst

Take India, they have their fair share of billionaires and millionaires, and yet the difference between rich and poor here is incredible

So for me it is the difference between those that have and those do not

Captilism requires a spread of riches but social unrest, even civil war can be born out of a spread that is too long

By its on nature, even the poorest person in the country contributes towards capitilsm by simply spending is only penny in a shop

SO by propping up the poorest and setting a standard of which below is not permitted, you will contribite towards the money pot

It is also the social responsibility of a country to ensure all its people have a minimum stadard of living

It is also the social responsibility of a country to ensure all its people have a minimum stadard of living

Is "social responsibility" mandated by law in your country? Here it's the political football of the neo-feudalist "Democrats" without any standing in the courts.

Social responsibility in my eyes is more of a humantarian decree, rather than any political

My idea is to help my fellow man, politicians would create a chart for this!

I find it incredible that such a simple thing as providing a roof over the homeless is not achievable

I also appreciate that there can be many reasons of self destruction that have placed that person without a home, but simply by caring and providing a small space, dorm etc that can shelter him from the cold is what I see as social responsibility

Now providing him with a TV and xbox that is a political point of view

Obviously, EVERY system exploits the worker to some degree.

Under capitalism, the worker has more options than under the other systems. If he is smart enough, or gets the right breaks, he can rise to become a capitalist. Under which other system is that true?

The REAL answer does not lie in government mandates or political action.

Let me share a true story with you.

I once worked for a small business that had about 25 employees. I was in charge of the tool room, designed, built, and maintained dies for the stamping operations.

Every month that there was no lost time accident, every employee got $25 cash.

Every Christmas each employee got a turkey or ham and a bonus.

Every year, each employee got a profit sharing bonus. The last year I was there, mine was $2,400 before taxes.

We had no contract, so why did we get these perks?

The parterners had a moral standard that they operated by. They did what they did because they believed it was best for ALL involved.

They were Christians. It is impossible to find a belief that fosters moral standards as high as Christianity does.

The reason that a CEO can make millions annually, and keep his employees at or near poverty level is that he is not a moral person.

Outside forces will never compel him to treat the employees right. He will find a way to circumvent regulations.

Only when he is actually a moral person will he do what is right.

That is true of politicians also. An immoral person makes a poor leader.

Social responsibility in my eyes is more of a humantarian decree, rather than any political

My idea is to help my fellow man, politicians would create a chart for this!

I find it incredible that such a simple thing as providing a roof over the homeless is not achievable

I also appreciate that there can be many reasons of self destruction that have placed that person without a home, but simply by caring and providing a small space, dorm etc that can shelter him from the cold is what I see as social responsibility

Now providing him with a tv and xbox that is a political point of view

Is "social responsibility" a code word for having the state or government do what you, the individual, should be doing?

What I am saying is do I, when I see someone on the side of the road asking for food, wait for the government to "tax the rich" so that money can be then diluted down to help this poor starving individual before they die? [ of course not ] Is that what you want? Is that why some people here bring up Bill Gates and his wealth? They expect the "rich" to take care of the poor, or the government to take of the poor, so you, the individual, don't have to [act].

I'll tell you what, on this Thanksgiving day and every day, feed someone! Give that person food. Do it in front of your children so they will learn to be generous. Don't wait for the government or someone else to do it. You the invidual do it - act for social justice as you do it. Don't tell me the government is to do it.

The Salvation Army: Home (http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf)
God's Pantry Food Bank (http://godspantry.org/)
American Red Cross (http://www.redcross.org/)



G&P

Missed the point PJ

If the system worked that everybody who was hungry was fed through nothing more than handouts then great

If the system worked that relied on government handouts then great

Truth is neither do, people today go hungry even though both sides of the argument are working on it

As regard Bill Gates, he deserves every penny he has, I would still slap him for all the hours I have lost in my life fixing his product :)

So don't get confused between someone who is a humanitarian and a commie!

There are more than two levels in life, and seems to me that neither are effective separate so cooperation between the two is the way forward

Obviously, EVERY system exploits the worker to some degree.

Under capitalism, the worker has more options than under the other systems. If he is smart enough, or gets the right breaks, he can rise to become a capitalist. Under which other system is that true?



So you think the object of a person working is so, with opportunity, he can become a capitalist. What a dull idea. A worker works so as to meet certain needs because this is the system which society has made available. If a person can organise others to join in an activity to their mutual benefit he will do so, but the idea that one person should own the means of production and exploits the others TO SOME DEGREE and to his own benefit is an idea that is tolerated because the workers lack power. It is immoral that it should be a desirable objective

Is that why some people here bring up Bill Gates and his wealth? They expect the "rich" to take care of the poor, or the government to take of the poor, so you, the individual, don't have to [act].

