Radical politics?

[Jason Lee]

That's the efficiency of capitalism. By uplifting the total wealth available to a society, you uplift more members of that society

Hey, look, trickle down economics.

Heh.  Here I read almost two pages and thought I was going to get a chance to say that.

Trickle down economics is, apparently, founded on the mistaken assumptions that wealth is the primary determining factor of standard of living, that the wealthy will spend every extra cent they earn, and that the wealth will be redistributed to the local economy it came from.

In my opinion, knowledge (education, technology and communication) and disease control (sanitation and medicine) have a far greater impact on standard of living than capital.  I'd argue that fire, agriculture and the wheel improved early man's standard of living much more than trade of pots.  As the trade of information does not require one to gain at the expense of another, the laws of economics do no apply.  Knowledge and disease control are historically best distributed to the masses by public projects, not private interests.

Also, an increase in centralized wealth does not equate one to one with the distribution of that wealth to the lower class.  I would actually imagine that much of the wealth gained is distributed among the other wealthy.  Free capitalism is regulated by supply and demand, right?  If there is no demand for a higher standard of living for the labor force (the labor force has a sufficient standard of living to do the needed work), then there is no supply.  

One might say that because the wealthy need people to purchase their goods they must therefore provide enough wealth to enable the labor force to purchase their goods, or else their income source will dry up.  That is only true if they don't ship their goods elsewhere.

[Jason Lee]

As for Cuba, here are some random figures... make up your own mind.

(These are pulled from The CIA World Factbook.  There are a bunch more figures, I just grabbed some interesting ones that are listed in percentages.)

USA:
Death Rate: 8.44 deaths/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Infant Mortality: 6.75 deaths/1,000 live births
Life Expectancy: 77.14 years
HIV Adult Prevalence: 0.6% (2001 est.)

GDP Growth Rate: 2.4% (2002 est.)
Inflation Rate: 1.6% (2002)
Industrial Production Growth Rate: -0.4% (2002 est.)

Cuba:
Death Rate: 7.38 deaths/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Infant Mortality: 7.15 deaths/1,000 live births
Life Expectancy: 76.8 years
HIV Adult Prevalence: less than 0.1% (2001 est.)

GDP Growth Rate: 1.1% (2002 est.)
Inflation Rate: 7.1% (2002 est.)
Industrial Production Growth Rate: 0.2% (2001 est.)

[greyorm]

First off if "money talks" that is the opposite of class system because class becomes irrelavent.

Note, I didn't say "caste", I said "class" (ie: lower, middle, upper). Money becomes the defining feature of class. If you don't agree with or understand this fact of modern living, there's not enough common ground to even discuss the issue.

Second, I know a great many people who would disagree with the statement that hard work doesn't equal anything.   I appreciate that you have had your experience, but I have had mine and they are equally valid.

To prove me wrong you would have to prove that hard work does, without fail, equal survival and wealth. This is demonstratably not the case. Hard work does not always, or even almost always, equal success.

Trickle down is raising the wealth of the already wealthy in the hopes that it will filter downwards. Ralph is talking about all members of society benefiting from higher levels of wealth.

Unh...that is exactly what he is talking about.

And it doesn't benefit all members of society -- notably the poor (those in whom capital investment would equal less overall profit to the system) are left behind because supporting them would, in fact, reduce the future standard of living for everyone.

Please tell me how that is "everyone"?

On one hand you are saying self interest is bad, yet on the other you say that you don't like capitalism because it hasn't helped you

Let me be clear: what I'm against is self-interest to the exclusion of others, which is precisely what capitalism promotes (charity reduces the capital available to the society, by diverting it from its most productive venues). Self-interest will always play a role, because everyone means everyone, including the self.

To say that capitalism would work in a perfect world is ridiculous because it has worked, in this world.

Yes, I'd noticed the poor, huddled masses had just vanished the other night, social inequality disappeared, and everyone was surviving just fine...

Communism has failed because it is a seriously flawed theory that is based on sentimentality and fear.

Russia and China are not communist...they are socialist. There have been numerous successful communist communities -- a large number of Native American tribes survived successfully until European colonization of America governed in a fashion that would today be categorized as communist (ie: communal living).

Yet that choice amounts to Forcing others to play by their rules.

Like I said in the political thread, about taxes...when the benefits of society are available to an individual, the individual had better be available to benefit society. If they don't like the society, they're free to go live in the woods somewhere and do everything for themself.

Otherwise, I don't see what you are advocating? Getting everything the society gives, but not returning anything, or very little? That's what I see people who bitch about taxes like: "Oh, I'll DRIVE on your public roads, but I sure won't pay for them!"

Besides, in order for society to function, everyone has to be forced to play by certain rules (no drinking and driving, no killing, no stealing, etc). That's what makes it a society, and not an anarchy.

Under a communist system your freedom to trade your skills, time or products has been taken away from you.

That's a socialist system, Brendan. Don't confuse the two.

[joshua neff]

Besides, in order for society to function, everyone has to be forced to play by certain rules (no drinking and driving, no killing, no stealing, etc). That's what makes it a society, and not an anarchy.

Just a minor clarification--"no rules" is not anarchy. Anarchy is "no government," which is not the same thing as "no rules." Every anarchist I know is big on rules--as long as they are agreed upon by all equally, in a nonhierarchical way. Anarchy is...well, it's the gaming group, right? No one person or group of people is in charge. At least, not in any group I've ever gamed in. Everything is agreed upon through social contract. That's anarchy.