Distributism

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1078099' date='Sep 28 2006, 01:34 PM']
Maybe you could do your own research... So far I'm the only one in this discussion that has provided any support whatsoever. You just expect me to take you at your word and, frankly, that's not going to happen. Yes, the U.S. is better than most other countries. However this doesn't make any comparison because capitalism and socialism are pretty much all that exists. So it means nothing at this point. Again, even if it did work, that doesn't make it right.
Well that's a big part of it for me. So unless you want to start providing at least some sort of data, which up to now you haven't, then I'll take their word over yours any day.
Again, all words no data. Back it up with something please. You call them facts, where are these facts that you speak of? The fact is, is that in the US, which is a capitalist nation, there is undoubtedly a lot of money. However this money is not making it's way over 60 percent of the population. Now, it is certainly a fact that the poor in our country are richer than people in other countries. So now with all of these points we need to contruct a reason for this. Just because there is more money doesn't mean it's all well and good if there is this much disparity of it's distribution.
I don't care if it's a problem of capitalism or a problem of socialism. Their both bad if you ask me.



Yep after all hundreds of thousands of people chose to be laid off so their jobs could go out of country. And yeah of course small businesses are all for the big corporations taking over and buying them out so they can't compete. There is anything but free will going on here.
Explain. I still fail to see how "some" government intervention is a bad thing. Not that much is needed, but it needs to be there. People simply aren't good by nature, something needs to be in place to see that things go as they should. I understand that you aren't Catholic, I don't know what you believe or don't believe, but Scripture tells us that the government is put in place by God and we are to listen to them unless they tell us to do something sinful. No government is anarchy, too much government is slavery. There needs to be a balance.

Now, you bring up some interesting points. However facts would be a nice addition to your argument. Statistics, references from people who mean anything to me, facts from history, something would be nice.
By taking advantage of probably thousands of other people.
Exactly which is why Capitalism absolutely cannot be in place. Capitalism takes away the opportunity for so many people, and leaves options for only the few who are willing to step on others to get it.

Distributism is not for no capitalists. It is for MORE capitalists. Capitalism fails because their are not enough of them. Distributism gives the "opportunity to meet your needs" as you say, to more people than Capitalism.
[/quote]
You don't supply any facts, just conjecture while living with the benefits of a great economy. You just look at superficials with no depth. 40% of the wealth going to 5% is meaningless without context. 60% of the wealth is still being distributed to others. Are others in the US generally below subsistience earning? The jobs going overseas are not jobs that the US desperately needs because we have extremeley low employemnt which means our economy grew and created other jobs. Economies are dynamic, not static.

You haven't demonstrated ANYTHING that shows capitalism takes away opportunity. Distribution of 40% of the wealth does not show that. You're an 'honors student', you can think critically. You make claims that aren't reasonable. If you could show that the percentage of population that earn less than subsistience income in capitalist economies increase, you'd have a starting point. If you could then identify (with reasons) what aspects of capitalism cause that, you'd make your point and I'd be wrong. As it is, you point to smoke and say 'see, the forest is burning'. You over reach the cause of an observation.

You made the assertations that capitalism holds people down, removes opportunity, makes people poorer, makes products shoddier, and cannot support it with reason or data. Yet I've got to prove the smoke you see isn't a forest fire when reason and logic already don't support your conclusion.

Let's talk about the distribution of wealth. Increasing one's wealth is having surplus beyond what you need to survive. Before condeming an economic system, you have to look at things with logic.
-How much income does the person get?
-How much expense does the person have?
-How much of that expense is for NEED (not luxuries)?
-Historically, how has income & need expense increased as adjusted for inflation?
-What is the net gain or loss of excess income?
-If there is excess income, what is done with it? Is it invested in a home, a business, education, or in consumer goods and services?

If the extra $$ is just spent on consumer goods, is the problem an economic problem of capitalism, or is it a moral problem with people being materialistic?

Let's leave appropriate government intervention on the shelf for now. That's another factor we can leave for later while we explore the above with some reason and logic.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]You don't supply any facts, just conjecture while living with the benefits of a great economy. You just look at superficials with no depth. 40% of the wealth going to 5% is meaningless without context. [/quote]

No no. .2% of the wealth going to 40% of the population. Far different from what you're saying.


[quote] 60% of the wealth is still being distributed to others.[/quote]

Again you're reading the numbers wrong. 98.8% of the wealth, going to 60% of the people.

That's like, out of a dollar, almost 99 cents going to 60%, while less than a cent goes to 40%. Not only that but breaking it down further we see that the top 4% of Americans recieve half of all cashflow. In a perfectly distributed country (which I would not advocate at all as it is also unfair - socialism) out of a dollar, each percent of people would recieve one cent. Instead, 4% of people, instead of recieving 4 cents, or even 6 or 7 or 8, actually get 50 cents of that dollar. And one percent of these people take 38% of that.

So no. 60% of the wealth is NOT being distributed to others. 60% of the PEOPLE get .2% of the money.

[quote]Are others in the US generally below subsistience earning? The jobs going overseas are not jobs that the US desperately needs because we have extremeley low employemnt which means our economy grew and created other jobs. Economies are dynamic, not static.[/quote]

It seems that there are a few more jobs being created. Where they are at I'm not sure though. But I will posit a guess, these jobs that you speak of are in the lower echelons of the workforce.

Take these stats and compare:

All data taken from 2000-2005:

1,678 jobs have been added for an increase of 1.3% increase in job totals. This is all well and good. But what does this translate into?

The median household income has dropped: -1,273 or -2.7%.

So while there are more jobs. There is less money, meaning people are making less. Contrary to what you have been saying.

And this is an interesting number:

The number of people going into poverty in this country has jumped 5,369 people, a staggering 17%.

How about bankruptcy?

822,967 increase - 68.4% increase in personal bankruptcy filings.

So yes, while it seems more jobs are being "created" to fill the numbers, it clearly has not translated into better economic stability for the country as a whole.

[quote]You haven't demonstrated ANYTHING that shows capitalism takes away opportunity.[/quote]

Creating jobs doesn't really help if it's not bringing more wealth to the American person. As the statistics show above, there are more jobs. But clearly they are not bringing in more wealth. Whenever you lay somebody off for no reason except to better your own self needlessly you are taking away their opportunity.


[quote]Distribution of 40% of the wealth does not show that. You're an 'honors student', you can think critically. You make claims that aren't reasonable. If you could show that the percentage of population that earn less than subsistience income in capitalist economies increase, you'd have a starting point.[/quote]

Start with the statistic I gave above: The number of people going into poverty in this country has jumped 5,369 people, a staggering 17%

In America, poverty is normally equated with the subsistience level.


[quote]If you could then identify (with reasons) what aspects of capitalism cause that, you'd make your point and I'd be wrong. As it is, you point to smoke and say 'see, the forest is burning'. You over reach the cause of an observation.[/quote]

Things must always be taken in steps. Let's identify if there is a problem before trying to find out the cause of the problem. I'm saying there is a problem because just in the last 5 years (I haven't looked much to see what it is further back than that) the poverty level has increased 17 percent. That's a problem.

