Capitalism vs. Socialism, Both vs. Neither

[Beingist]

With the Occupation movement in full swing, now, and with the Tea Party movement already entrenched in and affecting greatly Republican party politics, we may notice that there is an increasing divide between left-wing and right-wing making itself felt, both in the country, as well as in this forum.

I start this thread, to allow it to serve as the sounding board for all political discussion. We'll see if that's too broad, but as someone metioned in another thread, serious discussion is definitely in order, given the mess the world finds itself in, today.

So, let it out, one and all--are you a capitalist, or a socialist? Do you believe in a mixed market of regulated capitalism, or are you an avowed anarchist?

[Beingist]

I'll throw in my two cents, at this point.

On another thread, mixed markets have been suggested as the only economic model that actually "works".

While I definitely support free market economics, as one with degrees in History, I'm all too aware that laissez-faire economics tills the soil of abuse of a free market system. Hence, I'm not entirely against regulation. I doubt seriously that anyone is against child labor laws.

However, there seems to be an inherent problem with regulation. As I've mentioned before, if you give government an inch, they'll take a mile. The income tax is a prime example of this--when it was first implemented, the highest rate was 7 percent. Now, it's not unusual for the highest rates to be closer to 50%. In the progressive era, child labor laws were instituted, but then came minimum wage laws, unions, and now, it's the big call for universal health care. Where does it end, save the day when it will all ultimately collapse?

[Mariana Trench]

I laid out my thoughts in an old thread, particularly with this post.

[Beingist]

Whoa! Hold the phone!

I think that once we acknowledge that the government is what creates a "market" in the first place [...]

How in the world does government create a market?

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I'll throw in my two cents, at this point.

On another thread, mixed markets have been suggested as the only economic model that actually "works".

While I definitely support free market economics, as one with degrees in History, I'm all too aware that laissez-faire economics tills the soil of abuse of a free market system. Hence, I'm not entirely against regulation. I doubt seriously that anyone is against child labor laws.

However, there seems to be an inherent problem with regulation. As I've mentioned before, if you give government an inch, they'll take a mile. The income tax is a prime example of this--when it was first implemented, the highest rate was 7 percent. Now, it's not unusual for the highest rates to be closer to 50%. In the progressive era, child labor laws were instituted, but then came minimum wage laws, unions, and now, it's the big call for universal health care. Where does it end, save the day when it will all ultimately collapse?

I'd criticize this because it frames the government as an entity with desires of its own (and it seems that's what the slippery slope objection hinges on), when it's more of an ever-shifting social frameworks. In certain frameworks, like absolute monarchies, the directives and tendencies will depend on the person in power at a given time, but I don't think one could say the government itself had those desires. And in other frameworks, like the far more decentralized government of something like the US, there are far too many factors to account for. What makes you think it's more accurate to frame it as the government growing as fast as it can--because it wants to-- than as the evolution of how those institutions are interacting with other developments in society?

But I do think we agree on what seems to me the foremost issue in US politics now: restoring functional democracy regardless of the citizen's income by ending corporate and government collusion.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Whoa! Hold the phone!

How in the world does government create a market?

By establishing (rightful) property as a meaningful concept. Without that as the foundation of trade, it's about who's willing to shoot whom for the goods.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

What makes you think it's more accurate to frame it as the government growing as fast as it can--because it wants to-- than as the evolution of how those institutions are interacting with other developments in society?

What makes me think it?

History. I studied History in college, I have degrees in History and Classical Studies. Government, as an enitity, historically subsists on power, which is either taken directly, as in conquest, or, ostensibly in the United States, given to it by those being governed. As a power, it is no less subject to the whims, desires and devices as any person. As a power, it is a collective of individuals, anyway, and as such, is no less subject to the whims, desires and devices as any person. In this sense, government is not much different than a corporation, which the U.S. Supreme Court has declared a person (but only for certain legal purposes).

Now, as I see it, and in part to agree with you, change is a dynamic thing, and that's no different for government. But don't kid yourself--since John Locke, those who've studied it at all, understand that government does what it wants, when it serves government to have it that way.

But I do think we agree on what seems to me the foremost issue in US politics now: restoring functional democracy regardless of the citizen's income by ending corporate and government collusion.

Indeed, we most definitely agree on this.

