Distributism

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1075189' date='Sep 25 2006, 09:33 PM']
You're joking right? You would deny that the quality of products in the US is consistently getting worse?

And yes I think it is consistently used for morally impermissable purposes such as greed and taking advantage of others. Unfortunately those who are being taken advantage of are asking for it yes, but this doesn't make it right nonetheless.
[/quote]No I'm not joking.
What specific product do you reference. I know of none. I asked for one. You are just spouting 'urban legend'.

Please explain how capitalism is bing used consistently for morally impremissable purposes and explain that it is of a large enough occurence to dismiss capitalism as immoral.

And you think that a substanital number of people are unwitting morons that let themselves be taken advantage of. But you are smart enough to know better. Please give an example.

All you have provide so far is opinion with no defense, no basis in fact or reality. That is my challenge. I don't have to be twice your age or better educated to come up with that. I am asking questions that you are avoiding like a Budge.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1075219' date='Sep 25 2006, 11:00 PM']
No I'm not joking.
What specific product do you reference. I know of none. I asked for one. You are just spouting 'urban legend'. [/quote]
And I asked for one country where it works, and explanation of why. So far you haven't done that either. So I'm not sure you have much to complain about.

[quote]Please explain how capitalism is bing used consistently for morally impremissable purposes and explain that it is of a large enough occurence to dismiss capitalism as immoral.[/quote]

As soon as you answer mine I will answer yours. And if you don't want to answer mine then we'll just continue on like this as long as you care to keep going.

[quote]And you think that a substanital number of people are unwitting morons that let themselves be taken advantage of. But you are smart enough to know better. Please give an example.[/quote]

Again, answer my question and I will answer yours. I'm not letting you run this discussion as much as you might like to .

[quote]All you have provide so far is opinion with no defense, no basis in fact or reality. That is my challenge. I don't have to be twice your age or better educated to come up with that. I am asking questions that you are avoiding like a Budge.[/quote]
ouch pulling out the Budge . I repeat the same to you. Once you provide an actual explanation for your belief I will do the same. Until then, forget it.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1075159' date='Sep 25 2006, 08:12 PM']
I do disagree with your philosophical assumptions if you had read my post. Stick to the facts.[/quote]

I realize you don't agree with them. I was making a rhetorical point -- you could disagree with them but not with much justification. Sorry if you didn't pick up on that.

[quote]Who has to work all day just to avoid starvation in the US or an capitlisitic society? There are people that do, but ask why, how many. How would those people fare in other economic systems? Where are they better?[/quote]

For much of capitalism's history people have had to work laboriously just to avoid starvation. Sure, not as much so anymore in the U.S. but that is only because we have exported poverty to other countries. Besides, we don't live in a pure free market economy.

[quote]My main argument is not that I'm older, I'm trying to get you to look beyond theoretical 'ideals' that a book or teacher might say. Ask more questions and look for answers in the what's really happening now.
[/quote]

You seem to forget that what is now "practicable" was once an "ideal". I don't know why you are so distrustful of tracing practices back to their roots -- sounds like you are advocating intellectual apathy. Capitalism is in fact an idea and ideas have consequences and perhaps contrary to your thinking -- the ends don't justify the means.

But your stark constast of reality and ideas is typical of one who does not understand the connection. So, "for your education," capitalism does not exist in a void and your utilitarian prodding is hardly impressive.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1075225' date='Sep 25 2006, 10:13 PM']
And I asked for one country where it works, and explanation of why. So far you haven't done that either. So I'm not sure you have much to complain about.
As soon as you answer mine I will answer yours. And if you don't want to answer mine then we'll just continue on like this as long as you care to keep going.
Again, answer my question and I will answer yours. I'm not letting you run this discussion as much as you might like to .
ouch pulling out the Budge . I repeat the same to you. Once you provide an actual explanation for your belief I will do the same. Until then, forget it.
[/quote]
You made the statements first, g-child. I only asked you to back them up. I asked what your standard you want to use to measure success or failure so I can reply. You refuse. It's obvious you don't have any foundation to your stated opinion, so they will be ignored.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1075254' date='Sep 25 2006, 10:33 PM']
I realize you don't agree with them. I was making a rhetorical point -- you could disagree with them but not with much justification. Sorry if you didn't pick up on that.
For much of capitalism's history people have had to work laboriously just to avoid starvation. Sure, not as much so anymore in the U.S. but that is only because we have exported poverty to other countries. Besides, we don't live in a pure free market economy. [/quote]Let's discuss philosophical point and drop the darts.
[quote] You seem to forget that what is now "practicable" was once an "ideal". I don't know why you are so distrustful of tracing practices back to their roots -- sounds like you are advocating intellectual apathy. Capitalism is in fact an idea and ideas have consequences and perhaps contrary to your thinking -- the ends don't justify the means.[/quote]Let's explore the facts about that. Other regions are as blessed with natural resources as the US. The US did not become wealthy from exploiting other regions as much of colonial Europe did. It was capitolism that allowed people to exercise their free will that grew the economy. That is the boon of capitalism, it creates wealth by putting capitol to work by the populace. Economics is not a fixed sum endeavor that allocates fixed wealth. That is the failure of socialism and communism. Both are extremely inefficient at reallocating capitol to what meets societies needs and wants so they fail miserablly at creating wealth.