[quote]You made the assertations that capitalism holds people down, removes opportunity, makes people poorer, makes products shoddier, and cannot support it with reason or data. Yet I've got to prove the smoke you see isn't a forest fire when reason and logic already don't support your conclusion.[/quote]

Umm I'm not sure what you consider data. I've been providing numbers this whole time. I'd like to see numbers to the contrary if you have them.

[quote]Let's talk about the distribution of wealth. Increasing one's wealth is having surplus beyond what you need to survive. Before condeming an economic system, you have to look at things with logic.
-How much income does the person get?
-How much expense does the person have?
-How much of that expense is for NEED (not luxuries)?
-Historically, how has income & need expense increased as adjusted for inflation?
-What is the net gain or loss of excess income?
-If there is excess income, what is done with it? Is it invested in a home, a business, education, or in consumer goods and services?

If the extra $$ is just spent on consumer goods, is the problem an economic problem of capitalism, or is it a moral problem with people being materialistic?

Let's leave appropriate government intervention on the shelf for now. That's another factor we can leave for later while we explore the above with some reason and logic.[/quote]

Good questions. Let's go over the data above and see how it fits first. Yes I know it won't answer all of your questions just yet.

Edited September 28, 2006 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

Not to mention that the cost of 4-year public colleges has risen

$3,166 - 38.3%

This makes it kind of hard for people with less money to start out to get a fair shot at an education that would give them a chance to compete. So then it becomes a circular series of events.

[Anomaly]

I had come up with statistics and tried to post them with an edit it wouldn't take. They fly in the face of what you have.
Per the US Census Bureau, poverty rate has gone down and is around 11% currently. In 1950 (when these statistics started to be tracked yearly instead of 10 years) the rate was 30%. There were blips in the late 80's and 90's due to market forces. The 17% you have is bogus.

Go back and clean up your statistics in your post. I believe you have some typos regarding the % of income being distributed. But again, I challenge you with statistics that show an increase of poverty rate. Being able to keep or grow wealth is also dependent upon taxation, intrest rates, and government policies, not just the economic system. Hong Kong is a prime example of this fact.

The numbers that show the decrease in the poverty rate shows that people are not being held down by capitalism. The fact that those who have more gain more is not the complete question. The extreme rich have more money to invest while the middle class is not investing their excess money, but spends it. The choice to spend it is not captialism, but a choice of society. We are free to use our wealth in any manner we please. Keep a car for a few years after it's paid for, or buy a new one because you can afford it. Is that captialism's fault. Free markets would react to people keeping their cars longer and invest the money elsewhere where it could grow. Is the fact that Ford is closing many plants an laying off 75,000 workers a problem caused by capitalism, or are other factors, such as the cost of oil from OPEC, lack of oil refining capacity, and wars in the Middle East causing gas prices to rise a bigger factor?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1078190' date='Sep 28 2006, 03:48 PM']
Not to mention that the cost of 4-year public colleges has risen

$3,166 - 38.3%

This makes it kind of hard for people with less money to start out to get a fair shot at an education that would give them a chance to compete. So then it becomes a circular series of events.
[/quote]Why has it risen? Could it be a factor that a larger % of the population attend college now and there is a market for more expensive schools, facilities, etc? Is the cost of lodging included in that? Is it because people have more money and are willing to invest more in college? $8,000 for a year of college is a ton of money. My daughter's tuition and a large state university with excellent science, education, and medical colleges, is less than $4,000 per year. Where's the disconnect? Would it be nice if she could go away and live on campus? Sure. Is it necessary? No. Spending the extra money was a choice we decided to not do. She could have gone to other schools, gotten the same education, and paid lot's more money but it was a choice we made not to do.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]I had come up with statistics and tried to post them with an edit it wouldn't take. They fly in the face of what you have. Per the US Census Bureau, poverty rate has gone down and is around 11% currently. In 1950 (when these statistics started to be tracked yearly instead of 10 years) the rate was 30%. There were blips in the late 80's and 90's due to market forces. The 17% you have is bogus.[/quote]

Source:

U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Poverty Tables, "Table 21. Number of Poor and Poverty Rate, by State: 1980 to 2004." U.S. data: U.S. Census Bureau, "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003, Table B-1. Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2004"

U.S. Census Bureau, "POV46: Poverty Status by State: 2005, Below 100% and 125% of Poverty -- All Ages."

Those are my sources. I don't make stuff up because I feel like it.

[quote]Go back and clean up your statistics in your post. I believe you have some typos regarding the % of income being distributed.[/quote]
Provide another source then. This is mine:

U.S. Census Bureau, "Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2005."

Those are the numbers it shows. But I understand if numbers don't sound right, after all it would totally not work with your hypothesis. So the numbers must be wrong... See, now that's the exact opposite approach to take. In my astronomy class we are forced to apply the scientific method to all of our research. We have to take the data and construct a theory from that. Not take our theory and try to make data fit it in some way.

[quote]But again, I challenge you with statistics that show an increase of poverty rate.[/quote]

I already have. It's up to you to show these stats incorrect. I'm not going to lay down and simply agree with you. You need to show how my data is wrong. Simply saying it's wrong and leaving it at that is just not good enough.

[quote]Being able to keep or grow wealth is also dependent upon taxation, intrest rates, and government policies, not just the economic system. Hong Kong is a prime example of this fact.[/quote]

Yes. But this is in the explanation phase. We need to agree on the numbers before we can explore why these numbers are the way they are. Apparently you dispute my stats. So we can't go into why these stats are the way they are until we resolve which stats are actually correct. But yes, we must get to this if we are to understand the problem.


[quote]The numbers that show the decrease in the poverty rate shows that people are not being held down by capitalism.[/quote]

What numbers? Mine show an increase of 17% in just the last 5 years, not a decrease at all. I'm not taking your word for it. Show me how my data is wrong.


[quote]The fact that those who have more gain more is not the complete question. The extreme rich have more money to invest while the middle class is not investing their excess money, but spends it. The choice to spend it is not captialism, but a choice of society. We are free to use our wealth in any manner we please. Keep a car for a few years after it's paid for, or buy a new one because you can afford it. Is that captialism's fault. Free markets would react to people keeping their cars longer and invest the money elsewhere where it could grow. Is the fact that Ford is closing many plants an laying off 75,000 workers a problem caused by capitalism, or are other factors, such as the cost of oil from OPEC, lack of oil refining capacity, and wars in the Middle East causing gas prices to rise a bigger factor?[/quote]


All of these are things to consider. But again you are in the explanation phase. We are not there yet because we don't agree on the numbers. I say poverty has increased, median wealth has decreased, bankruptcies have increased, cost of college tuition has increased. You disagree it seems, so we need to work through that first.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1078204' date='Sep 28 2006, 05:07 PM']
Why has it risen? Could it be a factor that a larger % of the population attend college now and there is a market for more expensive schools, facilities, etc? Is the cost of lodging included in that? Is it because people have more money and are willing to invest more in college? $8,000 for a year of college is a ton of money. My daughter's tuition and a large state university with excellent science, education, and medical colleges, is less than $4,000 per year. Where's the disconnect? Would it be nice if she could go away and live on campus? Sure. Is it necessary? No. Spending the extra money was a choice we decided to not do. She could have gone to other schools, gotten the same education, and paid lot's more money but it was a choice we made not to do.
[/quote]


Total 4 year college costs: $3,166 38.3%



Source:
1. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS),"Fall Enrollment" and "Institutional Characteristics" surveys, Table 317.--Average undergraduate tuition and fees and room and board rates paid by full-time-equivalent students in degree-granting institutions, by control of institution and by state: 1999-2000 and 2000-01.

2. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Table 314. Average undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board charged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, by type and control of institution and state or jurisdiction: 2002-03 and 2003-04.

3. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 and 2004-05 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2003, Fall 2004, and Spring 2004, Table 313. Average undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board charged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, by type and control of institution and state or jurisdiction: 2003-04 and 2004-05.

4. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Table 313. Average undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board charged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, by type and control of institution and state or jurisdiction: 2003-04 and 2004-05. 2004-05 data are preliminary.

_______________________________________________________

4 year tuition costs:

$1,689 50.4%

Also from US dept of education.




At this point we aren't figuring out WHY, we just need to come to an agreement on what the numbers are.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1077902' date='Sep 28 2006, 09:45 AM']
What does that have to do with the reality of today? Is it a policy of capitalism or was it a cultural/socio phenomenon. The US isn't taking countries away from people now, are they?
You equate captialism as a commandment to be rich. That's a falsehood. Captialism can thrive quite well with christian principles, they aren't at odds. God blesses people with material wealth too, money isn't a crime.

Following the line of your argument, murder has been committed in the name of Christianity. Is that a symptom of christianity or a cultural/socio phenom?

Hmmm.
[/quote]

Do I need to remind you that you are the one who brought up the issue of imperalism and territorial expansion? I just pointed out the simple fact that the US had enough land and resources on its hands without colonizing Africa or Latin America.

There is no need to turn a blind eye to history since history tells us almost everything we need to know about where we came from (and chances are where we are now and might be likely to go).

Also, I am not equating capitalism with the commandment to be rich -- that is just what history and its players have done.

And just because we have exported and out-sourced the ugly side of capitalism to another part of the world doesn't make it right.

[quote]The US isn't taking countries away from people now, are they?[/quote]

That would imply that they gave the countries back! Well I guess that is the case if you believe in Indian reservations.

Again, I am not saying capitalism is inherently evil or couldn't be in line with Christian ethics. I am just saying from a historical perspective this hasn't really been the case and presently I am suspicious as well.

[Anomaly]

g-child,
Go with the poverty rate. To be fair, let's go with families. Disintergration of the family is a sociological, not economical phenom. Two parent families are more financially stable than single parents. The divorce rate and morality causes more singel parent families which decrease their wealth and financial stability. Still, with this link [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html"]http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html[/url] to the US Census Bureau, the poverty rate for families went from over 18% in 1959 to 12.5 in 2004. I consider the Census Bureau as non-partisan.

I thought another link from the Us Census Bureau [url="http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p60-203.pdf"]http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p60-203.pdf[/url] would be helpful. This is a report analyzing 50 years of income data. Please note the poverty section (around page 45) that shows that poverty levels for all races and ages have decreased EXCEPT for children and single parent households. That's a telling statistic. It's not capitalism, but divorce lawyers and unwed mothers and irresponsible fathers that are increasing poverty.

Median incomes have steadily risen, though, with governemnt intervention, the rate of increase has slowed.



Justified,
Get a grip. You brought it up, not me, by calling Americans 'expansionists' and characterizing them as saying taking resources from the indians was their 'obedience to the commandment to be rich'. Discuss this with us without hysterical stereotyping.

Another thing I'd like to point out. (reference g-child's post of today, 1:34pm) Most people are good and have a decent nature. Sometimes they take the easy way out, but that's not the fault of the system. If people are naturally 'not good' then who are you to think you are better than them?

Edited September 29, 2006 by Anomaly

[goldenchild17]

[quote]Go with the poverty rate. To be fair, let's go with families. Disintergration of the family is a sociological, not economical phenom. Two parent families are more financially stable than single parents. The divorce rate and morality causes more singel parent families which decrease their wealth and financial stability.[/quote]

What you say is true. However to be fair we have to consider all those in poverty. To take only families leaves out a significant portion. I consider things such as divorce rate and morality as totally irrelevant to the discussion to be honest, because these things are going to exist regardless of either distributism or capitalism. So it cancels it out. This being the case poverty rates in both a capitalist system and a distributism will both go down equally. Things that are part of the equation that you have mentioned otherwise should be the focus.

[quote]Still, with this link [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html"]http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html[/url] to the US Census Bureau, the poverty rate for families went from over 18% in 1959 to 12.5 in 2004. I consider the Census Bureau as non-partisan.[/quote]
Well it's good that we both consider the Census Bureau a good source. Which is why that is where I got my stats as well. How can both be right?


[quote]I thought another link from the Us Census Bureau [url="http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p60-203.pdf"]http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p60-203.pdf[/url] would be helpful. This is a report analyzing 50 years of income data. Please note the poverty section (around page 45) that shows that poverty levels for all races and ages have decreased EXCEPT for children and single parent households. That's a telling statistic. It's not capitalism, but divorce lawyers and unwed mothers and irresponsible fathers that are increasing poverty. [/quote]

I'll get back to you on this when my computer stops being stupid, I can't open the page . If this is the case then that is good. Wait I think I found another version of the page (my cpu doesn't like pdf). Is this it? [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html"]http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html[/url]
It does seem that it has lowered a little bit, although it seems to fluctuate having risen the last couple years.

[quote]Median incomes have steadily risen, though, with governemnt intervention, the rate of increase has slowed.[/quote]

Over the last 50 years it does seem that way. But again, how does it work that the cashflow is still this unevenly spread? I guess what I'm saying is that you are okay with this disparity because there is more money, so the .2% that is going to the 40% of the pop. is a good thing? This may be the case, but it just doesn't sit well with me.


But let's move away from the actual cash numbers for a bit. Distributism holds that true wealth is in ownership. Ownership of your work/business, ownership of land, ownership of how you take care of yourself and your families. Do you disagree that currency is not necessarily the best way to measure wealth? How many times in the course of civilization have currencies changed and/or become obsolete. Even in America's histories we have had many different forms of money, worth different amounts. It is rumored that it is happening again. I'm sure it's no secret that the dollar, and pretty much all coins are becoming worthless. Nobody wants them anymore. Who says we're not in for an overhaul of our currency?

Instead one thing that has always been valued, always been treasured, is land. Everybody wants it, few people get it. And I'm not talking about going into major debt to get it either, because technically how is it really yours?

