.
show me yours and I show you mine.
CH, I don't think that he wants to have a discussion about who's is bigger. :)
I think that you are right, TWS, I believe that a true c/d can not exist because of the fact that they are contridicting. A capitalist system means people want to be rich and have extensive freedoms. A democracy is a system where people have power in the government. It is all too easy to buy out the people. Maybe I'm just pessimistic and don't have much faith in the people, but I think that everyone has a price, whether it may be monetary or the price of the brain-washing and propaganda that can be pumped into the average Joe (or Jane)'s head. People are easily influenced by just about anything shiny, usually money, and thereby their power can be abused. I think that there are a bunch of people that actually control the government, country and economy. While I might not be a X-Files addict, I do believe in a certain Powers That Be. That is simply the reason for so many of Pakistan's problems, their governments and people have the actual power. A little secret that the West kept quiet.
.
In today's world, it is probably not possible to have a pure form of democracy or a pure form of capitalism. However, it is difficult for me to see how you can truly advance capitalism as your economic system unless your governmental system encompasses some meaningful form of democracy.
For those posters who don't think you can have a "true" Capitalist Democracy, what do you think you can have?
I find the socialist European model quiet compelling however it requires tweaking and smacks of communism. So that is never gonna happen.
Well if the greeks the inventors of democracy gave up on it 10,000 years ago saying it causes chaos what makes people think it will work today !
.
.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Wild Side: *
myvoice, I am insulted that you do not talk to me straight!
[/QUOTE]
Gee. I didn't mean to be insulting. I happen to think you started a pretty good topic that could be debated without the usual rancor found in WA. Guess I was wrong.
I disagree with your theory and my disagreement stems from what I perceive to be your misunderstanding of capitalism. At its core, capitalism is a system that embraces the fundamental principle that the most creative and gifted in a society will be motivated to create when they are able to maximize the benefits that they will attain when they create. Secondarily, capitalism presumes that all levels of society will be uplifted and experience a higher and happier standard of living in circumstances where the creators create their little a**es off.
The benefits the creators seek are wealth, power, health, leisure time, and/or freedom among others. It is difficult for me to conceive of any political system other than one that has signficant democratic underpinnings that can provide the benefits to the creators that are needed to unleash their creativity. Perhaps you could show me an example of a capitalist economic system that has flourished in a society that is undemocratic (I doubt it though).
The fact of the matter is that the US governmental structure is not a democracy. It is a Republic which is a form of representative democracy. And it has its fair share of really flawed Representatives that have over time seriously impinged on the workings of our capitalist based economic system. IMO, almost every attempt to "improve" upon the pure form of capitalism through legislative tinkering that seeks to redistribute wealth and other benefits has been detrimental to societal progress and the average guy.
If you are truly interested in understanding the capitalist system and you have not already done so, you should read one of two books written by Ayn Rand: The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.
.
Now I’m going to get on a soapbox. IMO, one of the single greatest attacks upon the proper functioning of a capitalist economic system is the income tax. The socialist leaning leftist liberals seem to have convinced everyone that the income tax is a legitimate tool to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor to “moderate” the harsher aspects of capitalism. The problem is that the income tax does NOT tax wealth but rather it taxes productivity and acts as a disincentive in the context of capitalism. The income tax takes nothing away from the wealthy but it does help prevent others from getting wealthy and preserves the liberal fat cats’ (i.e. can anybody say Kennedy et al.) elite status. If you are not already wealthy, the only way you can get there is through income.
For those a little unfamiliar with our progressive income tax, it works as follows:
If you are a low wage earner, you pay a low tax rate on each additional dollar you earn. For example, if you earn $30,000 per year you might be in a 15% tax bracket. If you figure out a way to earn an additional $1,000 a year, you will pay $150 of that in taxes. If you are a high wage earner (say $100,000 per year), you might be in a 30% tax bracket. If you earned an additional $1,000, you would pay $300 of that in taxes. It may surprise some to learn that in 1982 the US had a top tax bracket of 70% !!! Thus, for each additional $1,000 you earned in the highest bracket, you paid $700 in taxes and kept $300 for yourself.