Unfortunately, I'm not holding out much hope for that, anymore. I think the current system must necessarily collapse completely, before it can happen.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

By establishing (rightful) property as a meaningful concept. Without that as the foundation of trade, it's about who's willing to shoot whom for the goods.

Okay, so, you don't think property is meaningful concept, unless government gives you it's meaningfulness?

*sigh* Now you might understand why I think that the system must necessarily collapse before it can be reformed. This kind of thinking only serves to support the corruption in the first place.

Property means whatever property means. I can see the necessity to regulate the transactions of property, but I refuse to let government tell me what property *is*, for cryin' out loud.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Okay, so, you don't think property is meaningful concept, unless government gives you it's meaningfulness?

Perhaps 'relevance' and 'effects' would be more clear than meaningfulness. I wasn't using that term in the sense of definition--which is socially agreed upon and fluid--but in the sense of its effects on the world.

Property is not an actionable concept without the government, and some form of government has always been what enforced it. This is why anarchism is usually (save a few sects) considered a leftist movement, because in wanting the abolition of government it's anti-property.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Okay, so, you don't think property is meaningful concept, unless government gives you it's meaningfulness?

*sigh* Now you might understand why I think that the system must necessarily collapse before it can be reformed. This kind of thinking only serves to support the corruption in the first place.

Property means whatever property means. I can see the necessity to regulate the transactions of property, but I refuse to let government tell me what property *is*, for cryin' out loud.

EXACTLY. America wasn't founded by government, and government didn't create property. The people who escaped government, created property and then gave power to government to regulate it.

WE are government. We act like it's some outside entity. It's supposed to govern based on what we say. Regulation is fine and needed for certain things. But the horrible bureaucracy that we have right now needs to stop. Mixed markets are fine. Someone mentioned China as a mixed market that works.... That's barely a mixed market. Government owns 51% of everything, and only ALLOW people to own the other 49%. How is that considered working? America needs to deregulate, and we aren't even close to China. Not to mention the horrible working conditions of China. Government shouldn't be allowed to tell us what property means.... come on now, that's ridiculous. Government in the USSR told us what property was. They told us our house was to big for us, and put another family into it. Thanks government. That's why I posted that video. Because the people who want more government control, have no clue what that entails. They just hate big business, and want the government to take care of all their problems, because they feel they are completely powerless.

Wanna know a way to do it? Get all the people together, and create a business that can gain enough power to make positive ( their idea of positive) changes in government. Work with the system that is in place, and make it work to your advantage. Imagine how big the 99% could get, if they didn't just stand around complaining, and actually DID something!

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Perhaps 'relevance' and 'effects' would be more clear than meaningfulness. I wasn't using that term in the sense of definition--which is socially agreed upon and fluid--but in the sense of its effects on the world.

Property is not an actionable concept without the government, and some form of government has always been what enforced it. This is why anarchism is usually (save a few sects) considered a leftist movement, because in wanting the abolition of government it's anti-property.

Okay, I can follow this. Thank you for clarifying. Had me worried, there, for a second.

As a note, and something that may support this concept, in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson initially wrote that all men "are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and property." It was later substituted with "the pursuit of happiness". I guess they realized that even God can't grant property rights.

But, still, how, then, does government create a market? Are you suggesting that it does so, simply by making property ... relevant?

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Okay, I can follow this. Thank you for clarifying. Had me worried, there, for a second.

As a note, and something that may support this concept, in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson initially wrote that all men "are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and property." It was later substituted with "the pursuit of happiness". I guess they realized that even God can't grant property rights.

But, still, how, then, does government create a market? Are you suggesting that it does so, simply by making property ... relevant?

Yes. Because that is the key step that needs to be taken to organize people with goods and services into a market.

Edit: I suppose one could define it as other things to, but the key here--that I suppose you could contest-- is that a market is the exchange of goods and services with in certain bounds, within rules. We usually consider the fundamental, minimalist, basic capitalistic set of rules to be those that go along with the concept of property.

[Criseyde]

Our problem isn't about capitalism vs. socialism, it's about the broken window fallacy. Let's be clear on this: most of America is in the business of spending all our time creating things we don't need in order to have money to buy more things we don't need.