[quote]But your stark constast of reality and ideas is typical of one who does not understand the connection. So, "for your education," capitalism does not exist in a void and your utilitarian prodding is hardly impressive.
[/quote]And you are saying what?

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1075189' date='Sep 25 2006, 09:33 PM']
You're joking right? You would deny that the quality of products in the US is consistently getting worse?

And yes I think it is consistently used for morally impermissable purposes such as greed and taking advantage of others. Unfortunately those who are being taken advantage of are asking for it yes, but this doesn't make it right nonetheless.
[/quote]
You need to first clearly define your terms (what precisely do you mean by "capitalism"?), and then explain exactly what economic system you think is preferable, and give an example of this superior system working in the real world.
The facts are that people the U.S. and other "capitalist" countries enjoy higher standards of living overall than those with socialistic or other types of economies. (Even the much-touted socialism of Sweden has in reality proven a failure, with average incomes even among the poor considerably lower than in the U.S.) Unemployment and other problems are rampant in European countries with much socialistic regulation of business.
(And attempts by governments to control the economy have been miserable failures, as shown by Communism.)

And if the quality of goods manufactured in the U.S. is getting worse, this has nothing to do with capitalism. America had in fact a much [b]more[/b] capitalist and unregulated economy a hundred years ago than it does today. (Since FDR in the '30s, our country has become more and more socialistic in practice). If your grandparents complain that things aren't made like they used to, the older, better products they talk about would not have been made in some pre-capitalist society.

There are indeed problems with outsourcing by American companies (using cheap foreign labor, and buying cheap foreign goods at the expense of the American worker), and globalization, but that is another debate. One could place limits on foreign trade, without completely doing away with a "capitalist" economy.

"Capitalism" is usually used to refer to a free economy. The alternative is government regulation of various sorts. Experience has shown that the market works best without government interference. Greed and other human vices cannot be regulated out of existence by government action. Some injustice will exist under any system, and giving the government more power is not a cure, but creates ultimately more poverty and injustice for all.

Edited September 27, 2006 by Socrates

[Mercy me]

I have not said much here because I have am not familiar with the term "distributionism". I find this discussion quite interesting particularly since this is a new concept for me that ties into my degree field. I just don't see anything that shows me that this can work. I see gaps and discrepancies in what I am finding online. Anybody have any really good links that explain this?

Edited September 27, 2006 by Mercy me

[goldenchild17]

Alright, then let's start with this. Nothing more than a brief overview. But that much is enough to start with.



One of the most pressing needs in our world today is the call to discover an opportune remedy to the injustices pushed upon the vast majority of the working class today. Such people have been pushed aside by the insatiability of unchecked competition. It is this competition that has placed 39% of our nation’s wealth in the hands of only 1% of her citizens and as a result, gives to these same men virtually unimpeded power. For, as the saying goes, “money is power.” In a seemingly democratic country (more on this at another time), where every voice should be heard, how can we have let this happen? Is it fair, in a country based on fairness and equality of opportunity, that a few should be able to control the futures of the vast majority? Yes, as a people, we have been given the chance in this country to do our very best to advance ourselves as far as we can, to make and receive the very most out of life that is possible. However, this chance has been given to everybody who wants it. So then, how can one’s right to success override that same right of another? It follows that the advancement of one’s self must not come at the expense of another.

A prime example of such abuse is in the widespread practice of Capitalism through outsourcing. Outsourcing certainly has its benefits. It provides us with the ability to provide goods and services to the people at a very low price, and still be able to make substantial profit. With this it would seem that everybody wins. The people can receive their goods at an affordable rate, and the provider comes out ahead.

This innovation has made many companies extremely successful. However, they both have also caused problems of epic proportions. In sending work overseas, outsourcing has taken the jobs of many hard-working Americans. These people also have the right to better themselves, and do so by laboring for their companies. When their jobs are taken from them, they lose this opportunity. A country’s primary goal is to do everything in its power to protect and better provide for the well-being of its people and of the country. Outsourcing creates essentially the opposite effect. By sending jobs overseas, not only does a country lose many jobs for her people, but it gives many jobs to people in foreign lands. This is detrimental to the advancement of one’s country in favor of a foreign one. It has been found that “. . . 400,000—600,000 professional services and information sector jobs moved overseas in the past few years, accounting for about half of the total net job loss in the sector over the period . . . employment in U.S. software-producing industries fell by 128,000 jobs from 2000 to early 2004, while about 100,000 new jobs producing software for export to the U.S. were created in India over the same period of time.” (Shipping Jobs Overseas: How Real is the problem? 2006). One could continue in all sectors of employment and find similar results. Right there you can explain much of the purported drop in work for Americans. If in the last four years we have lost 128,000 jobs in software production alone, then where are these jobs going? India. We’re not losing them, we’re giving them away. We would not have such a high unemployment rate if companies would simply keep work here for Americans. Imagine just how much of the working-man’s salary is being lost. What is the effect? The few who are in leadership positions of big businesses thrive for the moment while the consumers of his products are getting, on average, poorer and poorer. As this continues it really makes no difference how cheap the product or service is, because as much as these things get cheaper, so to do the people get poorer for lack of jobs and lack of sufficient wages. It does not matter if you can provide goods at incredibly low rates if the people are getting equally poorer and thus are receiving no better a deal than if outsourcing never existed at all. The only one capitalism benefits is the provider. It fails to take into consideration the working-man, most of the country’s population, and it also does not recognize the smaller businesses that are also unable to compete due to an inability to provide goods and services at a rate as cheap as that of the larger corporations.

