I would say pretty close to zero, judging from the fact that the Jackasses raise quite a bit of campaign money, just as the Elephants do.
I might agree that a majority are Rs, but more than 10% are Ds, fer sure.
make that “raise quite a bit of campaign money from the rich”
One Cell
“The masses are those who need at least two incomes to make ends meet.”
What do you men by “make ends meet”? What level of existence do you feel is guaranteed that the rich are taking from you?
You know, I hate the word “masses”. I can hardly think of a term more condescending and dehumanzsing - even “peasents” is better. By using the term, you’re calling me a “mass”, an amorphus blob, lacking any sort of distinguishing personality. You know what? I’m an individual, a completely unique, unpredictable, non-quantifiable entity. And so is everybody else.
Anyway, as to the OP - capitalism can’t collapse, because it is not, technically, a system. Socialism is a system. As is fascism, monarchy, plutocracy, democracy, feudalism and tribalism. Capitalism is more of a default.
Same objection as above. On average, and over the long haul, the standard of living of every American economic group is improving.
Middle class bourgeoisie of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but you SUV’s! 
So first thing we do, let’s destroy plan A so that we can start thinking about what we can do for plan B. Good thinking. That’s why I always burn down my current apartment before I start to look for a new one.
Just out of curiosity–I find this entertaining–do you have a plan B?
First, lets look at the countries where capitalism is practiced to the extent it is in the US. This actually eliminates the majority of “capitalist” countries, as most are more socialist than we. Instead, we can look at the - admittedly narrow - group of First World countries. Countries like Russia are turning to capitalism after decades of communism, or coutries like India turn to it after decades of socialism. Essentially, we should look at countries where capitalism has been underway for two decades or so. You’ll probably take issue with this, but I think its a good way to look at how capitalism alone affects the lives of the poor.
Now that we have limited ourselves to about 20 countries which I would claim are truly capitalist, it seems rather evident that either the standard of living of all these societies as a whole have increased (which they all most certainly have over the length of their time under capitalism), or any drop in the standard of living is felt equally across all social and economic classes.
The second half of that last point can be seen in the current situation Americans are in. The people who have taken the largest hit in the pocketbook due to the current stock market drops are the upper and middle classes. The lower classes most likely are not heavily attached to things like formerly booming tech stocks or dot-coms. As long as banks aren’t collapsing because of this, or jobs being eliminated, the majority of Americans who didn’t have the income to meddle in the markets aren’t hurting all that bad, while those that have the 401(k)s and IRAs are the ones in the well paying jobs that can best afford to weather through the current downturn.
Of course, some rich people will get richer regardless of the circumstances. But I think the argument for capitalism is that on average everyone benefits.
This is a bit of a reach. As far as prosperity goes, the general trend across the world is up. Regardless of what time period you give where minty_green’s statement would be untrue, I can easily give you a time period that stretches only slightly farther back where his statement would once again be true. And once we get back about 5 years from the present, I doubt you would be able to find a time period where Americans of any economic class were better off than they are now.
Minty Green:
You ask if I have a plan B (an alternative to Capitalism). The answer is No.
However, that does not mean we should not look into developing a Plan B, or at least modify the existing Plan A, to better suit our needs. We don’t have to destroy the existing set-up to simply address ourselves to better alternatives. Unfortunately, it is a tough call, as it would require us to look outside our own box.
As you may know, many people both inside and outside the U.S. look at our Republican and Democratic parties as merely two wings of the same party: The Capitalist Party. Obviously, as long as our government is run by this Single Party, no one would even suggest a possible new design or replacement for capitalism. If our military think tank is capable of creating all possible future threat scenarios, we could also fund creation of think tanks to simulate alternatives to capitalism. But the Single Party government would never fund such a program for the obvious reason. I can see them mocking the idea, saying “Heck, no two economists ever agree on anything”.
Believing that “in the long term, everything will improve under capitalism” could be as dangerous as keeping our head in the sand.
(BTW, I hate SUVs too. In fact, if I could land a telecommuting job that pays my bills, I’d get rid of my car).
Q: The fall of Capitalism. Is it getting close?
A: No
Truly a master debater there.
MilTan - I’m not sure what your point is. Only 20 countries in the world are capitalist? But you decided this via a wonderful piece of Amercian-centricism that declares that the definition of capitalist is anything at least as capitalist as the US. Doesn’t wash I’m afraid - capitalism is merely refers to systems in which capital is used as the driver. In essence this means a free market, but by no means necessarily totally free. Totally free markets are not even desirable due to their inefficiencies. The US for example has much stricter anti-monopolistic lawas than the UK, but most would agree that the US in general is more right wing.
Look - the goal of any society should be, by definition, to generate as much utility as possible, where utility is what economists use to measure ‘happiness’. In many ways capitalism addresses this issue admirably. The market’s pricing mechanism for most goods in most situations for example is a wonderful way of ensuring the most utility-generating goods get produced and supplied to those who will derive the most utility from them. (Even this isn’t perfect however - a starving man will derive the most utility from a loaf of bread, but the market will not ensure that he gets it).
In other ways however capitalism does not address the utility-maximising problem. It encourages maximum generation of wealth instead of utility and there is a tendency to get these two mixed up. The western world really produces far more than it needs to keep everybody happy and the extra effort needed to produce more suffers from the law of diminishing returns - at some point our marginal utility from extra production will become negative and capitalism isn’t very good at stopping us from overstepping that point.
Of course most of us would agree that thus far noone has come up with anything better. I think that the OP however is questioning whether we could think up something better.