Now ask yourself two questions. First, at very high income tax rates, how in the world can someone who is not already wealthy ever become wealthy? A few (Bill Gates) may be able to break through but the system works against you in getting there rather than for you.
Secondly, and more importantly to capitalist theory, why should you work harder, be more productive, and earn more if most of what you earn goes to the government in taxes? There is a point at which it no longer makes sense to produce because the value of what you receive for increasing your production is lower than what you perceive as the value of your time.
If we were serious in the US about taxing wealth, we’d impose a tax on the value of what people have/possess and/or on what people spend. Leave income untaxable and let people save what they earn to try to get rich. Since we don’t tax wealth, we’ve got a bunch of lazy a** people who inherited their wealth from their parents/grandparents who don’t have to do a single productive thing in their lives to stay rich. If we took away some small percentage of wealth from the rich every year in real wealth taxes, they would be forced to be productive and generate a sufficient amount of income to offset their tax burden. If some rich guy wants to buy a yacht for a million bucks, GREAT. Impose a 20% tax surcharge and make him cough up another $200,000 to go into the government treasury.
On a sad note, the reason we'll never get rid of the income tax and/or impose true wealth taxes is because the guys who would have to do so are among the rich lazy a**es who would never, ever do anything to jeopardize their own privileged status. I'm sure Ted Kennedy has no problem at all paying 50% taxes on his $200,000 salary as Senator. But don't hold your breath for him to agree to give up even 1 or 2% a year of the hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth his family possesses.
I believe the best system is something close to the liberal socialist democracy.
TWS, I haven't read your posts on this thread due to time constraints at the moment (I'm at work right now and very busy)...but here's my 2 cents on this:
a Capitalistic Democracy is possible BUT it has it's pluses and minuses too as do most economic theories...
One PLUS is that govenment is "hands off" with no regulation impositions on free enterprise, giving businesses the green light to do whatever they can to make as much $$$ profit as they can.
One MINUS is that if given the PLUS point, lack of regulation can lead to havoc in a free enterprise economy; cut-throat is given a whole new meaning, and greed leads to an extremely large amount of unethical practices.
I think the US economy is best since it is capitalistic, allowing ever American an equal chance to excel in business, yet monitors business practices carefully to ensure fairness. The US economy incorporates both elements of the points I made above, but in a positive, encouraging way that is healthy to the US financial markets and economy.
It's clearly possible
It isnt possible, solely based on govt intervention. A capitalist system believes that the market allocates most efficiently and that there is no reason for Govt intervention. There should be in a capitalist system no govt intervention. After my test i will explain this in more detail, but i will abstract the topic into a larger context to do so.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
It isnt possible, solely based on govt intervention. A capitalist system believes that the market allocates most efficiently and that there is no reason for Govt intervention. There should be in a capitalist system no govt intervention. After my test i will explain this in more detail, but i will abstract the topic into a larger context to do so.
[/QUOTE]
I wait with bated breath to learn why a political system based upon democratic principles must necessarily result in governmental intervention in a capitalist economic system. In theory, if we assume that a pure capitalist system uplifts the entire society and provides a higher/better standard of living than any other alternative, an informed electorate in a pure democracy would vote against governmental interventionism in the economy.
Ah but that is where you are wrong. Capitalism is a not a political system at all. Rather is an socio-economic system as i will explain in greater detail after my exam.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Ah but that is where you are wrong. Capitalism is a not a political system at all. Rather is an socio-economic system as i will explain in greater detail after my exam.
[/QUOTE]
You're right and that is my point. Capitalism is not a political system and should therefore be able to operate (theoretically) within the context of multiple different political systems. IMO, it should be able to operate most effectively within and compatibly with a political system with some form of democratic process. The suggestion of this thread is that the capitalist economic system cannot function within the context of a democratic political system. I think that's wrong.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Now I’m going to get on a soapbox. IMO, one of the single greatest attacks upon the proper functioning of a capitalist economic system is the income tax. .
[/QUOTE]
myvoice
excellent post, could you add to it a little bit more though. taxes serving as disincentive for production you made very clear. There is one part which you have not addressed which I think goes hand in hand with the issue of taxes, fat cat politicians and the negative impact.
I alse see that for power, these politicians have incentivized some people to not work and to just live off welfare. I would like to see your views on that.