Outsourcing gives the illusion of being of such benefit to the worker who are given jobs in foreign countries. Such jobs are normally better than the ones the foreign workers would usually have. This, however, really does not mean very much as the bar is set so low in such places, China being the best example, that such comparison is faulty. These outsourced jobs are better that the ones overseas workers would normally find, but they are not much better. They conditions are still shockingly bad and the pay is still ridiculously low. Such jobs, instead of providing foreign countries with an example of what a decent job is, actually promote the horrible condition of employment in such places.

It is clear that such a concept has not worked to the advantage of the common good. We complain about the glaring disparity between the top 1% and the lower working-class, and yet this discrepancy is a direct result of the outsourcing crisis due to unbridled capitalism. How are we to treat this problem? How do we restore justice to the many, without thwarting one’s right to personal advancement? It seems capitalism has taken things just one step too far with outsourcing. Just how much money does one person need to have? Can we not tone it down just a little bit and still thrive? I believe so. If we did away with outsourcing, we regain all those many jobs that were lost, and thus regain a great deal of income for the average worker. In keeping the jobs in the country we would develop the skills of the people, which have greatly been lost when jobs go overseas, or into mass-production factories. With the improved economic situation of the working-class the sale of goods will rise, thus benefiting those who provide goods or services. Erasing outsourcing from the picture would put all businesses back on an even playing field and gives many smaller business the chance to keep themselves afloat, which once again contributes positively to the overall economic economy of everybody, not just that of a select few. This allows for all people in a society who want to, to better themselves and achieve the good life. Not to mention that bringing back jobs from places like China, will affirm a stronger stance against the horrible situation workers in that nation are placed under.

One should not at this time, that I am not advocating egalitarianism. An egalitarian principle would say that everyone is perfectly equal and as such all should receive material goods equally. This does not quite work, as all people are not exactly equal in their worth, or use, to the economy. A CEO does more for the economy than a store clerk and as such probably deserves a little more. The more you give, the more you receive as the saying goes. Some do not have the drive to succeed. These should not be rewarded in the way that the self-driven man is. This is why one must acknowledge a difference between equality and fairness. While every person does not have to be treated equally, everyone should in fact be treated with justice. It is not fair to allow an honest working man’s job to be taken away simply so that an already wealthy man an accumulate even more. However, this is exactly the purpose and result of Capitalism, especially through outsourcing. The point here is not to give everyone an equal amount of money or of anything else. The purpose is to allow for everyone to provide for himself and his family in the way he is best suited to do. There has always been an aristocracy and there always will be. But this upper class should stay at the top fairly, not by taking away another man’s means of sufficiency. This is why we must do away with the prevalent concept of Capitalism.

Instead, might one consider the economic theory of Distributism? For distributism is an economic system in which private property is well distributed, in which as many people as possible become owners. According to both Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, the purpose of private property is to allow a man to make a decent living for himself and his family through his service to society. If ones business supports oneself and his family, then what right does one have to build up his business so as to deprive others of the same means of supporting their own selves and their own families? This is what pure Capitalism, especially through outsourcing, does. Hillaire Belloc says, “The first great blow was the destruction of the Guilds, coupled with the seizure of collegiate property in all countries transformed by the Reformation, but most thoroughly and universally in England. This was followed up in England by a series of positive enactments of which that one called the Statute of Frauds was perhaps the chief instrument in destroying the English land-owning peasantry. The great efflorenscence of Capitalism came after all that bad work had been done, and was only made possible by that bad work.” (Sharp, 2006). G.K. Chesterton summarizes distributism by saying, “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists” (Distributism). It might be argued that distributism leaves no possibility for one to have more than another, thus making it no better than egalitarianism. However, this is not so. Again as Belloc notes, “It cannot be too much repeated and insisted upon that the idea of property does not comport equality in property — that mechanical ideal is contradictory of the personal quality attaching to property. It is not a bad but a good thing that rents, the dwelling house, the income from investment, and the rest, should be upon various scales, for such variety corresponds to the complex reality of human society (emphasis mine).” (Sharp, 2006). All that distributism promotes is that as many people as possible are given the chance to be in ownership and given the chance to provide for one’s own needs. Here is the essential difference between distributism and capitalism. While capitalism allows for the growth of wealth used for production (which in turn generates more wealth, and so on and so forth), distributism allows more people to accumulate wealth used for one’s well-being. One might ask how this looks in practice. It is no more than allowing the private business, take small family-owned operations as an example, to specialize in producing certain goods to those who need them. This practice existed in the Middle Ages with the use of guilds and also later on in the early years of America in the colonies and later the homesteads.

