Is Capitalism better than socialism?

[bjre]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/09/Pol...68861239324139/

WASHINGTON, April 9 (UPI) -- Just over half of Americans say they believe that capitalism is a better economic system than socialism, a U.S. poll indicates.

The Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 53 percent of Americans say capitalism is better, while 20 percent said they believe that socialism is the better system. Twenty-seven percent of respondents said they are not sure which is better.

The poll found that adults under 30 are evenly divided on which system is better, while adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism.

Republicans, by an 11-to-1 margin, said they favor capitalism. Among Democrats, 39 percent said capitalism is better, while 30 percent said they prefer socialism.

The poll's sample size and margin of error were not reported.

"It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70 percent of Americans prefer a free-market economy," Rasmussen said in its analysis. "The fact that a 'free-market economy' attracts substantially more support than 'capitalism' may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets."

Edited April 12, 2009 by bjre

[Smallc]

Either system, on its own, is not great. A mix is always best...the problem is determining the best mix.

[85RZ500]

After seeing what the oil/gas/broker/speculator cabal has done to our economy I'd say turf capitalism.

[Smallc]

So you're a socialist then?

[tango]

These silly dichotomous polls!

It just divides people unnecessarily, and pretty much unintelligently.

Obviously, some of each is a good mix.

And that's pretty much what we have.

A good rejigging is needed, but above and below the border we have free enterprise (arguably) and social assistance, mostly for families with children and elders.

It's the appropriate mix that we keep struggling with, though.

I think Canada is still imbalanced.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/629185b2-3bf1-40...ribution-Canada

And here's another way of looking at it, world data:

1- Lower income - about 50% of the people together have about 2% of the wealth

2 - Middle income - about 48% of the people have about 58% of the wealth

3 - Higher income - about 2% of the people have about 40% of the wealth

http://www.esnips.com/doc/d7644f2a-0d98-44...ution_World_xlc

Yup ... bully corporatization, under the guise of 'free enterprise' ('free for me, not for you!') has done a number on wealth distribution, just like it was supposed to.

Needs to be rebalanced.

Edited April 12, 2009 by tango

[madmax]

So you're a socialist then?

Most people couldn't tell you what a capitalist is , let alone a socialist.

And that includes many of the silly pundits on MLW who are more informed then the average bear.

[JerrySeinfeld]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/09/Pol...68861239324139/

This poll doesn't surprise me.

Ever seen the documentary "indoctrinate U" ?

It's about oppressively left wing dogma running rampant through campuses around the US.

You can watch it on youtube, I believe it comes in 10 parts that can be watched or you can go to the indoctrinate U website and buy the film for $15.

[Smallc]

It's about oppressively left wing dogma running rampant through campuses around the US.

Yes, it's funny how when people get higher education they seem to become less Conservative...........it must be indoctrination.......

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yes, it's funny how when people get higher education they seem to become less Conservative...........it must be indoctrination.......

Hahahaha. That's funny. You must be the only person left who still thinks a university is an unbiased venue of thought.

If you call a left leaning liberal arts education "higher education" that's one way of looking at the world. I have spent many years on campus earning my own degrees and have also spent many years in the "real world" with business people and income earners.

There is a reason why people become more conservative in their later years. It's because they no longer have the time to hang out in their dorm rooms smoking pot and listening to "Imagine".

Haven't you everheard the term "if you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart. if you're not a conservative when you're older, you have no brain."

Instead of sitting comfortably in your own preconceived world, why don't you open your mind and watch the film?

You tube it: Indoctrinate U

or watch the trailer here

http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html

Edited April 12, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[eyeball]

It's the appropriate mix that we keep struggling with, though.

I think Canada is still imbalanced.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/629185b2-3bf1-40...ribution-Canada

And here's another way of looking at it, world data:

1- Lower income - about 50% of the people together have about 2% of the wealth

2 - Middle income - about 48% of the people have about 58% of the wealth

3 - Higher income - about 2% of the people have about 40% of the wealth

http://www.esnips.com/doc/d7644f2a-0d98-44...ution_World_xlc

Yup ... bully corporatization, under the guise of 'free enterprise' ('free for me, not for you!') has done a number on wealth distribution, just like it was supposed to.

Needs to be rebalanced.

Central banks should probably pay even more attention to the growth rate of income gaps than inflation. The simple solution I suppose being more progessive taxes on higher income (although if corporations paid CEO's less they'd have more to invest on other things). Hopefully this should nip the human componant of corporate excess that leads to greed and the impact feeding that has on human rights. As for the rest of what constitutes a corporation and its activities we should be equally concerned about accounting for the environmental impacts of their consumption of resources and production of wastes.

Is capitalism better than socialism? Both will ultimately fail for the same reason so long as human beings are unable and unwilling to check the official corruption that enables so much of the excess that both are guilty of, so does it really matter which is better? Not in the least.

Edited April 12, 2009 by eyeball

[Smallc]

If you call a left leaning liberal arts education "higher education" that's one way of looking at the world.

See, you've already displayed your bias. You think that education is left leaning....maybe it is...but it seems there would be a reason....and yes, I do consider liberal arts to be higher education.