As a nation, we are removed from our food, our clothes, our housing. We are removed from nearly everything that we use on a daily basis. And as a result, we are destroying the planet. We have no direct evidence of the impact of our lifestyles. We can't see what happens when we fill up our cars with gasoline. And we're kept so pathetically exhausted by doing things we don't need in order to keep buying things we don't need (and some that we do) that we don't really notice that the entire system is... not a life. It's not. American workers today are not the farmers. We're the horses pulling the plough. Except we aren't generating sustenance, we're generating waste. Money (mostly not for us!) + waste.

People in hunter-gatherer societies spend what, 8 hours per week working? We spend 40. And this is WITH all of the conveniences that are supposed to make life "easier"...

This plus the fact that over the last 40 years, it has become almost a necessity to have two incomes to support a family (=outsource childcare), should be alerting people to the fact that the current system is mad.

We have to stop being such consumers and learn some real skills. By real I mean tangible things that produce tangible, necessary goods. Otherwise we are about to see the Roman Empire effect -- I'm sure you know, Beingist, that the Romans had indoor plumbing, and then after the collapse of the Roman Empire, indoor plumbing was not seen again for the next 1400 years.

All the markets in the world aren't going to matter if we see a complete environmental+economic collapse, and two generations later, nobody knows how to build a computer.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by criseyde

our problem isn't about capitalism vs. Socialism, it's about the broken window fallacy. Let's be clear on this: Most of america is in the business of spending all our time creating things we don't need in order to have money to buy more things we don't need.

As a nation, we are removed from our food, our clothes, our housing. We are removed from nearly everything that we use on a daily basis. And as a result, we are destroying the planet. We have no direct evidence of the impact of our lifestyles. We can't see what happens when we fill up our cars with gasoline. And we're kept so pathetically exhausted by doing things we don't need in order to keep buying things we don't need (and some that we do) that we don't really notice that the entire system is... Not a life. It's not. American workers today are not the farmers. We're the horses pulling the plough. Except we aren't generating sustenance, we're generating waste. Money (mostly not for us!) + waste.

People in hunter-gatherer societies spend what, 8 hours per week working? We spend 40. And this is with all of the conveniences that are supposed to make life "easier"...

This plus the fact that over the last 40 years, it has become almost a necessity to have two incomes to support a family (=outsource childcare), should be alerting people to the fact that the current system is mad.

We have to stop being such consumers and learn some real skills. By real i mean tangible things that produce tangible, necessary goods. Otherwise we are about to see the roman empire effect -- i'm sure you know, beingist, that the romans had indoor plumbing, and then after the collapse of the roman empire, indoor plumbing was not seen again for the next 1400 years.

All the markets in the world aren't going to matter if we see a complete environmental+economic collapse, and two generations later, nobody knows how to build a computer.

+1

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Beingist

But, still, how, then, does government create a market? Are you suggesting that it does so, simply by making property ... relevant?

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Yes. Because that is the key step that needs to be taken to organize people with goods and services into a market.

Edit: I suppose one could define it as other things to, but the key here--that I suppose you could contest-- is that a market is the exchange of goods and services with in certain bounds, within rules. We usually consider the fundamental, minimalist, basic capitalistic set of rules to be those that go along with the concept of property.

Okay, well, I can see government establishing market rules, then, but the actual creation of markets, I simply cannot ascribe to government. Maybe it's a definition thing, but that simply makes no sense to me.

Markets exist because of the creation of something that there is a market for.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Okay, well, I can see government establishing market rules, then, but the actual creation of markets, I simply cannot ascribe to government. Maybe it's a definition thing, but that simply makes no sense to me.

Markets exist because of the creation of something that there is a market for.

In the old days, when there were villages, they still had markets. As you said, because things existed that there was a market for. Sure as hell wasn't the government doing it. People have always sold and or bartered for goods and services. The idea that the government is, and or should be responsible, is why they have as much power as they do. That's life. If you give away your power to others, then you will eventually fail. Personal accountability and responsibility is barely existent in this century.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Our problem isn't about capitalism vs. socialism, it's about the broken window fallacy. Let's be clear on this: most of America is in the business of spending all our time creating things we don't need in order to have money to buy more things we don't need.

As a nation, we are removed from our food, our clothes, our housing. We are removed from nearly everything that we use on a daily basis. And as a result, we are destroying the planet. We have no direct evidence of the impact of our lifestyles. We can't see what happens when we fill up our cars with gasoline. And we're kept so pathetically exhausted by doing things we don't need in order to keep buying things we don't need (and some that we do) that we don't really notice that the entire system is... not a life. It's not. American workers today are not the farmers. We're the horses pulling the plough. Except we aren't generating sustenance, we're generating waste. Money (mostly not for us!) + waste.