Distributism is the best way to ensure that the greatest number of people have a chance at a secure life in this world. Supporting the success of small private operations, such as farming, allows for everybody to establish a way of life for themselves by offering a service that they are most capable of. In the end, it is a major improvement upon Capitalism, which would put most of the wealth into the hands of a few by putting the vast majority of people out of business and out of work. Yet it does not necessitate an equal allocution of wealth to each individual, like socialism attempts to do, as everybody in their own practice has the opportunity to make what they will of it, good or bad. It is with this reasoning that capitalism and outsourcing, should be done away with, replaced with the economic model of distributism.

____________________________________________________________________
Distributism. (n.d.) Retrieved Apr. 12, 2006, from Wikipedia Web site: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism[/url].

Sharp, J. (2006). Capitalism and catholic economics. Retrieved Apr. 10, 2006, from Seattle Catholic Web site: [url="http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020906_Capitalism_and_Catholic_Economics.html"]http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_200..._Economics.html[/url].

Shipping jobs overseas: how real is the problem? (2006). Retrieved Apr. 15, 2006, from AFL-CIO Web site: [url="http://www.www.aflcio.org/issues/jobs/outsourcing_problems.cfm"]http://www.www.aflcio.org/issues/jobs/outs...ng_problems.cfm[/url]

[Anomaly]

g-child,
I guess the indoctrination goes well at the local high-school. You are just looking at superficials without depth.

-Wealth - 39% in the hands of 1%. Not everyone wants to be a business owner, and not every country has a thriving economy. Captialism GROWS wealth, not take it away from others. Even the poor in the US have a high standard of living and a high income compared to the rest of the world. Entrepeneurs grow their wealth, but in turn, wealth and prosperity is grown for the entire populace. The fact that the few risk takers benefit more is not bad when it is seen that the entire populace benefits. IT IS A FARIY TALE THAT IT IS DONE AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS. You can't even provide ancedotal evidence of that myth.

- Outsourcing - Is a GREAT thing. Capitalism is spreading it's econmic growth outside a nation's boundaries. The US does not have a hard time employing it's people. We have RECORD EMPLOYMENT while absorbing 10 million illegal workers and still outsource. I've had a hard time hiring people for years. Sorry about the luck of people who don't have jobs because they don't want to work. When I was unemployed a few years ago, there were plenty of jobs that I could have taken to make ends meet. I know lot's of people who have been temporarily unemployed. It's a matter of choice of what people are willing to do in the short term.

You speak of fairness and justice. You acknowledge that that those who work harder should be able to reap rewards. Capitalism is about opportunity and rewarding those who take advantage of that opportunity. It is pure spin, not fact, that Capitalism is set-up to only benefit the already rich. I am from an immigrant family. My spouse, cousins, in-laws, parents are almost all immigrants, or only 1st or 2nd generation Americans. Amongst us are blue collar, white collar professionals, mangers, business owners, entrepeneurs, laborors, etc. We don't have to look far to see and recognize the opportunities that Capitalism offers. Some of us have done better than others, but it isn't because we're all white and have english as our 1st language.

All societies struggle with applying 'Christian morals' within itself. An honest read of scripture shows those who work harder MAY get greater benefits. What is owed is the opportunity. Forced Governmental CONTROL of an economy has repeatedly been demonstrated to be a failure. Some governmental regulation along with the application of christian morality within the freedom of choice that is allowed in capitalism seemst to be working well.

ANY system can be taken advantage of those who want to. Even an indivual that runs a small business can be un-ethical. How does Distributism solve that. NONE of the posts here that have been anti-big business have been able to present an alternative to the competitive advantage garnered by economy of scale, nor have they shown they understand markets and realize the limits of large scale marketing. No business can provide Everything to Everybody All the Time.

g-child,
I'm still waiting for you to respond which product is now only available in lower quality because quality has been reduced solely by the cost savings of capitalism. Of the millions of products available in the US, there must be one, according to you. I can't think of any.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1076436' date='Sep 27 2006, 07:37 AM']
g-child,
I guess the indoctrination goes well at the local high-school. You are just looking at superficials without depth. [/quote]

I didn't go to a local high school. I've been through a variety of different school programs. Nice try though.

[quote]-Wealth - 39% in the hands of 1%. Not everyone wants to be a business owner, and not every country has a thriving economy. Captialism GROWS wealth, not take it away from others. Even the poor in the US have a high standard of living and a high income compared to the rest of the world. [/quote]

Compared to the rest of the word is certainly not saying much at all. Maybe it grows wealth. But nobody sees this growth except the upper echelon.

[quote]Entrepeneurs grow their wealth, but in turn, wealth and prosperity is grown for the entire populace. The fact that the few risk takers benefit more is not bad when it is seen that the entire populace benefits. IT IS A FARIY TALE THAT IT IS DONE AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS. You can't even provide ancedotal evidence of that myth.[/quote]

The fact that all of this wealth is concentrated in the hands of so few is evidence enough. Maybe there is more money, but it's circulated in such a small population so as to make it obsolete.