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1077614' date='Sep 28 2006, 12:11 AM']
In comparison America certainly is much better off than most other places, for sure. But then, is there just that much more money being circulated? Because to say that there is that much more money among the poor, doesn't quite square with the statistics that 40% of people have to share .2 percent of all the money. And if there is more money being circulated. Then what does this mean. Does it mean things have been grossly inflated, and money is become worth less and less? We know that is a fact at least in the case of the penny, and some other currency, such as the dollar. So, if the money is worth less and less, eventually it'll come back to bite us when everything is realigned again.[/quote]
While I'd agree that inflation is a problem, that really has nothing to do with what I posted, nor with "capitalism" per se.

In my previous post, I said that the standard of living went up for most people under a "capitalist" economy after the industrial revolution. I was talking about actual wealth and standards of living; such things as having homes, clothes, cars, running water, t.v sets, etc. Capitalist countries have the highest standards of living. The fact that the vast majority of people in America do not have to worry about starving to death has nothing to do with inflation.

And further, excessive inflation and the devaluation of the dollar is not the natural result of "capitalism" and a free market economy. It is caused by the dollar no longer being backed by anything solid (such as gold) as it was in the past. It is a result, not of a capitalism, but of government control over the economy, printing out paper money that is not backed up by actual wealth, but based on what the federal reserve sees fit to print. (It only began doing this in the 20th century - I'd have to look up the exact date.) Some of the harshest critics of this practice that I have read are strong advocates of the free market economy. The truth is that abandoning a free market economy would do nothing to solve the problem of inflation, but only make it worse.

[quote]Well the poor will always exist. There's no denying that. But I still don't see how this statement can be true, unless there is just that much more paper money available. In which case the money itself isn't going to be worth as much, which to me seems to be the trend anyways.[/quote]
How what statement ccan be true? I'm not following you here at all. What paper money and inflation has to do with my statements that people's standards of living has rose under a "capitalist" economy is beyond me.

[quote]Not necessarily. I'm playing the politics of equality of opportunity. I don't stand for people taking advantage of other people in order to get rich, whether it works or not.
And I would say it should be practiced on an immediate local level, ie. companies work and serve only those in their vicinity.
But are they creating labor for ppl in this country? Or just shipping it overseas? That is the question. Jobs certainly aren't disappearing. I never said that. But they have to be somewhere. They are. In India, and China, and Mexico etc.[/quote]
Again, there is a case for restrictions on outsourcing and international trade, in order to protect the national interest (Americans vs foreigners).

However, I would not make restrictions on trade below the national level.
How would "the local level" and "their vicinity" be defined?
Would you restrict companies or individuals from doing business beyond their home town, or immediate local area?
How would this be acomplished? Seems it would in practice require heavy government restriction of all commerce.

[quote]err... no I've said many times I am also against a socialist form of economy. Egalitarianism is just as bad as capitalism, in taking the other extreme. Capitalism is bad in that it takes away the jobs of Americans, and shuts down small businesses, thus benefiting from others. Socialism goes in the opposite direction and would give money freely to those who do nothing to deserve it. I would stay away from both extremes. [/quote]
However, in practice, this restricting of business to the "local level" would require massive government micro-managing of the economy, as we shall see.

[quote]I don't think businesses should be able to expand beyond the local landscape. Serve those in their area to the best of their ability. But don't go into another business' domain. Provide a good that others in the area are not producing yet something that the people need and would buy. I think some form of government intervention is needed if companies overstep their boundaries and affect another man's ability to thrive. Governments are given the right to enforce the law. I think protecting a man's freedom to excel in what he does should be a law. Otherwise how is a country providing for the well-being of it's people? Something that is more theoretical would be maximum prices allowed. Because the one downfall I see in the system (mind you the only one I can see) is that in this system people would jack up their prices way high and yet would still get the traffic because people are in need of their services. That would be taking advantage of the system. So I do see some governmental moderation necessary. Neither should they allow free reign for businesses, nor take part in physical distribution of wealth among the populace. But they do serve a purpose.[/quote]
Again, how do we define the "local landscape," and how would businesses be restricted to their "local landscapes"? Would they all do this willingly of their own accord, or would intrusive government regulation be reguired?

And whose job would it be to determine when a business "affects another man's ability to thrive"? Seems that this charge could be brought up by whomever does not like the owner of a particular business.

Would businesses be punished for doing business or providing for customers outside their "local landscape" (however that would be defined)?
What about customers? Would they be forced by law to only shop locally?
Would they be punished for shopping or ordering services from outside their own local area? Would businesses be punished for providing for customers or clients outside their local area?

And what about rival businesses within a local area?

We'll use a simple example.
Let's say a town has a local pizzeria, Tony's Pizza. It is the established Pizzeria in the distributist community. But let's say Tony's pizza smells of elderberries. Paolo starts a pizza place where the pizza is much better and is sold at a lower price. Paolo's threatens to put Tony's out of business. Would the government be required to stop or hinder Paolo's business because it threaten's Tony's livelihood?
And let's say in a neighboring town, Benito has a place which sells even better pizza for evn cheaper. The people of the first town begin making the trip to Benito's, and Benito starts a delivery service to the first town. This begins after time to seriously hurt the business of both Tony and Paolo.
Is it then the job of the distributist government to step in and protect the interest of Tony's livelihood, by restricting or punishing Benito's or Paolo's business, or by restricting pizza customer's choices by force of law?

Picture this sort of thing on a much larger scale, and you'll get a picture of the problems inherent in this kind of "distributist" system.
In practice it requires much intrusive and restrictive government, which would ultimately hurt businesses and customers alike.

And the price gouging issue you bring up is a very real problem. In a free economy, prices are a bargain between the buyer and the seller. Competition between sellers for customers keeps prices affordable.
And setting consumer prices by the government does not work. It has been tried in many Communist and socialist countries, and has resulted in economic disaster.
(Again, not room to explain all the why's of this, but I'd suggest reading [url="http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Catholic-Studies-Economics/dp/0739110365/sr=8-1/qid=1159501401/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5666631-3271942?ie=UTF8&s=books"][i]The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (Studies in Ethics and Economics)[/i] by Thomas E. Woods Jr. [/url].)

[quote]I'm not sure if you understand the concept of distributism yet. It is FAR from advocating equal distribution of wealth. Instead it's for the equal distribution of OPPORTUNITY for this wealth. Whether people choose to take it or not is their own business. But the option needs to be available.
I have never advocated equal distribution. Maybe you haven't read my posts carefully enough. But I've pointed out well enough clearly in my posts that I was clearly against both capitalism and socialism. I am totally against distribution of wealth. It's unfair and it simply doesn't work. Same I say for capitalism.
[/quote]
But as I've shown, that is what your brand of "distributism" would entail in actual practice.