People in hunter-gatherer societies spend what, 8 hours per week working? We spend 40. And this is WITH all of the conveniences that are supposed to make life "easier"...

This plus the fact that over the last 40 years, it has become almost a necessity to have two incomes to support a family (=outsource childcare), should be alerting people to the fact that the current system is mad.

We have to stop being such consumers and learn some real skills. By real I mean tangible things that produce tangible, necessary goods. Otherwise we are about to see the Roman Empire effect -- I'm sure you know, Beingist, that the Romans had indoor plumbing, and then after the collapse of the Roman Empire, indoor plumbing was not seen again for the next 1400 years.

All the markets in the world aren't going to matter if we see a complete environmental+economic collapse, and two generations later, nobody knows how to build a computer.

Indeed. Now, all we have to do is convince 300,000,000 people that they don't really need cellphones.

I understand this perfectly well, Cris. I still wear the same clothes and drive the same car and even use the same computer I did 5 years ago. The very notion of planned obsolescence has made me physically ill, before. But, I have since learned that such are the abuses of capitalism, and are not likely to cease of their own accord.

And, yes, the Romans had indoor plumbing, but not all Romans had it. It was reserved for the more affluent Romans, as it was so expensive to construct, which is mainly why it faded from view for so long after Rome itself collapsed. Moreover, bear in mind that they also cleaned their tunics in urine.

And, yes, markets will still matter, even if we see a complete environmental and economic collapse. The reason why is because at the very core of all markets is this thing called value. As long as anyone values any tangible good, there will be a market for it, and save for the utter destruction of mankind, there will always be value in tangible goods.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Indeed. Now, all we have to do is convince 300,000,000 people that they don't really need cellphones.

I understand this perfectly well, Cris. I still wear the same clothes and drive the same car and even use the same computer I did 5 years ago. The very notion of planned obsolescence has made me physically ill, before. But, I have since learned that such are the abuses of capitalism, and are not likely to cease of their own accord.

And, yes, the Romans had indoor plumbing, but not all Romans had it. It was reserved for the more affluent Romans, as it was so expensive to construct, which is mainly why it faded from view for so long after Rome itself collapsed. Moreover, bear in mind that they also cleaned their tunics in urine.

And, yes, markets will still matter, even if we see a complete environmental and economic collapse. The reason why is because at the very core of all markets is this thing called value. As long as anyone values any tangible good, there will be a market for it, and save for the utter destruction of mankind, there will always be value in tangible goods.

I know you know it. I just think the current debate raging in the US over "capitalism" vs "socialism" obfuscates the true problem.

Re: cleaning tunics in urine -- that really wasn't the point of my example. (Though I suppose the modern parallel is that we moisturize our bodies with petroleum byproducts...) Computers are also expensive and difficult to construct. You know that too. Mass production makes it easy, but only if we find a way to produce without oil.

[Brutha]

The terms don't have much meaning.
The whole question: "So, let it out, one and all--are you a capitalist, or a socialist?", clouds real political questions.
People believing in that question is one of the prime reasons for the bad state of US politics.

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Our problem isn't about capitalism vs. socialism, it's about the broken window fallacy. Let's be clear on this: most of America is in the business of spending all our time creating things we don't need in order to have money to buy more things we don't need.

As a nation, we are removed from our food, our clothes, our housing. We are removed from nearly everything that we use on a daily basis. And as a result, we are destroying the planet. We have no direct evidence of the impact of our lifestyles. We can't see what happens when we fill up our cars with gasoline. And we're kept so pathetically exhausted by doing things we don't need in order to keep buying things we don't need (and some that we do) that we don't really notice that the entire system is... not a life. It's not. American workers today are not the farmers. We're the horses pulling the plough. Except we aren't generating sustenance, we're generating waste. Money (mostly not for us!) + waste.

People in hunter-gatherer societies spend what, 8 hours per week working? We spend 40. And this is WITH all of the conveniences that are supposed to make life "easier"...

This plus the fact that over the last 40 years, it has become almost a necessity to have two incomes to support a family (=outsource childcare), should be alerting people to the fact that the current system is mad.