[quote]- Outsourcing - Is a GREAT thing. Capitalism is spreading it's econmic growth outside a nation's boundaries. The US does not have a hard time employing it's people. We have RECORD EMPLOYMENT while absorbing 10 million illegal workers and still outsource. I've had a hard time hiring people for years. Sorry about the luck of people who don't have jobs because they don't want to work. When I was unemployed a few years ago, there were plenty of jobs that I could have taken to make ends meet. I know lot's of people who have been temporarily unemployed. It's a matter of choice of what people are willing to do in the short term.[/quote]
So the fact that Americans are losing jobs doesn't bother you in the slightest? After all we're paying all the citizens of other countries. So it's all good right? Maybe you missed this part:

“. . . 400,000—600,000 professional services and information sector jobs moved overseas in the past few years, accounting for about half of the total net job loss in the sector over the period . . . employment in U.S. software-producing industries fell by 128,000 jobs from 2000 to early 2004, while about 100,000 new jobs producing software for export to the U.S. were created in India over the same period of time.”

Software production, professional and information services. These aren't exactly the cashier and janitorial positions that most people you refer to, who "don't want to work", would most likely encompass. It is very true that there are many many people who are too lazy to get a job. Which is why I don't believe an egalitarianism type of economy would work either, because laziness does not need to be rewarded. But taking this, only one example, we can see it's more than coincidence. 128,000 jobs lost in software production in America. At the exact same time 100,000 gained software production jobs in India. We didn't lose those jobs. We moved them to India. 100,000 Americans who were in the software production industry were out of work because their employers could make more money by providing cheaper products if they could pay Indians far less to do it.

[quote]You speak of fairness and justice. You acknowledge that that those who work harder should be able to reap rewards. Capitalism is about opportunity and rewarding those who take advantage of that opportunity. It is pure spin, not fact, that Capitalism is set-up to only benefit the already rich. I am from an immigrant family. My spouse, cousins, in-laws, parents are almost all immigrants, or only 1st or 2nd generation Americans. Amongst us are blue collar, white collar professionals, mangers, business owners, entrepeneurs, laborors, etc. We don't have to look far to see and recognize the opportunities that Capitalism offers. Some of us have done better than others, but it isn't because we're all white and have english as our 1st language.[/quote]

Who said anything about white and english? There is no need to make this into a racial or ethnic deal. I know many companies are led by non-white citizens, that should not factor into the equation at all. Yes some work extremely hard and are benefited by this by moving themselves into the upper echelon by taking over corporations. Fine. People should be able to work to their potential. But this cannot continue into taking advantage of their workers. When a worker is laid off simply because his boss can find cheaper work, in order make himself more money - this is going beyond the boundaries. People should not be kept from doing well for themselves. I never said that at all. I'm saying there's no need to be obsessive. As I already pointed out 39% of our wealth is in the hands of this 1%. That is far more than enough to make themselves a very good living. They could scale WAY back and still have enough to do well, and yet enable many more people to get by as well.

[quote]All societies struggle with applying 'Christian morals' within itself. An honest read of scripture shows those who work harder MAY get greater benefits. What is owed is the opportunity.[/quote]
In this we agree. People deserve what they earn. But your second sentence makes the point. People, all people, are deserving of the opportunity to do well. What they do with this opportunity is their own business. Capitalism, through outsourcing, takes away this opportunity for hundreds of thousands of Americans. This goes exactly against your principle that we are owed the opportunity. Capitalism even without outsourcing puts many businesses out of competition. About 9 out of 10 small businesses fail within the first year. How are they given the chance to compete when the big corporations have a lock-down on everything? The problem is not that we shouldn't be allowing people to do the best they can. The problem is that way too many companies are in competition trying to provide the same products to the same people. In this type of format there is only one outcome: One business comes out on top. It is impossible for all of the businesses to succeed if they are making the same products because consumers will logically buy the cheapest one. Instead companies should not be so global and should not be so diverse. Companies should stay local and provide one or few types of products. This way all the companies in an area can provide what they produce to the people in that area without fear of another company trying to outdo them. This is much like the guild system of the Middle Ages. You had your blacksmiths and your bakers and your cobblers. But there was usually only one or two in each locality. They all provided people with what they needed, and they all, all that tried anyways, succeeded.

[quote]Forced Governmental CONTROL of an economy has repeatedly been demonstrated to be a failure. Some governmental regulation along with the application of christian morality within the freedom of choice that is allowed in capitalism seemst to be working well.[/quote]
Just address the last section. That is my proposal.


[quote]ANY system can be taken advantage of those who want to. Even an indivual that runs a small business can be un-ethical. How does Distributism solve that. NONE of the posts here that have been anti-big business have been able to present an alternative to the competitive advantage garnered by economy of scale, nor have they shown they understand markets and realize the limits of large scale marketing. No business can provide Everything to Everybody All the Time.[/quote]
See my proposal above. I propose the exact OPPOSITE of providing everything to everybody. I propose business provide one or two quality products to the people in their immediate areas.

[quote]g-child,
I'm still waiting for you to respond which product is now only available in lower quality because quality has been reduced solely by the cost savings of capitalism. Of the millions of products available in the US, there must be one, according to you. I can't think of any.[/quote]

One word. Generic. Take your pick as to which kind. There are some that are fairly decent, but for the most part are all cheap knock-off's of a real product.

