capitalism v. democracy

[maxx]

http://www.alternet.org/story/68927/?page=entire

"I don't think we can separate capitalism from democracy. If capitalism is working well and democracy is working poorly, democracy is working poorly in part because capitalism is working so vibrantly. Capitalism has overrun democracy."


Capitalism does operate on forces that are opposed to the ideals of a democracy, i.e., all people are of intrinsically equal worth. Capitalism is about exploitation of natural resources and human resources for profit.

[Stosh]

http://www.alternet.org/story/68927/?page=entire

"I don't think we can separate capitalism from democracy. If capitalism is working well and democracy is working poorly, democracy is working poorly in part because capitalism is working so vibrantly. Capitalism has overrun democracy."


Capitalism does operate on forces that are opposed to the ideals of a democracy, i.e., all people are of intrinsically equal worth. Capitalism is about exploitation of natural resources and human resources for profit.

I don't think that either are working well at the moment. And that's not the definition of a democracy or capitalism either.

[GOAT]

Maxx not true. In fact the more free a market society the more free that country becomes. Check with many economists and the same thing plays out all over the world.

Stoch, I would agree but out of all of the different types of gov't, though fraught with problems, democracy is still the best one out there as is capitalism.

[maxx]

" In fact the more free a market society the more free that country becomes."

Then we must have been enjoying the apogee of freedom during the subprime free-for-all.

[oladub]

" In fact the more free a market society the more free that country becomes."

Then we must have been enjoying the apogee of freedom during the subprime free-for-all.

Or maybe you are confusing capitalism with corporatism. The Federal Reserve is owned by mega banks which profit from the Fed's ability to print money which they, the banks, can lend out at a profit. This cozy arrangement leads to a tendency to create a lot of liquidity which results in bubbles which in turn burst. The Volker era was an exception.

Fannie and Freddie are also quasi capitalist organizations were required to support sub prime loans and more recently have been forced to buy up bankers' junk at face value and bill the difference to taxpayers through 2012.

Pure capitalism, like Marx's communism, is a theoretical economic state. Our economy is largely corporatist. It is easier to begin a start up business today in Communist China than here although capitalism in China is subject to another set of whimsical government controls outside the proctections of law which businesses are often protected from here. Pure democracy will lead to dictatorship, just as pure capitalism could lead to all money in the hands of a small group, which is why we, in theory, have a system of checks and balances to protect the some interests of minorities including capitalists.

[rb336]

Maxx not true. In fact the more free a market society the more free that country becomes. Check with many economists and the same thing plays out all over the world.

Goat, you are right. HOWEVER, as much as the economic libertarians would like to believe, GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION is necessary to maintain a free market. Hence Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting rampage. Hence Lincoln's comments that capitalists were working "to fleece the populace." Hence robber barons being called robber barons. a deregulated market would eventually become controlled by one or two mega-firms, who could then essentially impose their will on the market, thereby destroying the "free market." by essentialy controlling the flow of goods and services, and by controling the means of making a living, these mega-firms would also, effectively, clamp down on INDIVIDUAL freedoms as well. Whoops - you drank the wrong kind of beer at a party, your fired! There is a difference between capitalism and the extreme form of laissez-faire capitalism I just described. capitalism is NOT the free market.

[Jimaz]

In the end it boils down to "one dollar, one vote" versus "one man, one vote." Without enough pressure to move the system toward the latter, the system naturally falls toward the former. This is simply because the more wealth is concentrated, the faster it concentrates -- until some catastrophic backlash ignites like revolution.

I like to think of democracy as an attempt to end revolutions.

[Papasito]

North Korea: A Socialist, Communist Country.
South Korea: A Democratic, Capitalist Country.

North Koreans are starving and struggling.
South Koreans are prospering and food is plentiful.

Both countries started out thier method of Government when the nation split.
The results of both experiments are plain and in your face.
In fact, the South has had so much prosperity, that in years past,
they even gave food aid to thier hostile, Northern neighbors.

And that's the facts, take it or leave it.

