Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier
Azure ... I give up. I think you are too fixed into your western opinion, and you still haven't answered my question after I asked twice.
peter ... interesting post. I know its hard to get Scandinavian citizenship, but what laws in place in Scandinavia that make it so much different then Canada or USA to gain citizenship?
And to your post about socialism only working in small economics, but not large. What exactly is it about socialsm that works only for small economies of scale, but become inefficient as output (ie. population) increases?
As for efficiency ... again, being in the high-tech industry, I find your comment ironic. Its capitalism that has driven work to be outsourced to China, India and Latin America. We all know about Adidas, Nike, clothes, binders and toys being outsourced to China; the majority of IT has been outsourced to India; but whats little known is even the high-tech industry isn't even int he US either, neither of Intel's or Microsofts hardware production even happens in the USA, they were outsourced to Mexico and Costa Rica. This constant outsourcing has shown an exponential history and trend to moving jobs out of the USA and into other emerging markets.
Short term, yes capitalism rules - competition drives productivity. Long term, I don't think it works - and thats what we're seeing here. Unstable jobs easily getting outsourced; poor education system for the strongest economic system in the world, and education is essential in a strong economy; industry crowding the center on almost everything, ie. banks so when an issues plagues one company, it plagues the system; the system of credit that runs capitalist and run rapid, as the USA becomes more of a consuming country then a producing, and debt skyrockets; and of coarse, other non-economic factors such as poor health care.
China vs India ... I agree, India has better long term prospects but not because of this democracy=better crap. India has focused more on IT then production, while China obviously is focusing on production. China should be the strength for the near future and IMO will be the world power for the near future; India's prospects are long term. Right now, India's foundation is weak while Chinas is strong, but its always easier to build an economy through production rather then IT/design. In the end though, I think it will be one complimenting the other rather then one "beating" the other - India providing the IT and soon design, China doing the production. Again, from the high-tech standpoint (the industry I know best, obviously) I think the USA will be in a dog fight to keep their knowledge and work in-house here, as 90% of the high-tech in Silicon Valley is software, not hardware, and Software is easier to outsource.
|
Socialism as an ideal is based on a society-wide form of cooperation. From what we know of human behavior this is all but impossible. Socialists know this and that is why they accept a very large degree of state coercion to accomplish their means. Enforced cooperation isn't cooperation and the outcomes are never fair or egalitarian. In fact, if you look at social statistics, socialist countries often have much more difficulty dealing with even the most basic of economic and political problems.
As a political science student, who takes the discipline seriously, I have studied various schools of political behavior, particularly those influenced by the biological sciences. I can say that humans, on a biological level, require two things for sustained cooperation, kin relations or a reciprocal relationship. Obviously, the first one is based around family and is the basis for the Roman systems (notice how they were organized into families) and a lot of the older feudal economic systems. The second is a lot harder. Reciprocal economic relationships require a fair and free game that is often played without personal knowledge of the other person. Free markets are a good way of handling this as they deal with real human incentives based around self-interest. When people are free to make their own decisions, outcomes are often a lot more equal, as everyone gets a chance to produce at their own competitive advantage.
Problems often occur when governments get involved. This credit market thing is actually the result of government legislation under Carter and renewed under Clinton that forced creditors to give a certain % of bad mortgages to people who were unable to lend at normal rates. It isn't all the markets fault.