Of all the countries in the world, which capitalist country has a fairly equal distribution of wealth?

[Mercy me]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1076749' date='Sep 27 2006, 04:00 PM']
Of all the countries in the world, which capitalist country has a fairly equal distribution of wealth?
[/quote]

Let me get this straight, are you saying that the goal of distributionism is an equal distribution of wealth?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1076829' date='Sep 27 2006, 04:15 PM']
Let me get this straight, are you saying that the goal of distributionism is an equal distribution of wealth?
[/quote]

No. That was stated not so well. But I would say that in a good economic system the polarities of extremes between high and low incomes would naturally not be so high. Anomaly's position, as far as I can gather, is that capitalism is the best system. I guess it would be a good thing to ask what, Anomaly, defines an economic system as good? If it is that a few people can hog most of the money, then yes many countries would be running an effective economy. However, this is not a good enough definition of an effective economy for me.

I would say that a good economic system, whatever it may be, gives the highest number of people the freedom to do the best that they can. Whatever they choose to do with this opportunity is up to them. In which country has Capitalism effectively given most people the chance to succeed? I don't think there is one, because Capitalism is diametrically opposed to giving the opportunity to the masses. Yes it gives opportunity for some people to do well, but these people do well solely because the same opportunity is taken from others. You don't do something bad to one person simply in order to do good for another person.

But just as capitalism fails in this, egalitarianism or socialism takes it to the opposite extreme. In socialism people who do nothing are rewarded. This is not how things should be either. Distributism takes neither extreme.

Edited September 27, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1076749' date='Sep 27 2006, 02:00 PM']
Compared to the rest of the word is certainly not saying much at all. Maybe it grows wealth. But nobody sees this growth except the upper echelon.
The fact that all of this wealth is concentrated in the hands of so few is evidence enough. Maybe there is more money, but it's circulated in such a small population so as to make it obsolete.[/quote]Your own statistics, if they are accurate, disprove your statement. 61% of the wealth is not 90%. Beyond the proportions, what is the actual purchasing power that goes to the other 99%? Is it 90% of minimum living standard or is it 103% or 125%? If the top 1% get 50% of the profit and the 99% get the other 50% and the 99% are making 115% of a living wage, where is the huge problem? Reasonable discussion may be made to make adjustments to the system, but there is not the gravity to dispose of the economic system.

[quote]So the fact that Americans are losing jobs doesn't bother you in the slightest? After all we're paying all the citizens of other countries. So it's all good right? Maybe you missed this part:

“. . . 400,000—600,000 professional services and information sector jobs moved overseas in the past few years, accounting for about half of the total net job loss in the sector over the period . . . employment in U.S. software-producing industries fell by 128,000 jobs from 2000 to early 2004, while about 100,000 new jobs producing software for export to the U.S. were created in India over the same period of time.”

Software production, professional and information services. These aren't exactly the cashier and janitorial positions that most people you refer to, who "don't want to work", would most likely encompass. It is very true that there are many many people who are too lazy to get a job. Which is why I don't believe an egalitarianism type of economy would work either, because laziness does not need to be rewarded. But taking this, only one example, we can see it's more than coincidence. 128,000 jobs lost in software production in America. At the exact same time 100,000 gained software production jobs in India. We didn't lose those jobs. We moved them to India. 100,000 Americans who were in the software production industry were out of work because their employers could make more money by providing cheaper products if they could pay Indians far less to do it.[/quote]It doesn't bother me in the least that those jobs went to India. That entire country has a struggling economy and all those jobs employing people there goes a long way to growing their economy and lifiting the country out of destitution. The Americans who lost their jobs are certainly intelligent enough to get jobs elsewhere. Read labor statistics and see the lots of areas that too few educated people are filling the need of the local economy. Sure it's a hardship as these people are in transition, but it sure beats living in India. I've been unemployed before while being responsible for my family. I am not too proud to do any job that makes $$ while I searched for a job tha my skills could make a better living. I don't see a problem at all.

[quote]Who said anything about white and english? There is no need to make this into a racial or ethnic deal. I know many companies are led by non-white citizens, that should not factor into the equation at all. Yes some work extremely hard and are benefited by this by moving themselves into the upper echelon by taking over corporations. Fine. People should be able to work to their potential. But this cannot continue into taking advantage of their workers. When a worker is laid off simply because his boss can find cheaper work, in order make himself more money - this is going beyond the boundaries. People should not be kept from doing well for themselves. I never said that at all. I'm saying there's no need to be obsessive. As I already pointed out 39% of our wealth is in the hands of this 1%. That is far more than enough to make themselves a very good living. They could scale WAY back and still have enough to do well, and yet enable many more people to get by as well.[/quote]I brought up race and nationality because it wasn't a stonewall we could not overcome. You are making an assumption that 39% is unfair. God did not bestow us all equally with the same gifts. The limits of fairness is to live decently. If the other 99% have the opportunity to live decently with dignity, it should not matter if the 1% has 61% instead of 39%. You are assuming that teh 1% did not earn their 39%. Should athletes and movie stars only be able to make $1,000,000 a year maximum because they are non-essential and would be taking too much money without earning it? Think it through.