[quote]haha interesting song.
In closing a couple points that obviously haven't been made clear enough. I am NOT for the socialistic notion of distribution of wealth because gives a free ride to people who have not earned it. I am against capitalism because it takes away an ability for those to succeed who would like to. Both I think are bad policies and both I think are even sinful. Instead a fair chance at the OPPORTUNITY (notice I didn't say everybody should actually get an equal amount of wealth) to succeed should be everyone's for the taking. This can be done if businesses were kept local and specialized in one or few product(s). This way each business can thrive and the people can also recieve high quality products (because businesses will not be trying to use cheaper and cheaper materials) and it can all be affordable if companies are not allowed to post ridiculous prices.[/quote]
As I said before, setting prices by the government does not work. Selling price is an agreement between the buyer and seller. In a free, competitive economy, prices will be fair, because if they are set too high, consumers will refuse to buy from that seller, and buy from someone cheaper. However, they will stay high enough that the seller is able to profit from the deal (or else he goes out of business). Businesses which provide the highest quality goods at the lowest prices are those that thrive in a free market economy.

Price setting by the government invariably harms the economy. The government micro-managing of the economy you advocate would be an economic disaster and a bureaucratic nightmare, which would in fact end up hurting all in the name of equality and economic justice.

" . . . And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw."

Socialism by any other name . . .

Edited September 29, 2006 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1078177' date='Sep 28 2006, 03:28 PM']
All data taken from 2000-2005:

1,678 jobs have been added for an increase of 1.3% increase in job totals. This is all well and good. But what does this translate into?

The median household income has dropped: -1,273 or -2.7%.

So while there are more jobs. There is less money, meaning people are making less. Contrary to what you have been saying.

And this is an interesting number:

The number of people going into poverty in this country has jumped 5,369 people, a staggering 17%.

How about bankruptcy?

822,967 increase - 68.4% increase in personal bankruptcy filings.

So yes, while it seems more jobs are being "created" to fill the numbers, it clearly has not translated into better economic stability for the country as a whole.



Creating jobs doesn't really help if it's not bringing more wealth to the American person. As the statistics show above, there are more jobs. But clearly they are not bringing in more wealth. Whenever you lay somebody off for no reason except to better your own self needlessly you are taking away their opportunity.


Start with the statistic I gave above: The number of people going into poverty in this country has jumped 5,369 people, a staggering 17%

In America, poverty is normally equated with the subsistience level.
Things must always be taken in steps. Let's identify if there is a problem before trying to find out the cause of the problem. I'm saying there is a problem because just in the last 5 years (I haven't looked much to see what it is further back than that) the poverty level has increased 17 percent. That's a problem.
Umm I'm not sure what you consider data. I've been providing numbers this whole time. I'd like to see numbers to the contrary if you have them.
Good questions. Let's go over the data above and see how it fits first. Yes I know it won't answer all of your questions just yet.
[/quote]
This discussion is all very interesting, but I thought I'd point out that comparing figures today with those [b]five years ago[/b] to make a sweeping case against "capitalism" is rather bizarre, to say the least!

So was the economy in A.D. 2000 less "capitalist" than it is today?

"Capitalism" (as normally defined) had been in practice for well over 200 years by that point!

The economy has fluctuated over the years, but it is silly to compare current economic conditions against those of the '90s, '80s, or '50s to make a denouncement of a "capitalist" economy, as a "capitalist" economy was already well-established before all of these decades.

It would only make sense to compare against a non-capitalist economy. (In a real time and place, not some fairy-land dream theory).



[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1078443' date='Sep 28 2006, 07:36 PM']
Do I need to remind you that you are the one who brought up the issue of imperalism and territorial expansion? I just pointed out the simple fact that the US had enough land and resources on its hands without colonizing Africa or Latin America.

There is no need to turn a blind eye to history since history tells us almost everything we need to know about where we came from (and chances are where we are now and might be likely to go).

Also, I am not equating capitalism with the commandment to be rich -- that is just what history and its players have done.

And just because we have exported and out-sourced the ugly side of capitalism to another part of the world doesn't make it right.
That would imply that they gave the countries back! Well I guess that is the case if you believe in Indian reservations.

Again, I am not saying capitalism is inherently evil or couldn't be in line with Christian ethics. I am just saying from a historical perspective this hasn't really been the case and presently I am suspicious as well.
[/quote]
So everything would be better if the white man stayed in Europe, the Indians were left in their teepees, and America were never founded?

I'm not denying that the U.S. government did some unconsciable things to the Indians, but what you're posting here just sounds like typical anti-Western, anti-American neo-Marxist Lefty rhetoric, rather than substance, and adds little to the discussion on economic systems.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Socrates

[goldenchild17]

[b][quote]While I'd agree that inflation is a problem, that really has nothing to do with what I posted, nor with "capitalism" per se.

In my previous post, I said that the standard of living went up for most people under a "capitalist" economy after the industrial revolution. I was talking about actual wealth and standards of living; such things as having homes, clothes, cars, running water, t.v sets, etc. Capitalist countries have the highest standards of living. The fact that the vast majority of people in America do not have to worry about starving to death has nothing to do with inflation.

And further, excessive inflation and the devaluation of the dollar is not the natural result of "capitalism" and a free market economy. It is caused by the dollar no longer being backed by anything solid (such as gold) as it was in the past. It is a result, not of a capitalism, but of government control over the economy, printing out paper money that is not backed up by actual wealth, but based on what the federal reserve sees fit to print. (It only began doing this in the 20th century - I'd have to look up the exact date.) Some of the harshest critics of this practice that I have read are strong advocates of the free market economy. The truth is that abandoning a free market economy would do nothing to solve the problem of inflation, but only make it worse.

How what statement ccan be true? I'm not following you here at all. What paper money and inflation has to do with my statements that people's standards of living has rose under a "capitalist" economy is beyond me.
Again, there is a case for restrictions on outsourcing and international trade, in order to protect the national interest (Americans vs foreigners).[/quote][/b]

I'm making a bit of a retreat, as I don't know enough about this subject. So I'm using a different tactic. I am saying that I think inflation is inherently attached to the success and/or failure of capitalism. In capitalism, wealth is determined by your cashflow, or your stocks. In distributism it is based on land ownership and control over one's own destiny without being affected by another. Which is more stable? The ever changing currencies? Or good land?


[b][quote]However, I would not make restrictions on trade below the national level.
How would "the local level" and "their vicinity" be defined?[/quote][/b]
That is something I'm not sure I could develop as economics is not my specialty. But I think it is something that could easily be constructed, either by going back to townships, and closeknit communities like we had in medieval times or some other such method. That would be how I would do it.


[b][quote]Would you restrict companies or individuals from doing business beyond their home town, or immediate local area?
How would this be acomplished?[/quote][/b]
If companies kept their workers and their buildings within their community this wouldn't be an issue.


[b][quote]Seems it would in practice require heavy government restriction of all commerce.

However, in practice, this restricting of business to the "local level" would require massive government micro-managing of the economy, as we shall see. [/quote][/b]

I'd say it'd require some.

[b][quote]Again, how do we define the "local landscape," and how would businesses be restricted to their "local landscapes"? Would they all do this willingly of their own accord, or would intrusive government regulation be reguired?[/quote]
[/b]
Again, it is an ideal situation. Can it be done in a country I think is already so far gone? Probably not. I think most people would not be willing to go along with this. But that doesn't stop me from thinking it's the right thing to do.


