h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I said before, I don't want an argument but this is insane! Look around at the US for a minute. How many people are below the poverty line and because of capitalism's ideas of the distribution of education will never get a decent job so have no chance to improve. How many people die on the streets in NYC and London because they cannot afford a place to stay. How many people with Diabetes or Haemophillia are disintegrating because they cannot afford the exorbitant prices pushed by Lilly and other capitalist drug companies?

Can you honestly say that capitalism works? Its ideals are very similar to those of the socialisms but the way of progressing are different. Capitalism is as oversimplified and impractical as Marxism was. When you say you are a capitalist tell us what kind, Keynesist, Monetrist, Classicist. I know communism and its cousin, socialism, have their flaws but they are equal to capitalism, in all its forms.

Communism only works when applied to certain situations, same with capitalism actually. Advocating one above the other on practical grounds is baseless. This is why I prefer socialism, it is more ethical than the hierarchial approach of capitalist society. You may sneer and point to the USSR but tell me this, if capitalism is such a universal panacea, why do they want communism back so badly?

Joe aka Arnia (ACE)

Bowing out

Ps. Unemployment is a problem of capitalism's trade cycle of boom and bust caused by a glut of a certain commodity

First off, I'm in the process of reading P.J. O'Rourke's 'Parliament of Whores'. Calling him a modern day Mark Twain is a gross overstatement of his writing skill.

One of your first points was the lack of technological development in the USSR. I noticed you backtracked on it, I was going to point out that the overall design of our F-15 was based on the MiG-25 Foxbat (a prototype of which held the air-speed record until broken by the SR-71). Their developments in the field of lasers surpassed many of our achievements.

The average Cuban makes far less than the average American, but their health system mercilessly beats the ass of ours. Yeah, we have some new treatments and some innovative surgeons with great talent, but if you break your arm who's gonna get it fixed first? In a Cuban hospital you'll have your arm set and be out the door in under an hour. In a US hospital you'll still be filling out insurance forms.

I do agree to some extent that pure socialism causes a stagnation and lack of motivation, but pure capitalism is just as evil. Keeping workers worried for their jobs is not a good motivation, but giving them an opportunity to profit or advance by helping the company is good (as long as they don't help the company illegaly).

There is a point between both capitalism and socialism that has yet to be found where people don't starve, where corporations don't ask for subsidies, where technology advances in all areas, where everybody has access to modern health care, and everybody has a fair chance to make good. But I think if we ever get there we'll still find something to bitch about.

I have never gone so far as to state that capitalism has all the answers. Yes, unemployment sucks, and it often happens through no fault of the victim. However, this is generally just a temporary condition, and there are ways to deal with it. The states handle unemployment insurance, which you can receive for up to 6 months, and it can be extended in certain circumstances. Anyone who is terminally unemployed is probably so for a very good reason.

The MiG-25 is an excellent plane. Their submarines (when they worked) were also top of the line. Apparently, they're really good at laser optics. However, what good are all these when the people are still burning coal for heat, when the electricity and the phones are always down, when their cars don't work? You can find certain areas where the Russians concentrated, but they obviously didn't give a damn about people. Progress that fails to improve the lives of the people is meaningless.

The US does not bar other nations from trading with Cuba, we simply refuse to do so ourselves. Our trade, our choice. It's nobody else's business but ours and Cuba's. Anything they wanted from another nation, they could have. The problem is, they have no money. Why? Because socialism failed. The USSR kept them alive with enormous financial aid, but with that lifeline gone, they're screwed. Socialism is all about the redistribution of wealth, but it does a poor job of generating it. End result is they all end up poor together.

Medical care in the US is a problem, but waiting a couple of hours to have a bone set is not such a terrible inconvenience that we need to throw away the entire social structure. (BTW, I've never been bothered with insurance forms in any hospital. They keep records on hand.) We don't want to socialize medicine, because the universal tenet of government is simple: they don't care. That is why we Americans have a healthy (except in the case of the armed redneck militias, and as long as they don't shoot anybody, who cares?) fear of government. Anyone who advocates socialism lacks that fear. Perhaps they should read Orwell's 1984, or Animal Farm, and get it back.

Governments also botch anything they attempt. Case in point, the US Postal Service. It is inefficient at best. It has historically run at a considerable loss of funds to taxpayers, despite the fact that people pay to use it. They lost things constantly, and had no tracking abilities to find them. It was abysmally slow, and arrival times were always unpredictable. So UPS and Federal Express jumped in and challenged their market. They were fast, reliable, and operated at a profit. In danger of losing their business, the postal service began a painful re-evaluation and upgrade in order to match those businesses. If they hadn't been challenged, they would still be just as slow and unreliable as it was a few years ago. Socialism means the end of competition, which means stagnation.

