Re: The Philosophy of Capitalism


"Jeffrey Beaver" <justuschickens@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6dbos1tluceen1hovc5di2sfudohpuer00@xxxxxxxxxx
> "Harry Thompson" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jeffrey Beaver" <justuschickens@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:uqqns1pps990tfuk87bi2fm66257rvg06h@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Euro" <euro82@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Garry James" <downyonder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:vrhks11pj01i0ju3jnkmss488e06kj2ghi@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> On 14 Jan 2006 07:18:10 -0800, "Golden State Poppy"
>>>>> <GoldenStatePoppy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Capitalism came about because Protestants believed in hard work, but
>>>>> >not ostentatious display. Therefore they began to accumulate money
>>>>> >or
>>>>> >capital. They invested it carefully and had more and more capital to
>>>>> >invest. It was only later generations who invested in show...houses,
>>>>> >clothes, etc. The original capitalists believed in living simply.
>>>>>
>>>>> The philosophy of capitalism is quite simple. It's:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Every man for himself and devil take the hindmost."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a philosophy that was more in tune with agrarianism than the
>>>>> modern society given us by the Industrial Revolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Try it once you're a philosopher, twice a pervert". - Voltaire
>>>>
>>>>Capitalism needs a touch of socialism to be humanised, and be made to
>>>>work
>>>>for the benefit of the most. That's why I am a convinced
>>>>social-democrat,
>>>>believing that welfare state is necessary to ensure solidarity for the
>>>>poor
>>>>and make capitalism a system working for the majority.
>>>>
>>>>Euro
>>>>
>>> Is European socialism working for the majority when it produces 1% GDP
>>> growth and 10% unemployment?
>>>
>>> Are French dock workers, who undoubtedly share your political views,
>>> working for the majority? How many cars were incinerated last week in
>>> Paris? Seems like the EU has a first class mess on it's hands.
>>
>>But Jeff, you are missing an important point, not social-democrat
>>necessarily, but the idea that capitalism needs a human face.
>>
>>That's a play on ideas of sorts. Socialism with a human face was proposed
>>as
>>an alternative to the horrors of the Soviet system. The Soviets crushed
>>such
>>attempts, notably the Prague Spring. The protest against the Soviet model
>>was that it was inhuman.
>>
>>All other things being equal, capitalism too has its problems. So, the
>>proposal is to put a human face on capitalism, not to do away with it.
>>
>>How do you feel about humanizing capitalism?
>>
>>BTW, my quip about "actually existing capitalism" is a similar irony.
>>Soviet
>>apologists tried to deflect criticism by claiming the Soviet system as
>>"actually existing socialism." The implication was that it wasn't yet real
>>socialism, but what could be done under the circumstances. Similarly, real
>>capitalism does not exist anywhere on earth, and never did, and perhaps
>>never will. So what we have is actually existing capitalism.
>>
>>Or, do you feel we have real capitalism?
>>
>>Hap
>>
> Hap, I don't believe in completely unregulated capitalism. We probably
> have the best mix of regulation and taxes of any large economy in the
> world. Unfortunately, you proponents of European socialism (the "good
> face" you are talking about) never seem to understand that there are
> consequences of over taxing and regulating free enterprise. If you
> need to see a graphic example of the consequences you need look no
> further than the major economies of Europe -- 1% growth combined with
> 10% unemployment. In the end everyone suffers. The eventual outcome
> will be the same as it was in the Soviet Union. It will just take
> longer.
>
> Jeff

Well, I know a little about the unemployment rate in Germany. Germany counts
unemployment differently from us, chiefly they count unemployed more
thoroughly than we do. The 10% you cite means that you are talking about
Germany, and using it symbolically for Western European countries.

One big difference is that Germany counts part time employed as unemployed
if the worker wants full time work. In other words, the underemployed are
counted in that 10%.

Second, German unemployment is skewed higher because East Germany is
included in the count since reunification. It would be like including
Mexican unemployment in our count if we annexed Mexico.

We undercount the unemployed. If the German statistic is adjusted to fit our
counting the German unemployment rate is about 7.5%. That's still not good,
but it is not the disaster trumpeted in our press. See
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/47/35326565.pdf

Our actual unemployment rate adjusted for its undercounting, and allowing
for East Germany, would be about the same.

Your conclusion sounds like Hayek. Is it?

Hap


.

Loading