In particular capitalism deals well with the problem of distributing scarce resources. But as civilisation progresses some scarce resources may become less scarce. Here’s an example that depends on future technology. Let us postulate the existence of extremely advanced robots that are capable of doing all work that we do not want to do - and does so more efficiently than man. All production and service industries need employ no people at all. As a species we have the ability to do no more than sit around all day, if that’s what we want.
At this point does capitalism succeed in providing us with the optimal society? Or does money cease to have any real power at all? If you can have whatever you want whence the need to trade? How would you even earn any money in the absence of employment? Capitalism starts to exhibit some rather nasty big holes.
pan
Who do you mean by we?
Saint Zero wrote:
… Gun ownership, …
<ducking and running>
kabbes:
First off, my post was in response to oldscratch’s (implied) claim that minty_green’s argument only held true for the US. Second, I nowhere did I declare that only 20 countries in the world are capitalist.
Perhaps you should have read my reasoning for narrowing it down to 20 countries before taking issue (which I mentioned that people would). To review: I merely pointed out that very few countries are as capitalist (and by using capitalist in a comparitive sense, I mean more free-market oriented) than the US, something which you apparently agree with. So, as this would give me a sample size of one, I then chose to expand to countries which had more socialist tendencies, even though the more socialist you get the less you can consider any results to be due to capitalism as opposed to, say, government programs. I actually tried to be as non-America-centric as possible when coming up with the countries to examine.
But even if you want to look at all capitalist countries (although you appear to be using a very wide and vague definition of capitalism), I would say that the standard of living of everyone in those systems has undergone a general upward trend over the years. And no, I can’t back this point up, other than pointing you towards the fact that the world economy is growing as a whole, and the fastest growing economies are those that implement capitalism as an economic system.
Good. A running target is always more fun for the pilots of the black helicopters.
capitalism got phased out around 1900
adam smith, father of capitalism?, disapproved of what he called joint-stock companies. what we now call corporations.
a corporation is a form of collective ownership, not private ownership. if you had a corporation where all the stock was owned by the employees, wouldn’t that be workers owning the means of production? a corporation is a form of communism. ROFL!
in 1886 the supreme court decided that a corporation was a person. and the technology changes of the late 19th century made the huge growth of corps possible and made the 1929 crash possible.
Dal Timgar
[FMJ]Joker: How can you shoot women and children like that?
Helicopter Door Gunner: Easy… Ya just don’t lead 'em so much![/FMJ]
ROFL, TXLonghorn!
They are working on that one.
[paranoid mode:ON]
You have to take the guns away first, otherwise the MiB can’t pacify you. The Government(Corporations, Religious Right, Commie Atheists, et al…) can’t take over unless there is a pacified populace.
[paranoid mode:OFF]
[sub] The above is a joke. If you take it seriously, or think I actually believe that, you are a sad, misguided person. And an idiot.[/sub]
Q: “Capitalism could fail. Shouldn’t we have a plan B?”
A: No. That’s like asking what we will do if democracy fails…we need to have a plan in place to institute fascism just in case.
Why are both the Republicans and Democrats pro-capitalism parties? For the same reason they are both pro-democracy parties.
And we already have lots and lots of plans in place to address failures of the free market. We have banking insurance. Anti-trust laws. Laws against fraud and deceptive advertising. Government provided education. Publicly maintained courts, police, and military. Investment in transportation infrastructure. Public support for basic scientific research. Old-age pensions.
And y’know what, many of these things I support. However, we must realize that they drain resources from private hands. Without a robust private economy to create the funds for these public goods, we don’t get anything.
Meaning that you can’t destroy Microsoft and tax it too. You have to look at the consequences of public taxing, spending and regulation.
And then there’s the concept of justice. Say there are two kids, and each has a piece of chocolate cake. One eats the cake, the other saves it. Later they come back inside, and Billy complains that Timmy has a piece of cake but he doesn’t. Is it fair to make Timmy share his piece of cake? It is true that Timmy has cake and Billy doesn’t, so we have inequality. But what should our response be?
An interesting idea. I had to go online to get the specific definitions of each system.
From http://dictionary.cambridge.org
communism noun
the belief in a classless society in which the methods of production are owned and controlled by all its members and everyone works as much as they can and receives what they need
capitalism noun
an economic, political and social system based on private ownership of property, business and industry, and directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people
Capitalism is also based upon the free exchange of goods and services in the world market.
I believe to be a form of communism, every person in the US would have to own stock in that corporation. That way everyone would receive the benefits. Even if all 200,000 employees of GE owned the stock, it can still creates a class society where only the owners of the company benefit. I think the core belief of communism is the “classlessness” of the system. Or in other words, the entire population, not individual owners should benefit from the success of the company.
As a side note to the OP. We have a much greater distribution of wealth now than we did in the 1800-1900s. J.D. Rockafeller and J.P. Morgan each had more money (adjusted to 2001 dollars) than Bill Gates and Steve Jobs ever will. Back then you were either a billionare or you worked in their textile mill for 20 cents a day.
the problem with definitions is they are STATIC and human socio-economics is DYNAMIC and in a continuous state of flux. the definitions NEVER WERE ACCURATE. what is a FREE MARKET and when did we ever have one? human history is worse than chaos theory. what did carl marx say about planned obsolescence of gasoline powered road vehicles? he died 1883 and the 1st gas car was 1886. i call the current system corporate consumerism and feel that thinking in terms of capitalism/socialism/communism keeps the mind in a socio-technologically obsolete rut.
we got ECONOMIC POWER GAMES and POLITICAL POWER GAMES and an unlimited number of ways to play them and advances in technology just increases the tactics and strategies.
Dal Timgar