I'm not going to be backed into defending something I don't believe in and I guess, Gargle, by the comments at the beginning of that last post neither do you.

America operates free market capitalism in the same way as the Soviet Union operated Communism. I.e. they don't.

America has many price fixing strategies, manipulates international markets in its favour, applies large tariffs to unwanted imports, has a minimum wage and uses armed force to defend its markets abroad.

Should anything be done about MicroSoft and other monopolistic companies? On the one hand they don't lead to a level playing field but on the other hand aren't they an example of success within a free market?

Free markets are all about competition. If Microsoft were left unchallenged, they would go stagnant, too. Besides, they already make garbage WITH competition (albeit marginal). Imagine how annoying they would make Office without it. We learned about the dangers of monopolies in the early days of the Industrial Revolution. It places the people who require that service or product at the mercy of the company. It may be a triumph of capitalism, but it's very undemocratic.

Yes, they do operate price fixing strategies, but the difference between a strategy and outright fixing of prices is a large one. The price can still be influenced by market factors. The government does step in to some extent, to promote certain businesses. That's the ideal scenario, government gives the economy a nudge here, a tweak there, and lets it run itself. Left to their own devices, people will tend to make decisions in their own financial world that helps them make money. Over-regulation is a sure cure for a healthy economy.

Minimum wage is a good thing, since it prevents businesses that can tap a vast employee pool (like fast food) from paying slave wages. Gives a small measure of power to those who have no skills to market.

As far as tariffs, a lot of people want to see them come down completely. But the country already operates a trade deficit, and the tariffs are simply a way to minimize that. Our cost of living is so high that it is all too easy for a foreign country to produce quality products at a cost lower than we could do so here, because the employee wages are drastically lower. Tariffs help even the playing field. Of course, now US based companies are taking advantage of this, moving their manufacturing jobs to foreign countries and bringing them in as American goods, since they were produced by American companies. It hurts that segment of the employee market here at home, but as they move into other fields, they continue to do well, and the extra profit gains are distributed on Wall Street.

So, no, we are not a true capitalist society, and I would not prefer to see us become one. However, all the different economic measures that have been put in place by our government were done so by the approval of elected representatives. They had a responsibility to their voters, and knew they would be held accountable if they went against our wishes. A ruling party in a true socialist society has no such responsibility. Sweden does, which is why they're still hanging in there. I wish them luck, but with so much government mucking things up for them, they're going to need it.

I'm glad you wouldn't want to live in a more capitalist economy but I think the lobbying organisations in the US do a lot of damage to your general wellbeing. Often they use the individual freedom argument to justify a few having a stranglehold on the many.

How do you feel about your government's (and the UK's) involvement in the internal workings of other countries? Is minimal government involvement only OK at home?

George Washington, in his final speech as president, warned future generations about 'entangling alliances' and mucking about with other countries. That isolationist policy served us well for nearly 200 years, and I don't see any problem with it now. As long as no government poses a direct threat to national security (the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960's was an intelligent application of our force within a foreign nation), we should leave them the hell alone. The Nazis taught us the danger of letting an aggressive country go for too long, so we stepped on Iraq's neck quickly, and that was a smart move (although it would have been smarter if they'd have removed Hussein). But otherwise, our playing around in the politics of foreign nations has only earned us the hatred of everyone in the world, and lost us a lot of good men. I think we should quit it altogether. But then, when we try to pull back, the UN bitches at us for not doing our share. We're damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't.

As far as that individual freedom thing and lobbyists, you have a point. But there is a wise quote, although I don't know who originated it, that goes something like 'you have to protect the freedoms for the few who will abuse them, else you end up taking them from the people who will not.'

Foreign affairs are a murky business. Have you seen any of the stuff about the effects of the sanctions on Iraq? Kids are dying of cancer because the US and UK governments won't allow the drugs to be sent. Saddam and co. aren't suffering because they can always find people to give them luxury items for oil.

The US adnd UK both supported Saddam for years and armed him. He was seen as, "someone we could work with."

My question is: if much of the US's foreign oil or markets for US products abroad do you see it as a matter of national security that the US controls those countries which could notionally hold the US to ransome?

First, it must pose a direct threat to national security. Nuclear warheads in Cuba are a direct threat, Iraqi control of Kuwait is not. Unfortunately, though, the world runs on oil, so maintaining a balance of power in the Middle East is necessary. But in order for us to intervene, the need must be there, and the support must be there, from the natives of the wronged country, and from the rest of the world. If the people don't want us (as in Vietnam) then we have no business being there. Iraq was an opportunity to show that we learned from Vietnam; apparently we learned quite well how NOT to get involved in a foreign conflict well enough.