The North's economy is in shambles and the country has relied on outside food aid to feed much of its 24 million people.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38811203...s-asiapacific/

[rb336]

North Korea: A Socialist, Communist Country.
South Korea: A Democratic, Capitalist Country.

North Koreans are starving and struggling.
South Koreans are prospering and food is plentiful.

Both countries started out thier method of Government when the nation split.
The results of both experiments are plain and in your face.
In fact, the South has had so much prosperity, that in years past,
they even gave food aid to thier hostile, Northern neighbors.

And that's the facts, take it or leave it.

the facts are that the south was in fairly bad shape up until recent years as well, and was bolstered by Reagan & Clinton policies of giving tax credits to companies who worked with the South Koreans.

Most dynamic economy in recent years is inarguably China - a communist dictatorship granted MFN status unofficially under reagan, and officially under clinton. put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[oladub]

the facts are that the south was in fairly bad shape up until recent years as well, and was bolstered by Reagan & Clinton policies of giving tax credits to companies who worked with the South Koreans.

Most dynamic economy in recent years is inarguably China - a communist dictatorship granted MFN status unofficially under reagan, and officially under clinton. put that in your pipe and smoke it.

China, the Soviet Union, and even South Korea more recently have pitched in to prevent starvation in North Korea. How can you compare some temporary unemployment in South Korea with literal starvation in the north? That is like comparing US poverty with Haiti's poverty.

The dynamism in China was a by-product of Communist leaders allowing a measure of capitalism in China beginning with privitizing farmland. China went from bouts of socialist starvation to exporting honey and talapia to the US. It worked in agriculture so China extended the policy to commerce. Our leaders are taking us in the opposite direction.

[maxx]

Papasito:
Climate, terrain, and natural disasters are not a result of politics. About 90% of N. Korea is mountainous. How many crops do we grow in our mountain areas?

http://www.agnet.org/library/eb/475/

[oladub]

Papasito:
Climate, terrain, and natural disasters are not a result of politics. About 90% of N. Korea is mountainous. How many crops do we grow in our mountain areas?

http://www.agnet.org/library/eb/475/

However, your linked article suggests that North Korean food shortages are the result of the ummm non-capitalst decision making there. It said that peasants had three times the productivity on their own plots as did collective farms which was also China's experience.

South Korea has 50M people. North Korea has about 23M people. North Korea does have about 90% as much arable land to feed less than half as many people as South Korea but there is starvation in socialist North Korea while people are getting fat in more capitalist South Korea. North Korea has a 4-5 month growing season with plenty of rain in the summer. North Korea's main crop is corn but parts of North Korea are warm enough to grow rice. Time to let the starving peasants have a dose of capitalism as an alternative to starvation.

Norway, Japan, and Switzerland have a lot of mountains too. If mountainous terrain was the starvation variable, the Swiss would be lapping the herbs off the sides of their mountains.

[maxx]

There are darn few countries today that could be self-sufficient. Switzerland certainly isn't. In fact they don't appear to invest much in agriculture.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3431.htm
"... The country is dependent upon export markets to generate income while dependent upon imports for raw materials and to expand the range of goods and services available in the country. Switzerland has liberal investment and trade policies, with the exception of agriculture, and a conservative fiscal policy...Long-run economic growth, however, is predicated on structural reforms. In order to maximize its economic potential, Switzerland will need to push through difficult agrarian and competition policy reforms..."

Korea, like the USSR and China, consolidated most of the small farms, not unlike what has happened in the U.S.. Our ag. economy is based on 4 or 5 products, so we are not far from being a banana republic agriculturally speaking. We continue to take water out of the Oglalla aquifer faster than it can replenish itself.. Some people here like to think that our ag. is based some god's benevolence. They seem to forget about the Dust Bowl of the '30s. Fortunately, some people here are turning away from "the green revolution" ag. policies and are returning to "organic" farming. There are loads of subsidies for large farmers here that are mostly corporations. I don't see much government encouragement here for the "rugged individual" who wants to farm a small piece of land. In fact, Monsanto has been allowed to prey on them and turn them into little more than corporate serfs.