[quote]In this we agree. People deserve what they earn. But your second sentence makes the point. People, all people, are deserving of the opportunity to do well. What they do with this opportunity is their own business. Capitalism, through outsourcing, takes away this opportunity for hundreds of thousands of Americans. This goes exactly against your principle that we are owed the opportunity. Capitalism even without outsourcing puts many businesses out of competition. About 9 out of 10 small businesses fail within the first year. How are they given the chance to compete when the big corporations have a lock-down on everything? The problem is not that we shouldn't be allowing people to do the best they can. The problem is that way too many companies are in competition trying to provide the same products to the same people. In this type of format there is only one outcome: One business comes out on top. It is impossible for all of the businesses to succeed if they are making the same products because consumers will logically buy the cheapest one. Instead companies should not be so global and should not be so diverse. Companies should stay local and provide one or few types of products. This way all the companies in an area can provide what they produce to the people in that area without fear of another company trying to outdo them. This is much like the guild system of the Middle Ages. You had your blacksmiths and your bakers and your cobblers. But there was usually only one or two in each locality. They all provided people with what they needed, and they all, all that tried anyways, succeeded. [/quote]Your naivete shows. 9 out of 10 business fail because the majority of people don't know what they're getting into or fail to make the commitment. Sometimes it's luck, but I've been in business long enough to start my own company, fail, and succeed. I've helped others run their companies and have many family members that have their own companies. It's a cliche, but have you ever noticed how many middle easterns own convenience stores? Convenience stores sell convenience, not cheap goods. Different market that's not owned by WAl-Mart.

You obviously don't know much about business or economics. It's supply and demand. Just because you want to make a living selling hot-dogs near your house your next door neighborhood can decide to do the same thing and you have to take turns selling hot-dogs. What's up with that? There is a point of diminishing returns. People don't start a business if they don't intend to make money. If you want to sell hot dogs, go to a different area to fulfill a need or sell a better hot-dog or cheaper hot dog. Cheap doesn't always sell, value does. If people get more of what they want for the buck, they buy it. These are all such basic principles that shouldn't have to be explained to you. If you read somewhere that all the cobblers who started businesses in the middle ages succeeded, you were in the non-fiction section. Better cobblers had better customers. If people had more money, they may want nicer shoes if the guy is skilled enough. Competition is good.


[quote]Just address the last section. That is my proposal.
See my proposal above. I propose the exact OPPOSITE of providing everything to everybody. I propose business provide one or two quality products to the people in their immediate areas. [/quote]That limits people's choices. Tastes and local needs differ. Who wants to be a cobbler in a rural area if there is more business in an urban area. What if you are into making fancy women shoes and want to specialize in that? Does that mean you can't unless you make men's shoes too because there is only one other cobbler? Again, think it through.

[quote]One word. Generic. Take your pick as to which kind. There are some that are fairly decent, but for the most part are all cheap knock-off's of a real product.[/quote]Generic what? Generic cold remedies? What's the problem with that? You still haven't answered the question because you cannot.

[quote]Of all the countries in the world, which capitalist country has a fairly equal distribution of wealth?[/quote]Wrong question. The real question is, of all the economic models in the world, which economic model has provided the greatest improvement in the standard of living for the largest percentage of the populace?
Most people in Haiti are very poor. That's very equal. Is that better than the US?

[goldenchild17]

[b][quote]
Your own statistics, if they are accurate, disprove your statement. 61% of the wealth is not 90%. Beyond the proportions, what is the actual purchasing power that goes to the other 99%? Is it 90% of minimum living standard or is it 103% or 125%? If the top 1% get 50% of the profit and the 99% get the other 50% and the 99% are making 115% of a living wage, where is the huge problem? Reasonable discussion may be made to make adjustments to the system, but there is not the gravity to dispose of the economic system. [/quote][/b]

Care to explain what you're trying to say here? Because I'm missing the point. Maybe I'm just too stupid and naive to get it...

[b][quote]It doesn't bother me in the least that those jobs went to India. That entire country has a struggling economy and all those jobs employing people there goes a long way to growing their economy and lifiting the country out of destitution. The Americans who lost their jobs are certainly intelligent enough to get jobs elsewhere. Read labor statistics and see the lots of areas that too few educated people are filling the need of the local economy. Sure it's a hardship as these people are in transition, but it sure beats living in India. I've been unemployed before while being responsible for my family. I am not too proud to do any job that makes $$ while I searched for a job tha my skills could make a better living. I don't see a problem at all.[/quote][/b]

Okay well then here's the issue. A country's economic system's primary priority is to provide advancement for itself, not that of another country. But according to you a good economic theory is to take work and money from it's people and give it to someone else?


Let's go over the numbers again real quick. In the US:

% of US Population % of Wealth Owned
==========================================================
Top 1% 38.1%
Top 96-99% 21.3%
Top 90-95% 11.5%
Top 80-89% 12.5%
Top 60-79% 11.9%
General 40-59% 4.5%
Bottom 40% 0.2%

This is as of 1998. New York University Economics Professor Edward N. Wolff.