[Smallc]

And the trailers characterization of university turns out to be completely false...who could ever imagine?

[JerrySeinfeld]

And the trailers characterization of university turns out to be completely false...who could ever imagine?

have you watched the movie yet?

[Smallc]

have you watched the movie yet?

I've seen the trailer and it's already told me enough about what the movie is. It's a device put out to make conservatives hate higher education more than they already do....and it seems that it's working...unfortunately.

I went to university and had both liberal and conservative professors. There were more liberal ones than conservative ones, but as i said, that seems to come with higher education. In many classes, we were allowed to take any view we wanted to....some we weren't, because we were dealing with facts, and only in one did I feel uncomfortable because of the views the professor had.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Smallc

[benny]

If you want to know how come the best road to communism is capitalism and not socialism here a very good reference:

http://www.bepress.com/bis/vol1/iss1/

[JerrySeinfeld]

I've seen the trailer and it's already told me enough about what the movie is. It's a device put out to make conservatives hate higher education more than they already do....and it seems that it's working...unfortunately.

I went to university and had both liberal and conservative professors. There were more liberal ones than conservative ones, but as i said, that seems to come with higher education. In many classes, we were allowed to take any view we wanted to....some we weren't, because we were dealing with facts, and only in one did I feel uncomfortable because of the views the professor had.

Wow. for someone who claims to be interested in objective education you sure have a closed mind.

watch the movie before judging it.

holy.

[Smallc]

watch the movie before judging it.

I decided to watch the movie and I'm almost finished. Though there is some truth to it (there is some truth to everything) it blows things far out of proportion. We were always encouraged to share our views in Philosophy and History. Like I said, i've seen the type of professor that this film is talking about, but from my experience and the experience of others that I know, this type of professor is not in the majority...even if the majority are liberal.

[benny]

objective education

It is impossible to find an objective meaning to the word "better" in the question "Is Capitalism better than socialism?"

[bariboh]

I'm not sure if that poll is particularly useful; everyone has a different conception of what constitutes capitalism and what constitutes socialism. Is the welfare state capitalist or socialist? Is communism socialist? Are the respondants talking strictly about the economic systems or the political systems as well?

[benny]

I'm not sure if that poll is particularly useful; everyone has a different conception of what constitutes capitalism and what constitutes socialism. Is the welfare state capitalist or socialist? Is communism socialist? Are the respondants talking strictly about the economic systems or the political systems as well?

Minimally, capitalism is about private ownership of production means and socialism is about a wide pooling of some resources.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Minimally, capitalism is about private ownership of production means and socialism is about a wide pooling of some resources.

in a theoretical definition, yes. However the theoretical never takes into account the fact that a government program gets more and more inefficient and expensive year after year.

See: gun registry.

[BubberMiley]

in a theoretical definition, yes. However the theoretical never takes into account the fact that a government program gets more and more inefficient and expensive year after year.

The gun registry was indeed a debacle, but it is intellectually dishonest to apply that fiasco to all "government." Our society would not be what it is without "government." When private enterprise was unwilling or unable to make the investment, it has provided us with power utilities, roads, telephones, the internet that we are using now, schools, police, scientific research, blah, blah, blah. A lot of those programs have been very, very efficient and are the backbone to capitalism as a whole.

[benny]

in a theoretical definition, yes. However the theoretical never takes into account the fact that a government program gets more and more inefficient and expensive year after year.

See: gun registry.

The Peter principle (In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence) and Parkinson's law (Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion) apply to public as well as to private organizations.

Edited April 13, 2009 by benny

[Pliny]

Yes, it's funny how when people get higher education they seem to become less Conservative...........it must be indoctrination.......

I wouldn't roll my eyes up at that. They recognize they have the ability to influence the minds of others and engineer the affairs of society - directly affecting the affairs of others. Some even become intoxicated with their own self-importance and become very political. Socialism is for the masses not for them. They are the engineers of society after all - too important and intelligent to be constrained by the State - besides they designed that too.

[benny]

Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society, Harrow Books, 1972:

Learning is the human activity which least needs manipulation by others. (p.56)

School is not only the New World Religion. It is also the world's fastest-growing labor market. (p.66)

The alternative to school would be a network which gave each man the same opportunity to share his current concern. (p.28 )

Schools pervert the natural inclination to grow and to learn. (p.87)

Schools are socially addictive. Social addiction, or escalation, consists in the tendency to prescribe increased treatment if smaller quantities have not yielded the desired results. (p.80)

School is a system of regressive taxation: the value of a man's schooling is a fonction of the number of years he has completed and of the costliness of the schools he has attended. (p.88 )

It must not start with the question, “What should someone learn?” but with the question, “What kinds of things and people might learners want to be in contact with in order to learn?” (p.111)

A good educational system should have three purposes; it should provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives; empower all who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them; and, finally, furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenge known. (p.108)

It is difficult to abandon the idea that we have an obligation to the young, especially to the poor, an obligation to process them, whether by love or by fear, into a society which needs disciplined specialization as much from its producers as from its consumers. (p.97)