Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
enlightened self-interest
|
You could also fill in "enlightened selfishness" and I think solely basing economic policy on such an ideal would create a horrible existence. By definition capitalism has to have an impoverished class, should we embrace a laissez faire attitude towards that class it would result in negligent genocide. The theory of socialism is definitely a more attractive option, unfortunately there are selfish and evil people in the world. So it takes a good balance of right and left to buoy up an economy. Everytime we have a president who subscribes to trickle down economics it seems to result in economic downturn. Reagan leading us into a mild recession in the early 90's being the most recent example with Bush Jr. also leaning quite a bit that way and Hoover being the most catastrophic example. I don't understand how those who argue for laissez faire economic policy embrace the policies of corporate welfare on the right. That isn't laissez faire it is giving more the haves who don't need the help. The haves generally don't have the interest of the people as a top concern thus it does nothing but make the rich richer and the poor poorer. If we are to give money to a particular group than I don't understand why it wouldn't be the group that needs it most.
Communism actually did breed quite a bit of innovation including but not limited to their space program. I would say the decline of the Soviet Union not lie in the principle of socialism, but instead to limited natural resources vs. the vast resources of the USA which was played masterfully by Reagan and the lack of innovation created by discontent amongst the masses by living under a totalitarian regime.