G&P

Why I brought up Bill Gates is not to suggest that the government take care of the poor but the reality is if society won't do it they have a responsibility to do it. I remarked on the fact that his wealth was greater than 45% of the population. This is an undesirable outcome of capitalism, that one individual should be able to amass such wealth in a few years when there are individuals in the society who live in poverty, whether that is relative poverty or not. A further undesirable aspect of capitalism is that a person like Madoff could be able to embezzle such wealth without detection or that corporate crooks should be able to vote themselves large salaries for doing nothing more than manipulating a market using the wealth of other capitalists.

So you think the object of a person working is so, with opportunity, he can become a capitalist. What a dull idea. A worker works so as to meet certain needs because this is the system which society has made available. If a person can organise others to join in an activity to their mutual benefit he will do so, but the idea that one person should own the means of production and exploits the others TO SOME DEGREE and to his own benefit is an idea that is tolerated because the workers lack power. It is immoral that it should be a desirable objective

Surely you do not deliberately miss my point.

Capitalism does not have an impenetrable ceiling. What other political system can you point out that is the same?

Capitalism DOES need to be tempered with a good moral code.

Is that clearer?

Capitalism DOES need to be tempered with a good moral code.Hello gal:

I agree... But, in case not everybody has one of those, we need STRONG regulation to back it up.

excon

Surely you do not deliberately miss my point.

Capitalism does not have an impenetrable ceiling. What other political system can you point out that is the same?

Capitalism DOES need to be tempered with a good moral code.

Is that clearer?

This is the second time you have eluded to capitalism being a political system. I was under the impression that the system is democracy, a system which proports to give all citizens a voice in government, and the regulation of capitalism. What voice does capitalism give the workers, the ability to invest in the means of production? Capitalism is not synomous with democracy, capitalism even exists in a communist state. The way capitalism is kept in check is with strong government which enforces a moral and an ethical code of conduct

This is the second time you have eluded to capitalism being a political system. I was under the impression that the system is democracy, a system which proports to give all citizens a voice in government, and the regulation of capitalism. What voice does capitalism give the workers, the ability to invest in the means of production? Capitalism is not synomous with democracy, capitalism even exists in a communist state. The way capitalism is kept in check is with strong government which enforces a moral and an ethical code of conduct

I must have missed that post where I called capitalism a political system. I am well aware that it is an economic system.

But we have yet to see how well Communism and capitalism will get along together in the long run.

Every totalitarian system CONTROLS all aspects of life. It is hard for me to see how there can be any room for capitalism in the aspect of everyone being able to be (piotentially) upardly mobile when a dictatorship makes all the decisions.

The USSR, N. Korea and Cuba are clearly failures at improving the lives of their citizens.
I am told that China is eperimenting with capitalism, but I supect that all the capitalists are all part of the government. (We seem to be headed in that direction too.)

I ask you again, what would you recommend in place of capitalism? What do you think would work better?

Capitalism does not have an impenetrable ceiling. What other political system can you point out that is the same?



You apparently have a poor memory and you didn't even read the quote I provided

Every totalitarian system CONTROLS all aspects of life. It is hard for me to see how there can be any room for capitalism in the aspect of everyone being able to be (piotentially) upwardly mobile when a dictatorship makes all the decisions.



We will see whether China is able to successfully wed Capitalism to communism. We all know communism isn't the answer, but I think you over estimate the process of decision making in China and the many Chinese millionaires would disagree with you that capitalism and communism cannot travel together, you see it is really a matter of how adept capitalists are at compromise

We will see whether China is able to successfully wed Capitalism to communism. Hello again, clete:

They've done quite well, thank you very much... As opposed to the Soviets, though, the Chinese have a long history of capitalism. So, I think it's less a blend of capitalism with communism, but rather a blend of capitalism with authoritarianism.

excon

Hello again, clete:

They've done quite well, thank you very much... As opposed to the Soviets, though, the Chinese have a long history of capitalism. So, I think it's less a blend of capitalism with communism, but rather a blend of capitalism with authoritarianism.

excon

I agree, with the Fridge Freezer Theology of China now slowly on its way to be a superpower with no need to support its people like Russia had to, the marriage will be a total success

At present I cannot see another country with the means or power to take over the manufacturing of goods for the world, and with their one baby policy about to take effect

China is well placed in a generation to be the "Player"

I think it's less a blend of capitalism with communism, but rather a blend of capitalism with authoritarianism.


As if there is a difference. Communism has as Orwell predicted been very content frozen in the dictatorship of the proletariat;as long as there is a ruling elite maintaining control. In the long run capitalism will not succeed in China because capitalism needs a consumer based economy ;and the authoritarians cannot allow that to happen.