[b][quote]And whose job would it be to determine when a business "affects another man's ability to thrive"? Seems that this charge could be brought up by whomever does not like the owner of a particular business.

Would businesses be punished for doing business or providing for customers outside their "local landscape" (however that would be defined)?
What about customers? Would they be forced by law to only shop locally?
Would they be punished for shopping or ordering services from outside their own local area? Would businesses be punished for providing for customers or clients outside their local area?

And what about rival businesses within a local area?[/quote][/b]

Something affects another man's ability to thrive when his job is taken or his business is bought out or forced to go under due to another one taking over. I think some form of punishment should be had for those who tried to take advantage of others by overstepping their boundaries. Crimes should be punished. I believe taking advantage of another man should be a crime. I don't know about the customers end of it yet. That is the one thing I need to think more on . And in this system rival businesses would be non-existent because no two businesses would be providing the same goods or services.


[b][quote]We'll use a simple example.
Let's say a town has a local pizzeria, Tony's Pizza. It is the established Pizzeria in the distributist community. But let's say Tony's pizza smells of elderberries. Paolo starts a pizza place where the pizza is much better and is sold at a lower price. Paolo's threatens to put Tony's out of business. Would the government be required to stop or hinder Paolo's business because it threaten's Tony's livelihood?[/quote][/b]

I think so. However, I think in a distributist society, quality would go way up, so I don't think there would be the threat of a sucky pizza .


[b][quote]And let's say in a neighboring town, Benito has a place which sells even better pizza for evn cheaper. The people of the first town begin making the trip to Benito's[/quote][/b]
Again, the consumer end I need to think more on.

[b][quote], and Benito starts a delivery service to the first town. This begins after time to seriously hurt the business of both Tony and Paolo.
Is it then the job of the distributist government to step in and protect the interest of Tony's livelihood, by restricting or punishing Benito's or Paolo's business, or by restricting pizza customer's choices by force of law?[/quote][/b]

I think so. This would affect those who were trying to make an honest living. I think if people want to make the trip to get the better pizza then fine. This will force the local pizza company to try a little harder. Where the better pizza company oversteps it's bounds is when it starts the delivery service, because this would be directly entering another man's domain to put it simply.

[b][quote]Picture this sort of thing on a much larger scale, and you'll get a picture of the problems inherent in this kind of "distributist" system.
In practice it requires much intrusive and restrictive government, which would ultimately hurt businesses and customers alike.[/quote][/b]

Initially sure government would need to be involved to put everything in order. Why would it hurt the businesses and customers?

[b][quote]And the price gouging issue you bring up is a very real problem. In a free economy, prices are a bargain between the buyer and the seller. Competition between sellers for customers keeps prices affordable.
And setting consumer prices by the government does not work. It has been tried in many Communist and socialist countries, and has resulted in economic disaster.
(Again, not room to explain all the why's of this, but I'd suggest reading [url="http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Catholic-Studies-Economics/dp/0739110365/sr=8-1/qid=1159501401/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5666631-3271942?ie=UTF8&s=books"][i]The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (Studies in Ethics and Economics)[/i] by Thomas E. Woods Jr. [/url].)[/quote][/b]

Can't really afford a book right now. Link might be better. I think Communist and Socialist countries had other issues than price limiting. I would be interested in seeing how setting a maximum price is harmful to a society.


[b][quote]But as I've shown, that is what your brand of "distributism" would entail in actual practice.
As I said before, setting prices by the government does not work. Selling price is an agreement between the buyer and seller. In a free, competitive economy, prices will be fair, because if they are set too high, consumers will refuse to buy from that seller, and buy from someone cheaper. However, they will stay high enough that the seller is able to profit from the deal (or else he goes out of business). Businesses which provide the highest quality goods at the lowest prices are those that thrive in a free market economy.[/quote][/b]

Just because something works better doesn't make it ethical though.

[b][quote]Price setting by the government invariably harms the economy. The government micro-managing of the economy you advocate would be an economic disaster and a bureaucratic nightmare, which would in fact end up hurting all in the name of equality and economic justice.

" . . . And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw."

Socialism by any other name . . .[/quote][/b]

Possibly. I am interested in seeing the data that shows that doing this is actually what hurts an economy.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1078750' date='Sep 29 2006, 12:25 AM']It would only make sense to compare against a non-capitalist economy. (In a real time and place, not some fairy-land dream theory).
[/quote]

I think you're absolutely right. But I'm not sure if there exists an economic system today that I would be okay with? Are there any distributist countries in existence today? I'm not sure actually.

Edited September 29, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1078463' date='Sep 28 2006, 07:11 PM']
Justified,
Get a grip. You brought it up, not me, by calling Americans 'expansionists' and characterizing them as saying taking resources from the indians was their 'obedience to the commandment to be rich'. Discuss this with us without hysterical stereotyping.

Another thing I'd like to point out. (reference g-child's post of today, 1:34pm) Most people are good and have a decent nature. Sometimes they take the easy way out, but that's not the fault of the system. If people are naturally 'not good' then who are you to think you are better than them?
[/quote]

That is factually untrue -- "stick to the facts" I believe you say. Check your post from Sep 26 2006, 06:29 AM to which I subsequently responded. So as long as we are being techincal, you are the one who "brought it up" so no need to deflect accountability.

Also, I am not claiming to be better than anyone -- that is a red herring. But so long as human nature is "basically decent" then you will always overlook just how sinful and evil it can be. That is something that devout capitalists are usually pretty quick to acknowledge too!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1078693' date='Sep 28 2006, 10:43 PM']
What you say is true. However to be fair we have to consider all those in poverty. To take only families leaves out a significant portion. I consider things such as divorce rate and morality as totally irrelevant to the discussion to be honest, because these things are going to exist regardless of either distributism or capitalism. So it cancels it out. This being the case poverty rates in both a capitalist system and a distributism will both go down equally. Things that are part of the equation that you have mentioned otherwise should be the focus.


Well it's good that we both consider the Census Bureau a good source. Which is why that is where I got my stats as well. How can both be right?
I'll get back to you on this when my computer stops being stupid, I can't open the page . If this is the case then that is good. Wait I think I found another version of the page (my cpu doesn't like pdf). Is this it? [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html"]http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html[/url]
It does seem that it has lowered a little bit, although it seems to fluctuate having risen the last couple years.
Over the last 50 years it does seem that way. But again, how does it work that the cashflow is still this unevenly spread? I guess what I'm saying is that you are okay with this disparity because there is more money, so the .2% that is going to the 40% of the pop. is a good thing? This may be the case, but it just doesn't sit well with me.
But let's move away from the actual cash numbers for a bit. Distributism holds that true wealth is in ownership. Ownership of your work/business, ownership of land, ownership of how you take care of yourself and your families. Do you disagree that currency is not necessarily the best way to measure wealth? How many times in the course of civilization have currencies changed and/or become obsolete. Even in America's histories we have had many different forms of money, worth different amounts. It is rumored that it is happening again. I'm sure it's no secret that the dollar, and pretty much all coins are becoming worthless. Nobody wants them anymore. Who says we're not in for an overhaul of our currency?