Does that mean you think the bombing of Iraq has stopped?

No. There were still lessons to be learned in Iraq, too. Like, how not to roll up the 4th largest army in the world in only three days and still leave their leader in power, rather than capturing him and taking him to the Hague (or wherever they take such people) to stand trial for war crimes.

Some rambling thoughts that I can't tie together...

Cuba's economy is growing now, even thriving because of new foreign trade. All those other countries gave up on the embargo and are enjoying cuban cigars and other products. Socialism may last a whlie longer there.

About health care, my father worked in a state hospital in middle management (blood bank supervisor). It was a buearocracy, but it ran well and provided good service. A private corporation made a deal with the state to run the hospital for a number of years and promised it would cost less while providing the same quality of care. The corporation was in litigation with several other states for problems incurred in similar deals, and even though the corporation was on shaky financial ground, the legislature turned over control of the hospital to the corporation. Within the first month they announced a reduction in services and made mandatory cutbacks in staffing. My father's lab was already short by one employee and they were told to get rid of another. In case of a natural disaster they would not have the staff necessary, and they're the largest hospital in the state. Over the last year they've overrun prices on the contract and cut services to the point where the state's largest hospital (also a training hospital for the state university) has to refer people to other hospitals. Customer satisfaction has hit bottom and started digging. My father finally quit and went to work in a smaller municipal hospital. We do have several high quality private hospitals around, but you better have some great insurance.

As to your statement of how governments screw everything up, that sounds a lot like Rush Limbaugh's "Name one government program that works." Here's some social programs that work:
1) The GI Bill - It put me and thousands of other young adults through college and is partly responsible for the power of our economy. There's nothing quite like giving young men and women some discipline, confidence, technical training, and money for education.
2) Social Security - It has severely cut the number of our elderly living in poverty.
3) Medicare and Medicaid - Follows along with #2

You are right about the post office though, they needed competition. Now they are losing money to email and they can't handle it.

Our government couldn't (and shouldn't) assassinate Saddam Hussein for political reasons, and Bush wouldn't arrest him (can't turn in an old buddy I guess). There's probably more to the story having to relate to Iran-Contra, Bush's involvement in the mid-east as part of the CIA, and Hussein's dealings with the CIA, but we'll never hear about any of it.

Maybe with the internet passing info directly from the various horses' mouths people will begin to find out what has been going on.
Here we have a slightly strange situation that the Queen Mother, who has been queen in her time, is still alive when some of her family documents are coming out of archive (40 years+ and some have to be held for over 80 years!)and trying to suppress them. That's probably one of the problems of still having some of your marbles when you come to 100 years old.

Social Security has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for the last decade, and, as the number of elderly people increases (which is happening at an alarming rate right now, as all the baby boomers exchange their bellbottoms for Depends) it is only getting worse. It is already an accepted fact by my generation that the whole system will be defunct long before we get a chance to collect our share, but we still have to pay into it now.

That hospital story only proves my theory about bungling government (and as for Rush Limbaugh, even a fat loser can be right once in a while). The government knew they had screwed up in similar deals, and let them do it anyway. Governments are stupid. I should know, I've worked for the government for the last 7 years. My lack of stupidity often causes friction between me and my coworkers.

Here's another prime example of the price for lack of competition, and it's happening right there in Britain. I'm talking about British Telecom. What I've heard (forgive me if I screw up some of the details) is that an internet connection can cost as much as 50 cents a minute. Constantly I see posts on this site talking about the abysmal prices, and having to cut their time short. In the US, we had a similar problem with the same utility, under the auspices of AT&T. The government stepped in and broke up their monopoly, and now there are so many companies offering phone service it's rediculous, and even more internet content providers. Because of such competition, my dial-up connection costs me, phone and internet costs combined, a whopping $26 per month, no matter how much I use it. And I use it a lot. I could cut $21 out of it if I went with one of the free ISP's, who use advertisers to make their money, but for the free service, I would have to have an ad bugging me at the top of my browser. Competition yields choice, and I choose not to.

I live in the UK. I pay nothing (yes absolutely nothing with no advertisements) for internet access no matter how long I stay on. Have done for almost a year.

So how do you arrange that?

Who's your telephone provider? Here in Oklahoma we just started getting competition about a year ago, Southwestern Bell has a monopoly and abuses it to the best of their abilities. I'm paying $21 a month for local service only, no frills.