As if there is a difference. Communism has as Orwell predicted been very content frozen in the dictatorship of the proletariat;as long as there is a ruling elite maintaining control. In the long run capitalism will not succeed in China because capitalism needs a consumer based economy ;and the authoritarians cannot allow that to happen.
Ruling elite maintaining control now that sounds like another place I know where the anointed leader appoints his cronies to the positions of authority, is this China,is this North Korea, no, it is another place

Dare I say that is why so many of Obama appointees are Mao admirers .

dare I say that is why so many of Obama appointees are Mao admirers .No one has said that. You just want to make that neo-con talking point link - He'S A CommUNIST!! 11!1111

Perhaps you did not read cletes response #38 .ask him what he meant by it.

I read it, at no point does it mention that Obama appointees are Mao supporters.

No one has said that. You just want to make that neo-con talking point link - He'S A CommUNIST!!!!!!11!1111

Slight correction. The people who said the appointees were Mao followers were the appointees themselves: Anita Dunn, Ron Blum, et. al.

The Rise Of Western Civilisation and the influence of Capitalism (http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap3.htm)


The strengths of private enterprise are also visible when the standard of living under capitalism is compared with the standard of living under communist and other totalitarian systems. Whether private enterprise is compared with what it replaced, namely feudalism, or whether it is compared with other available alternatives — communist totalitarian regimes or dictatorships (feudal or semi-feudal, or fascist) — private enterprise must rate head and shoulders above its competitors. Critics of private enterprise do not consider this aspect, except to concede that capitalism is superior to feudalism. They do not focus on the extent of the superiority, nor do they compare its record with communism or with democratic socialist interventionism.





The proof is in the pudding;

What have non-capitalistic economic systems provided in terms of advancements in technology, standard of living, availabilty of goods and services?

Under capitalism: off the top of my head,
Auto industry - assembly line
Internet
Phone
etc.

What do you use today that was invnted and brought to the market under a non-capitalistic economic system?


G&P

What do you use today that was invnted and brought to the market under a non-capitalistic economic system?


G&P

Swedish Inventions (http://www.sverigeturism.se/smorgasbord/smorgasbord/industry/inventions/)

* Tetra Pak
* The Separator and the Milking Machine
* The Ball Bearing
* The Propeller
* The Zipper
* The Safety Match
* Dynamite
* The Turbo Engine for Cars
* Innovations in Telecommunications
* The Adjustable Spanner





NK

What do you use today that was invented and brought to the market under a non-capitalistic economic system?


G&P

You don't know much of history, many things were invented without capitalism, capitalism has exploited them

The greeks for example invented many things

The crane used by capitalists today to construct buildings
The steam engine used by capitalists today to generate electricity
Mines, used by capitalists today to kill people
Medical instruments
Musical notation

Sweeden is 90% private sector, though 50% gov owned. It is CAPITALISTIC in large part.

Yes the Greek engineering and mathematics are undeniable, but tell me what has come out of Greece recently.

Tell me if your car, your refrigerator, your phone, etc were built, distributed NOT involving a capitalistic economic system?



G&P

Sweeden is 90% private sector, though 50% gov owned. It is CAPITALISTIC in large part. So is Sweden a socialist country or a capitalist country?

So far, no one has done what I asked.

Tell us what economic system you would like to see capitalism replaced with?

NK likes nanny state or to be kind... government soft paternalism.

NK likes nanny state or to be kind ...government soft paternalism.That sentence makes no sense.

Sweeden is 90% private sector, though 50% gov owned. It is CAPITALISTIC in large part.

Yes the Greek engineering and mathematics are undeniable, but tell me what has come out of Greece recently.

Tell me if your car, your refrigerator, your phone, etc were built, distributed NOT involving a capitalistic economic system?

G&P

Now you are changing the question. You know very well that the economic system operating in the world today is capitalism; that is private ownership of the means of production, even in communism China, this is true to a large extent. However capitalism and capitalist motives do not need to be present for innovation and invention to take place. Before capitalism existed people invented, it is rightly said that necessity, not capitalism, is the mother of invention.

You also know that nations and economic systems pass through their golden age and decline so because no startling invention has emerged from Greece lately doesn't mean That anything is lost. American capitalism will eventually decline to be replaced by a better system and great will the shout the day it does, just as it was when Rome went into the dust, Nazi Germany when into the dust and Russian communism went into the dust

So is Sweden a socialist country or a capitalist country?

From what I read, Sweden's economy is best described as "nearly bankrupt."

From what I read, Sweden's economy is best described as "nearly bankrupt."
Can you link me to where you read that?

Can you link me to where you read that?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html

And there's always Wikipedia

Economy of Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden)

They seem to be a little ahead of us on the economic timeline, some would say as usual. Having taken the Welfare state concept and run with it, they are now cutting back across the board as their foreign markets dry up.