We have to stop being such consumers and learn some real skills. By real I mean tangible things that produce tangible, necessary goods. Otherwise we are about to see the Roman Empire effect -- I'm sure you know, Beingist, that the Romans had indoor plumbing, and then after the collapse of the Roman Empire, indoor plumbing was not seen again for the next 1400 years.

All the markets in the world aren't going to matter if we see a complete environmental+economic collapse, and two generations later, nobody knows how to build a computer.

Very valid points.

What are my thoughts on what fans the flames beneath these issues? The shunning of traditional moral values, specifically with regard to work ethic.

Why are people wasteful and gluttonous? Because they no longer understand the value of hard work and hard earned money. Instead of feeling they have earned their paycheck, they feel entitled to it. Sure, they have a job that they go to, but they feel entitled to that as well, as if a job is a birthright.

The gasoline people put in their cars, they feel entitled to that too. To them, it's not something that requires discovery and much labor to drill and deliver to the pump with minimal impact on the environment, it's a right.

So in summation, two significant social blights are:
- the failure to understand value, and
- an undeserved sense of entitlement.

If everybody suddenly became aware of true value, the crap factories that pump out disposable TVs and entertainment would go broke, because the market would start to favor manufacturers who build TVs to last for decades instead of just a couple of years, like the good old days when RCA was still in business.

People would understand that jobs don't grow on trees. They would put in effort at work, or if they didn't like the job they had they would put in the effort to learn the skills to get the job they want.

If we could somehow solve these two dilemmas, then we won't need some sort of big crash to make things better.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The terms don't have much meaning.
The whole question: "So, let it out, one and all--are you a capitalist, or a socialist?", clouds real political questions.
People believing in that question is one of the prime reasons for the bad state of US politics.

I agree. Political decisions shouldn't be made according to left or right ideals, but according to what works, point by point. Using common sense, and examples of where and how it worked before (studies and science) and not emotionally laden questions.

It is not because you might be "right" when you think about the economy, you are also against abortion...

I think in a large part the fact that there are only 2 large parties in the US and that it is always one OR the other in charge that creates large problems.

Not that the Netherlands is perfect of course, but we have a multi party system and according to votes they get seats in the first and second chamber, where policy gets made.

So, they have to work together and find solutions that work for the larger mayority, which consists out of different types of ideas. Just like the real world...

I think this is one of the better systems actually...

[ssandra]

Also: the idea of this:

Polder Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and especially this:

The polder model is a term with uncertain origin that was first used to describe the internationally acclaimed Dutch version of consensus policy in economics, specifically in the 1980s and 1990s.[citation needed] However, the term was quickly adopted for a much wider meaning, for similar cases of consensus decision-making, which are supposedly typically Dutch. It is described with phrases like 'a pragmatic recognition of pluriformity' and 'cooperation despite differences'.

is something we need to see much more off in politics, world wide (The Netherlands seem to have gone away from this as well...)

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

I know you know it. I just think the current debate raging in the US over "capitalism" vs "socialism" obfuscates the true problem.

Originally Posted by Brutha

The terms don't have much meaning.
The whole question: "So, let it out, one and all--are you a capitalist, or a socialist?", clouds real political questions.
People believing in that question is one of the prime reasons for the bad state of US politics.

Originally Posted by ssandra

I agree.

Okay, nevermind, then.

[Brutha]

The polder model is a term with uncertain origin that was first used to describe the internationally acclaimed Dutch version of consensus policy in economics, specifically in the 1980s and 1990s.[citation needed] However, the term was quickly adopted for a much wider meaning, for similar cases of consensus decision-making, which are supposedly typically Dutch. It is described with phrases like 'a pragmatic recognition of pluriformity' and 'cooperation despite differences'.

I don't really like dutch politics.
If you want to legalize marijuana legalize the damn thing. Don't do some crazy legal scheme where it's illegal to grow pot in large quantifies but at the same time it's legal to sell marijuana in specific shops that always have to pay attention not to have to much of it at one place.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Okay, nevermind, then.

He, we can still have an interesting discussion on which parts exactly you like and which you don't and how to integrate all philosophy's and ideas into something that would work to the benefit of all.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't really like dutch politics.
If you want to legalize marijuana legalize the damn thing. Don't do some crazy legal scheme where it's illegal to grow pot in large quantifies but at the same time it's legal to sell marijuana in specific shops that always have to pay attention not to have to much of it at one place.