Instead one thing that has always been valued, always been treasured, is land. Everybody wants it, few people get it. And I'm not talking about going into major debt to get it either, because technically how is it really yours?
[/quote]I guess I'll retire from this thread since you seem unwilling to see reason. You don't concede facts when presented to you and give the excuse that you aren't an expert in economics, but continue to present your unsupportable claims. No point in investing time or energy in an endeavor with no return.

Let's sum up the points we're discussing that are true.
-Poverty has been steadily decreasing in the US.
-Per capita income has been steadily increasing in the US.
-Wealth growth is not equitable accross the population.
-Wealth growth is a factor of capitol investment in a risky market.
-The entire population's income over poverty has increased steadily.
-The choice to invest OR spend excess income is the choice of the individuals.
-Capitalism is the economic system that allows people who chose to invest their money can, or they can choose to spend it.
-Capitalism is the economic system that allows people to make their choice.
-Capitalism has the track record and proven history that it does improve the over-all living standards of the greatest amount of people.

Given this, to argue against capitalism, you have to show with economic realities, how a different system is an improvement by honestly recognizing the performance of captialism. Capitalism has been around for more than 200 years. Capitalism is based on allowing people the freedom to control their capital (whether it's labor, skill, or finances) in a market driven system. Even in the bible when Jesus talks in parables, the principles of capitalism are evident. Finding a treasure in a field than selling all that you own (liqudating your assests) and purchsing the field (investing your assets) for an increase in wealth (increase net worth, return on investment) when you then uncover the treasure. The parable of various amounts of talent given to the workers, some who invest, one who doesn't. It's acknowledged that there is risk in investing the talents. Even consider Job. He was blessed with riches, had them taken away, and was blessed again.
We all have capital, our human effort, talents, and skills. In a market driven econmic system, we have the opportunity to invest it. Honoring human dignity is having a system that we can invest our capital and get a return that at LEAST meets our minimum needs. Kinda like the Dec of Indep. We have the right to pursue happiness, not the guarentee of happiness.
How we spend our profit is up to us, not the government, as long as we aren't removing the freedom of others. Monopolies are bad morally and in capitalism because they remove proper competition. Too little regulation allows fraudulent or immoral competion.
Profit from commerce is a tremendous benefit to the society of man. We commission art, support musicians, build better than 'utilitaritan' buildings with inspiring architechture. Government control leads to the lowest common denominator. How can Government justify spending money on art when people are hungry? Is no money to ever be spent on art as long as there is an empty stomache in the world? Communism attempted that with the idea 'the State' comes first. Humanity is gifted and graced by God and we aren't all (or even the majority) prone towards evil.
Self interest is not selfishness. If we love cooking, we could open a restaraunt where we can delve into our personaly style of cusine. If other's like it enough to spend $ to patronize your business, you could be successful. If not enought people like it, you could go out of business. Recognizing the vastness of the market is the first step. Allowing people to attempt to meet market demands is the second. Distributism is another form of socialism. It is attempting to regulate the number and location of eateries to ensure they have market share. If the cook isn't as good, some people will choose to drive the extra 5 minutes to the other eatery that isn't part of it's economic area. Distributism in that case will reward mediocrity. Unfortuantely, Government controlled market makes that endemic to Distributism. Capitalism, on the other hand, rewards excellence. People don't always purchase the cheapest, they look for the value that is affordable. People who can buy luxuries, will if they feel it's worth the money. The jeans I buy in wal-mart for $12 aren't the same jeans that are bought for $35 in JCPenney. It's a choice I make in how I spend my capital. I don't resent those who can spend more. I have the opportunity to work and purchase all my clothing and do not have to rely on charity to dress myself and my family.

This lies at the heart of my lament that people who have not have the full experience of working and supporting themselves. You do not learn that in school, nor can you trust the various political agendas that tell you how Great or how Awful the economy is. I can't speak with athority on the best way to live during winter in Chicago as I have never experienced there as an adult. Nor can a Chicagoan speak with athority how to survive August in Tampa if they never have experienced it. We both may have some knowledge from visits, family, books, and TV, but our knowledge is superficial and not tempered with experience.

[goldenchild17]

[b][quote name='Anomaly]I guess I'll retire from this thread since you seem unwilling to see reason. You don't concede facts when presented to you and give the excuse that you aren't an expert in economics' date=' but continue to present your unsupportable claims. No point in investing time or energy in an endeavor with no return.[/quote'][/b]
If that's the way you see it then fine. I think it's been made clear that I agree with you on a number of the facts now. If you refuse to acknowledge that then we aren't going to get anywhere. Besides, there are a number of facts that simply don't match. We are both using the Census Bureau, and the numbers don't match. That means something is wrong. I'm open to my numbers being wrong. But I'm not going to agree that there wrong simply because you say so.
[b]

[quote=Anomaly]Let's sum up the points we're discussing that are true.
-Poverty has been steadily decreasing in the US.
-Per capita income has been steadily increasing in the US.[/quote][/b]
Agreed.

[b][quote=Anomaly]-Wealth growth is not equitable accross the population.[/quote][/b]
Definitely which is my point on the economic part of this.

[b]
[quote=Anomaly]-Wealth growth is a factor of capitol investment in a risky market.
-The entire population's income over poverty has increased steadily.[/quote][/b]
You may be right. Still not sure I agree yet. Overall I think my 17% increase is a correct number according to the Census Bureau. Now that may be heavily affected by single parent families, but overall I still say it's rising, whatever the factors.

[b]
[quote=Anomaly]-The choice to invest OR spend excess income is the choice of the individuals.[/quote][/b]
I agree. This also plays a part in the poverty levels as well, because some people choose to spend all of the little money that they get instead of using it wisely.

[b][quote name='Anomaly]-Capitalism is the economic system that allows people who chose to invest their money can' date=' or they can choose to spend it.[/quote'][/b]

Yes this is the positive aspect of capitalism which is why it has been successful in many ways.
[b]
[quote=Anomaly]-Capitalism is the economic system that allows people to make their choice.[/quote][/b]

I don't agree with this yet at all. It allows some people to make their choice, at the expense of most others. Which is my main gripe with it. I believe this is the primary factor in the overall wealth disparity.

[b][quote=Anomaly]-Capitalism has the track record and proven history that it does improve the over-all living standards of the greatest amount of people.[/quote][/b]
Not sure yet. How can you compare it to something that isn't in existence anymore? Worth of money has changed, cost of things has changed, many things have changed. It is seeming to bring in more money. Overall wealth is going up. But the disparity resulting from people taking advantage of others is still too much for me to accept.