Even according to your links Sweden is doing better than the USA. Nowhere near "nearly bankrupt" as you stated. It has some of the highest standards of living and happiness index scores.

Even according to your links Sweden is doing better than the USA. Nowhere near "nearly bankrupt" as you stated. It has some of the highest standards of living and happiness index scores.

Since they recognized it and enacted more capitalistic measures, possibly.


The new, strict budget process with spending ceilings set by parliament, and a constitutional change to an independent Central Bank, have greatly improved policy credibility.


The Swedish government has announced that it will privatise a number of wholly and partly state owned companies.

This particular quote sounds just like what the attorney said at a Chap. 13 hearing I attended.

"The income from these sales will be used to pay off the government debt and reduce the burden of debt for future generations. The Government's ambition is to sell companies to a value of SEK 200 billion during 2007-2010."[

The selling of crown/state corps happens with some frequency in many countries.

Now you are changing the question. you know very well that the economic system operating in the world today is capitalism; that is private ownership of the means of production, even in communism China, this is true to a large extent. However capitalism and capitalist motives do not need to be present for innovation and invention to take place. before capitalism existed people invented, it is rightly said that necessity, not capitalism, is the mother of invention.

You also know that nations and economic systems pass through their golden age and decline so because no startling invention has emerged from Greece lately doesn't mean That anything is lost. American capitalism will eventually decline to be replaced by a better system and great will the the shout the day it does, just as it was when Rome went into the dust, Nazi Germany when into the dust and Russian communism went into the dust


Capitalism allows the opportunity for individual advancement - more so than socialism or communism.

Is an individual going to be as motivated to improve his or her lot and everyone else's if he or she reaps the benefits of his or her work and ideas? Or is that individual going to even think of something new or more efficient if the state is going to take the credit and the rights to the individual's potential achievement[s]?

G&P

Capitalism allows the opportunity for individual advancement - more so than socialism or communism. Hello again, in:

It does...

However, we have decided to socialize certain risks and/or tasks by gathering together and hiring the government to run them for us... Some of those would be the police and fire departments, the highway departments, our water and electric supply, and the military.

We've also chosen to offer a safety net for those who are unable to provide for themselves. That would include Medicare and Medical, the food stamp program, and welfare, among others.

We are for sure, NOT a pure capitalist country. We've blended lots of socialism into our every day lives, and we've lived to tell about it. Some people, who abhor socialism, actually take advantage of it when nobody's looking.

excon

Capitalism allows the opportunity for individual advancement - more so than socialism or communism.



G&P

You seem to be under the impression that Capitalism is mutually exclusive from these other methods of organisation, however capitalism is alive and well in France and Australia and also in China. What this proves is that Capitalism isn't directly related to the political environment within which it exists.

Laizze-faire Capitalism cannot be allowed to exist because it has no social conscience, it must be regulated, controlled and directed. Which system of political organisation you use to do this is up to the citizens of the country. There are excesses in all systems usually directly related to the power given the leaders

Hello again, in:

It does...

However, we have decided to socialize certain risks and/or tasks by gathering together and hiring the government to run them for us... Some of those would be the police and fire departments, the highway departments, our water and electric supply, and the military.

We've also chosen to offer a safety net for those who are unable to provide for themselves. That would include Medicare and Medical, the food stamp program, and welfare, among others.

We are for sure, NOT a pure capitalist country. We've blended lots of socialism into our every day lives, and we've lived to tell about it. Some people, who abhor socialism, actually take advantage of it when nobody's looking.

excon


Agree with your first paragraph. Note that socializing the risk of hi risk mortgages through Fannie and Freddie have led to the current economic crisis. You agree with that? Pure capitalism in this area would have put the risks on the investor not the taxpayor. Pure capitalism would not have bailed out the mega banks and investment houses that you love.

Medicare and medicaid and social security were not "chosen" they were voted on and passed before my time. Now the taxpayor has NO CHOICE but to pay into this government ponzi scheme. In addition, the "rich" certainly do not get their money's worth from the money they pay in taxes to social security. Also realize that social security was passed in an era where the life expectancy was around 65 and the life expectancy for blacks was less than 65.

My agi is top 10% in the nation and the top 10%, the "rich," pay about 70% of the taxes in this country. If I fall ill and am unable to work, or get sick; is it really taking advantage of the system if I, having been paying so much in to the system that supports others, use the benefits that were promised to me?

Is it really right to be increasing entitlements in a recession and then passing off the costs [ principal and interest ] to others and future generations?


G&P

Is it really right to be increasing entitlements in a recession and then passing off the costs [ pricipal and interest ] to others and future generations?Hello in:

My post wasn't in defense of who we are. It's just an explanation.

In terms of the above, my support for the IDEA of health care reform should not be confused with support for this bill. MY idea, wouldn't do that. But, they didn't ask me.

excon