SWBell was found guilty of overcharging a few years back and had to refund about $50 per user. The government then started looking at some of their other overcharging practices and decided to audit them. SWBell lobbied our state lege and got a 'Telecommunications Bill' passed that deregulated them and mandated they could only be audited once every five years. The earlier refund had been the result of a small audit so they are exempt for about another year or two. One of the other provisions of the bill was a reduction of the statute of limitations for some of the things they're doing, so that by the time they can be audited time will have run out. Now SWBell has taken their excessive profits and started trying to make mergers. Everybody knew it was a bad bill but it passed overwhelmingly. Nobody ever looks for the payola.

As a matter of fact, remember when the republicans started trying to investigate the democrats for illegal campaign contributions and the democrats started pointing fingers back and everybody started investigating everybody and the FBI started investigating everybody and then all of the sudden everything went quiet and all the investigations stopped? Now that it's campaign season the mess is starting all over, but do you think anybody will ever get indicted? I don't.

Also, I forgot to bring this up yesterday - George Orwell's 1984 (I personally liked Terry Gilliam's adaptation 'Brazil') is set in a totalitarian socialist state, not a (mostly) free socialist state like Sweden (isn't that the one you keep mentioning?). Many local governments in our country have tried to put cameras on the roadside to catch speeders and red-light runners. These ideas don't last long, everybody likens it to 'Big Brother'. As far as Animal Farm goes, I haven't had the opportunity to read it yet, I'll have to borrow it from my parents.

The biggest socialist program in our government? Corporate welfare. That's how our corporations are competitive, we subsidize them.
Sorry if it sounds like I'm ranting this week, I finished my taxes and realized I'm paying 20% in income taxes alone (not counting social security). Over 60% of corporations will pay no taxes for 1999.

Easy... Localtel as my telco with Screaming.net as my ISP. *shrugs*

Hey, dude, I'm not saying we don't have problems... I'm just saying that, with socialism, they'd be a whole lot worse. You go on about campaign finance: government. You go on about SWBell slipping away from their responsibilities: government. And who grants all those corporate tax exemptions, and pays all that corporate welfare: the government. The government louses up everything, and the less we have of it, the better off we'll be. If government quit paying all that stupid corporate welfare, bad companies would go out of business quicker, instead of staying around and being a drain on the markets and the economy. Anyway, corporate welfare is NOT a capitalist principle... it's a socialist one.

As far as the Telecom thing, when you called SW Bell to set up your phone line, they were required, by the Telecommunications Act of 199x, to tell you that there are other options, and that they have to tell you who else you can get service from if you ask. I use Pac Bell, and I recently set up a phone line, so I know. BTW, the 'Baby Bells' were once a monopoly that the federal government forced to break up.

'Free Socialist State' is an oxymoron. Sweden isn't as socialist as they like to let on. My original posting, as you will see, mentions 'pure socialism' in its title. I've already seen stuff about the original party in the USSR supposed to 'transfer power to the people.' Which people? Somebody has to run it, and whoever is running it is no longer 'the people.' They're just managing somebody else's money, and , as our government and anyone who has ever gotten an expense account from their job has shown, we really don't care how we spend other people's money.

I agree with you that our government is f**ked, but by advocating socialism, you don't cure the problem, you only add to it. Because socialism doesn't minimize government, it maximizes it. If everything is the property of the people, then it is the property of the government. If the government were in charge of cleaning your house, do you think it would be done right? No, you do it yourself, because you know how to do it right, and you're prepared to accept the consequences if it doesn't You have to live in it. A bureaucrat in an office 3000 miles away doesn't know that you need a certain type of window cleaner, or that you're allergic to his carpet powder, and he can't be bothered to care, because he has another 250 million homes to clean. So if you think the government can run the company that you work for in an acceptable manner, think again.

I brought up corporate welfare because the people who support it often claim to be capitalists and I wanted to see where you stood on it. I agree that it is socialist in nature.

I can't say that I truly advocate socialism, but I think a better distribution of wealth helps the economy, reduces crime, reduces drug, alcohol, and spouse abuse, and in general makes everybody a little happier. One of the side effects is that if given a steady paycheck, some people get lazy or content.

I agree that government is often the problem, but I think the problem lies in that it is too lucrative for politicians, and therefore attracts a lot of scoundrels. The 'Buearocracy' (damn I need to figure out how to spell that!) that most politicians harp on about is made mostly of average joes who do try to do their job right. There are some morons out there who are slacking brown-nosers, but for the most part they work hard.

Part of the problem with government is the media. When was the last time you heard what your congress was really doing? Not just the scandals they always try to keep in the media, but the real bills? Most people don't have a clue what's going on, so they don't vote. I have to admit I didn't vote in the presidential primaries. I didn't know it was the day to vote until about 8pm and the polls closed at 7. I didn't know 'cause I quit watching the news. I figure I don't need to know the body count or sports scores each day, and here the weatherman is rarely right. If they'd give honest news I'd watch.