The pros and cons of socialism and capitalism


Uploaded by anubis2814 on 06.08.2011

Transcript:
One of the major points that Fiscal libertarians push is that if the government wasn't there,
charities would take over and take their place much more efficiently. Its true that there
will be a lot less bulk waste, however one of the major advantages of doing something
in bulk is that the overhead is a lot less. The reason Wal-mart and giant corporations
can do things cheaply is because they do it on a massive scale. Is there waste? Yes, does
it slow change, oh hell yes. There is politics in every company. But their product is still
cheaper than the product of a smaller business. Overhead involves logistics, space, prices
spent on machinery, employee specializations, and advertising. The bigger the program the
more overhead shrinks by comparison to the total amount of output. Most small charities
have to spend a ton on overhead especially in the fund-raising and advertising area.
They don't have many specializations and people have to work on a lot of different areas.
Welfare is the biggest charity in the nation and while it has a lot of waste, its overhead
is freaking tiny by comparison with most charities. Complete lack of competition though sadly
means slow change however it also means reliability and stability. In the military, all of our
equipment was around 15 years behind the commercial model, but that was because the equipment
had proven itself with sufficient stability. Competition means change however it means
that the poorest are without the basics. Pure competition also means that companies get
cut throat and they only work for the short term. One of the things that a government
welfare system can do is to give grants to competing charities and study them as scientific
models to find the best ones that work and report changes needed to the current system.
Just like Science it is slow to change. If a society wants to ensure that its poorest
have the basic necessities and at least some chance of upward mobility this is the best
system. Of course some of the charities they study and give money to are faith based which
raises other Constitutional problems of their own.
Anarcho-Capitalists believe that getting rid of Government would create a near Paradise
as competition would keep everyone honest while moving us quickly forward in technology.
Stability really would not exist and the system would collapse. People don't invest or start
new businesses when uncertainty is the leading factor in everything. Their must be a sense
of calm and a feeling of safety if they are going to start doing anything. Only the extremely
wealthy would have the money to take the risk to try new ideas as absolute poverty would
not await them if they failed, and the extremely wealthy have proven to be the least likely
risk takers out there. It is the small start ups the take the risks and the majority of
them fail. The overhead of competing charities without mandatory donations as the very rich
are not known for giving nearly as high a percentage of their wealth to charity as their
middle class counterparts, would not be able to cover all of the poor and ensure that no
one took risks. Communists believe if done right that giving all the government power
and requiring the people to watch each other would cause stability. Sadly this tends to
cause distrust of each other in the community and while it causes stability without individual
freedom to take risks to provide competition all change would be completely slowed. Mind
you the Soviets and the Chinese idealized science, or at least the areas they liked,
so they advanced much more than their previous Imperial versions, but areas the “people”
aka the government didn't deem important was completely ignored.
There is also the issue of labor incentive. During the Guilded age, people could get paid
barely anything. The majority stayed the poor and unwashed. In some ways it was better than
being subsistence farmers at the whims of the weather, but most of it caused a lot of
health problems from pollution and industrial accidents. The unions had no teeth whatsoever
and if they existed at all they were crushed. If the company had the ability to hire non-union
members or move their company to non-union territory then unions might as well not exist.
Which is exactly what most big companies would love and wanted. Unions also work on overhead.
Taking your complaint up with the bossman or trying to sue the company would require
risk out of your pocket, firing and poverty because no anti-union company would hire you
or your dirty ilk. Unions allowed the workers to unite and cut down the overhead on the
Union. It reduced productivity and profits a bit, but it ensured the workers were paid
a decent wage, and they could make their complaints heard. Data shows that as there has been a
massive decline in union jobs, wages all over the market have dropped. Mind you many unions
had to weaken their stances as cheap labor overseas prevented them from taking such a
hard stance in manufacturing. We need service industry unions to emerge and civil service
unions to strengthen as those are the only once with negotiating room that wont be sent
over seas. Sadly the way science is funded a scientific union is impossible in this country.
Our only luck is to vote to get more science funding.
Unions and welfare however can get too the point where they are so widespread that they
do not really incentivize people to work. Finland and Italy are having these problems
at the moment. People take so many days of or don't work efficiently because they know
they can't get fired that there is a serious problem with productivity. I've had fiscal
libertarians point out Germany and Sweden as moving toward more American style capitalism
as they were experiencing the same productivity problems as Finland and Italy. They are currently
some of the most financially stable nations on the planet with shortage of labor and high
productivity because they increased competition and privatization. I agree completely that
they are moving toward privatization and increased competition. However they are still ridiculously
socialistic in comparison to America or even Britain.
Speaking of Labor, some nations have most jobs state run, some have very few. State
run jobs are great in terms of creating stability, but can be bad if there are too many working
for the government. France right now has nearly everyone employed by the government (exaggerating
btw) and they are having some serious issues. America can't even unionize its civil service
labor force and with all of these cuts in spending more and more jobs in the private
sector will be dumped. There could be a system like FDR's CCC where any able bodied person
could work for the government at minimum wage just to keep their work skills polished and
hireable, as well as money flowing through the economy but spending anything that isn't
on military or the rich is not going to happen under this republican House.
In terms of healthcare, VA healthcare currently has 1% spent on overhead and a 90% approval
rating by people who use it. That overhead would be an even smaller percentage if everyone
had it free to them. In Europe 8% added tax is paid by everyone for free healthcare, while
people who can afford it here in the US spend about 16% of their income on health insurance
with much higher overhead plus soaring profits for stockholders from denying claims if they
feel like it. Sure you have a 20% higher chance of dying from cancer in Europe, but you wont
die from easily treatable diseases like poor, the many unemployed, or uninsured people do
over here because they don't get free healthcare unless they are dying on the operating table
which is way more expensive than preventable medicine. Also seeing your doctor frequently
raises your awareness of taking care of your health significantly which is why they eat
healthier, exercise more and live longer because their lifestyle reduces their chances of getting
cancer in first place. Finding the sweet balance between socialism
and capitalism is essential for a nation. Government is needed to establish stability,
cut overhead and provide safety nets for risk takers and the most poor to provide infrastructure
of both the physical nature and mental infrastructure to increase opportunity and ideas. Sadly in
America that means safety nets for our richest and biggest companies and our infrastructure
is in shambles. Competition is needed to move a nation forward and create new ideas and
new technologies based on science learned through trial and error with the majority
of research going no where, only really worth while to companies when subsidized unless
the profit is ridiculously high. Balance between Socialism and Capitalism as Eisenhower noted
is the only way a nation can become great. We should be looking at other nations doing
better than us to see what we can do to return ourselves to our former glory in the sweet
spot between socialism and capitalism. If a nation invests in education, science
and infrastructure, the jobs create themselves. If a nation invests in war and the rich, luxury
goods for the very rich will be the only available jobs because they will be the only people
with money and new technology won't exist.