This is what I mean by not judging one thing and thereby condeming the entire thing.

I don't like that bit of the dutch politics either. Yet, it is not the entire dutch politics system. It is an example of how the polder model works, or doesn't work.

Does that mean that because there is one (or maybe a few) examples of why something didn't work, the entire system is flawed?

On the other hand, maybe this is an example of exactly how this works.

Instead of going with the extremes and forbidding or making legal, the Netherlands found a middle ground in which most people can find themselves. There is control, and there is permission. It is allowed, yet not legal.

It seems to me that this might be a middle ground that is working, even if my personal preference would be to completely legalize drugs.

[Brutha]

I don't like that bit of the dutch politics either. Yet, it is not the entire dutch politics system. It is an example of how the polder model works, or doesn't work.

You didn't provided any examples but said that the wikipedia page that describes it sounds nice.

On the other hand, maybe this is an example of exactly how this works.

Instead of going with the extremes and forbidding or making legal, the Netherlands found a middle ground in which most people can find themselves. There is control, and there is permission. It is allowed, yet not legal.

I think that's the case.

I like that the US and Germany have constitions that prevent certain laws from being made.
You have supreme courts that can judge a law as violating the constiution instead of seeking a compromize.
The netherlands doesn't have such institions.

If the government wants to gather everyone's commuting data and has a majority in the parliament then so be it.

[NoJobRob]

I really think the solution for our divided county is to start a third major party that would stand the middle ground. Most people aren't extreme right or left, but rather more rational and logical, at least in my personal experience. I know back in '08 they started Unity '08, or whatever it was called, but they were deemed illegal because of a paperwork issue. I don't know the details, but one would think that they'd just fix the paper work instead of abandoning the whole thing...

Anyway, a third centrist party would definitely bring a large chunk of the population together instead of having people rallying behind two parties that do nothing but play tug-o-war with people's emotions and engage in childish pissing matches. If enough people got behind a third party then the far right and far left would become irrelevant, and be seen for the crybaby crazies they are. I mean, not all republicans are bible thumping, uneducated, greedy, and shallow douchebags, and not all democrats are whiny freakazoid wuss bags with a false sense of superiority. Most people are pretty decent, and deserve to be better represented in Washington than they currently are.

[JDuff]

I think you need to find a middle ground. You need to respect property rights and personal responsibility, but also equality and the reduction of unfair advantages. Going to extremes on either side, be it anarcho-capitalism or communism, is probably a bad idea. One leads to massive inequality and lack of meaningful equality of opportunity. The other leads to lower living standards and lack of freedom and personal responsibility.

I don't think you can reach a complete system from any one political philosophy - I like being a pluralist and having a collection of fundamental goods, which are themselves pursued with regard to various different conceptions.

There is a tension between wealth-creation and more ethical concerns. Most people agree that both need to be present; the degree is to what extent in specific areas. For example, some argue for deregulation of businesses, which may lead to worse working conditions for employees, worse environmental consequences and so on. In this area, I think that people are more important than profit, and since profit goes to the rich (the board, the managers, the share holders), I would favour more income for the workers rather than the small fraction at the top of the pile.

Perhaps employee ownership schemes are a good idea - they offer real incentives for hard work, and they give more wealth to the productive members of society. There is enough wealth - if some people suffer from a lack it is not through scarcity, it is through mismanagement and extreme inequality.

Regarding health care, the concern is debt and taxes and personal responsibility (option-luck), versus more ethical concerns of compassion and equality. But some people will argue that universal health care works out cheaper because people don't have to pay a premium for the profits of the people at the top. You can mitigate costs of negative behaviour by taxing unhealthy items that cause such costs, so these people end up paying their fair share. If you know that lung cancer treatment costs x amount of money on average, you could tax cigarettes such that over a 30 year period (for example), the average smoker pays that amount divided by the probability of getting lung cancer.

I also like the Islamic banking rule that it is forbidden to charge interest. In theory, it is a full-reserve banking system (as opposed to fractional-reserve banking). Off-topic now.

And this is a good visualisation (may have seen before): Left vs Right (World)

[russianrocket]

Islamic banking might not charge interest, but they do charge fees, which might as well be interest. Game of semantics they play. Some interesting things went on in the past also, with Jews, and them being given the responsibility of banks and owning business' because the Muslims weren't allowed to. Now, we're all hated lol go figure.