[b]
[quote name='Anomaly]Given this' date=' to argue against capitalism, you have to show with economic realities, how a different system is an improvement by honestly recognizing the performance of captialism.[/quote'][/b]

I recognize what capitalism has done, both good and bad. It has raised overall wealth it seems. The disparity of this wealth is not something I accept however. And I have the problems with it on a moral level too of course.

[b] [quote name='Anomaly]Capitalism has been around for more than 200 years. Capitalism is based on allowing people the freedom to control their capital (whether it's labor' date=' skill, or finances) in a market driven system.[/quote'][/b]

Some people.
[b]
[quote name='Anomaly]Even in the bible when Jesus talks in parables' date=' the principles of capitalism are evident. Finding a treasure in a field than selling all that you own (liqudating your assests) and purchsing the field (investing your assets) for an increase in wealth (increase net worth, return on investment) when you then uncover the treasure. The parable of various amounts of talent given to the workers, some who invest, one who doesn't. It's acknowledged that there is risk in investing the talents. Even consider Job. He was blessed with riches, had them taken away, and was blessed again.[/quote'][/b]
In none of these cases does it compare to what capitalism effectively does as well, however. None of these cases say anything about taking other peoples jobs, closing down others businesses, etc. If a person wastes their money of their own volition (sp?) then fine, smells of elderberries to be them. If a person loses his ability to provide for his family, even temporarily, because his job was given to some dude in India for a fraction of what he was making, that's where it crosses the line. If a person wants to do poorly at serving the people with whatever business he runs that's his problem. If he can't serve the people because their are 3, 4, 5 or more other businesses trying to sell the same product that's over the border.

[b]
[quote name='Anomaly]We all have capital' date=' our human effort, talents, and skills. In a market driven econmic system, we have the opportunity to invest it.[/quote'] [/b]

If we had a more fair fraction of the wealth then yes this could happen. As it is most people have to use what they've got to pay the bills. It's the top percent of people who have the insanely high portion of the cash, who have plenty left over to do this investing thereby creating even more of a disparity.

See, this is where I see it as not enough to have "enough to get by". Yes that will do, unless you lose your job of course. However, because they have only enough to get by, they are not provided the opportunity to improve upon this. They cannot invest, because everything they have goes toward what they need to live.

[b]
[quote name='Anomaly]Honoring human dignity is having a system that we can invest our capital and get a return that at LEAST meets our minimum needs. Kinda like the Dec of Indep. We have the right to pursue happiness' date=' not the guarentee of happiness.[/quote'][/b]

How happy are people living paycheck to paycheck, knowing that others have plenty left over to invest and create even more for themselves? Yes, I know many families that don't care as earthly things are not a focus for them, and this is how it should be. However, I don't think the Dec. of Independence is referring to a spiritual happiness.

[b][quote name='Anomaly]How we spend our profit is up to us' date=' not the government,[/quote'][/b]

Definitely. But people who have nothing left over after paying for clothing and shelter and food have no profit, thus nothing they can do with it.

[b] [quote=Anomaly]as long as we aren't removing the freedom of others.[/quote][/b]

People who lose their jobs, even temporarily, have no freedom. They have to take what they can get. People who are put out of business by other business' have no option but to quit or start over. People who have no significant surplus after paying their bills have no option to invest because they have nothing to invest. What little one might have is saved for the next month's rent, in case something should happen, like losing their job to someone in Mexico or China or India etc. Such people could never dream of investing this money because they have no security that they will have the ability to bring in income after a certain period of time. Even people who are under contract run out the contract eventually. I consider the family I come from to be financially stable. My dad did 20 years in the Air Force and was successful at that. Once he decided to retire he started looking for work months in advance. It took him until he was out of work for months before he got hired in a contracting company. Yes he got another job, but those months without work were not so pretty. And this doesn't even compare to what happens in the world of capitalism, especially through company expansion and outsourcing.

[b] [quote=Anomaly] Monopolies are bad morally and in capitalism because they remove proper competition. Too little regulation allows fraudulent or immoral competion.[/quote][/b]

Okay I agree pretty much, but let's work with this one. What is "proper competition" and "too little regulation". Depending on their definitions I could agree with this.
[b]
[quote name='Anomaly]Profit from commerce is a tremendous benefit to the society of man. We commission art' date=' support musicians, build better than 'utilitaritan' buildings with inspiring architechture. Government control leads to the lowest common denominator. How can Government justify spending money on art when people are hungry? Is no money to ever be spent on art as long as there is an empty stomache in the world? Communism attempted that with the idea 'the State' comes first. Humanity is gifted and graced by God and we aren't all (or even the majority) prone towards evil.[/quote'][/b]
Let's work with the theory then. You agree that to little regulation is bad as well as too much. Now we need to define what is too little or too much, competition and gov. control.


[b][quote name='Anomaly]Self interest is not selfishness. If we love cooking' date=' we could open a restaraunt where we can delve into our personaly style of cusine. If other's like it enough to spend $ to patronize your business, you could be successful. If not enought people like it, you could go out of business. Recognizing the vastness of the market is the first step. Allowing people to attempt to meet market demands is the second. Distributism is another form of socialism.[/quote'][/b]

That is about as far from true as possible actually. What I've been getting into, some gov. control etc. is not a good representation of the theory and I'm working to revise that mistake that I made. If distributism is another form of socialism you need to back that up with something other than just my words.
[b]
[quote name='Anomaly]It is attempting to regulate the number and location of eateries to ensure they have market share. If the cook isn't as good' date=' some people will choose to drive the extra 5 minutes to the other eatery that isn't part of it's economic area. Distributism in that case will reward mediocrity. Unfortuantely, Government controlled market makes that endemic to Distributism. Capitalism, on the other hand, rewards excellence. People don't always purchase the cheapest, they look for the value that is affordable. People who can buy luxuries, will if they feel it's worth the money. The jeans I buy in wal-mart for $12 aren't the same jeans that are bought for $35 in JCPenney. It's a choice I make in how I spend my capital. I don't resent those who can spend more. I have the opportunity to work and purchase all my clothing and do not have to rely on charity to dress myself and my family.[/quote'][/b]

Ah okay so now you agree with me that there are not such good quality products out there? Not long ago you were screaming at me to find an example. You just gave one.

[b][quote=Anomaly]This lies at the heart of my lament that people who have not have the full experience of working and supporting themselves. You do not learn that in school, nor can you trust the various political agendas that tell you how Great or how Awful the economy is. I can't speak with athority on the best way to live during winter in Chicago as I have never experienced there as an adult. Nor can a Chicagoan speak with athority how to survive August in Tampa if they never have experienced it. We both may have some knowledge from visits, family, books, and TV, but our knowledge is superficial and not tempered with experience.
[/quote][/b]

No one can speak of something because they have not physically experienced it? I'm sorry I can't agree. I have respect for scientists, at least those who are ethically upright, but I believe philosophy is the groundwork for understanding things, especially those of a nature not related to the earth or outer space or physical life in general. People can think. We're not animals. We don't need to physically experience something to understand it. There are fundamental principles that guide all things. The key is to figuring out what these principles are and applying them.

Edited September 29, 2006 by goldenchild17