This tells us much more of the story than whatever numbers you were trying to show although I'd still appreciate an explanation of what those numbers meant.

Not only is 38 percent of all the wealth in the hands of 38 percent, but a whopping [b]4.7%[/b] percent is distributed among 60% percent of the population. And 40% of that is given to only .2%. That is absolutely ridiculous.
[b]

[quote]I brought up race and nationality because it wasn't a stonewall we could not overcome. You are making an assumption that 39% is unfair. God did not bestow us all equally with the same gifts. The limits of fairness is to live decently. If the other 99% have the opportunity to live decently with dignity, it should not matter if the 1% has 61% instead of 39%. You are assuming that teh 1% did not earn their 39%. Should athletes and movie stars only be able to make $1,000,000 a year maximum because they are non-essential and would be taking too much money without earning it? Think it through.[/quote][/b]

Okay so 40% percent of the population recieving .2% of the wealth is within the limits of fairness? Who said I assume the 1% did not earn that 39%? I certainly never said that. I did say that they are earning it at the expense of the rest of the population, and these numbers show that. Athletes and movie stars and musicians make way more money than they should. What's your point? People in this country put way too much emphasis on entertainment and it shows in their salary.


[b][quote]Your naivete shows.[/quote] [/b]

Yes, I am nothing more than a stupid little college student who has no real experience with what we're talking about. I understand that and you have made that more than clear. How about moving past that and addressing things?

[b]
[quote]9 out of 10 business fail because the majority of people don't know what they're getting into or fail to make the commitment. Sometimes it's luck, but I've been in business long enough to start my own company, fail, and succeed. I've helped others run their companies and have many family members that have their own companies. It's a cliche, but have you ever noticed how many middle easterns own convenience stores? Convenience stores sell convenience, not cheap goods. Different market that's not owned by WAl-Mart.[/quote][/b]

Yes, because they can't afford to sell things cheaper than Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has a monopoly on cheap items. Which is why they have skyrocketed far above these convenience stores. The comparison of success between a walmart and a convenience store doesn't even come close to comparing.

[b]
[quote]You obviously don't know much about business or economics.[/quote][/b]
Again, you have made yourself very clear. How many more times would you care to point this out? It serves no purpose. No matter how many times you try to put me down, I'm not going away. So deal with me, or forget the discussion.


[b] [quote]It's supply and demand. Just because you want to make a living selling hot-dogs near your house your next door neighborhood can decide to do the same thing and you have to take turns selling hot-dogs. What's up with that? There is a point of diminishing returns. People don't start a business if they don't intend to make money. If you want to sell hot dogs, go to a different area to fulfill a need or sell a better hot-dog or cheaper hot dog. Cheap doesn't always sell, value does. If people get more of what they want for the buck, they buy it. These are all such basic principles that shouldn't have to be explained to you. If you read somewhere that all the cobblers who started businesses in the middle ages succeeded, you were in the non-fiction section. Better cobblers had better customers. If people had more money, they may want nicer shoes if the guy is skilled enough. Competition is good.[/quote][/b]

The problem with this is that people cannot compete when monopolies are formed. If one or two companies can provide all that anyone could ever need, then this makes everybody else obsolete. Hence the distribution of wealth as it stands today.


[b][quote]That limits people's choices. Tastes and local needs differ. Who wants to be a cobbler in a rural area if there is more business in an urban area. What if you are into making fancy women shoes and want to specialize in that? Does that mean you can't unless you make men's shoes too because there is only one other cobbler? Again, think it through.[/quote][/b]

No, specialization is exactly the point. Specialization is good. If someone wants to make men's shoes, fine. If someone else wants to make women's shoes, again okay. The problem is when people try to take over doing everything and leave nothing for others to produce.

[b]
[quote]Generic what? Generic cold remedies? What's the problem with that? You still haven't answered the question because you cannot.[/quote][/b]

Start with furniture. Go to a specialization shop and to wal-mart. You will deny it, no doubt, but quality is no comparison.

[b]
[quote]Wrong question. The real question is, of all the economic models in the world, which economic model has provided the greatest improvement in the standard of living for the largest percentage of the populace?[/quote][/b]

Well according to the statistics provided above, capitalism surely can't fit that model. The largest percentage of people, 40%, are recieving .2% of the wealth. That is staggeringly far from providing the greatest standard of living for the highest number of people.

[b][quote]
Most people in Haiti are very poor. That's very equal. Is that better than the US?[/quote][/b]

And this relates how? You need to find an economic model in existence that I approve of, ie distributism, and compare that. Far as I know Haiti is far from a distributist country. Why would I care how Haiti compares?

Edited September 28, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Anomaly]

You don't get it. I answered your questions. What difference does it make how much 1% owns if 100% of those capable of working can earn an above subsistenence living.

America has all the jobs it needs and our economy can employ people in other countries. What's wrong with that? As a Christian, a little charity in letting others have decent paying jobs should be considered a good thing.

I swear you must be in high school since you can't grasp the difference between equal wealth and equal opportunity to make a halfway decent living. Name one Country where it's more likely a hardworking intelligent soul can honestly make a better living than in the US