What does CAPITALISM mean to you? Do you like it or not?

Whoa, Jasper! I am not a Republican. I have never belonged to any political party, but I vote. Yes, I know about the banks. I just don't get wound up about it like you do.

A few years ago, there was a big push to get all kinds of people into houses-home ownership was a big deal. I think that was a wrong idea. Many people had the idea that they should live the golf course/soccer mom/multiple lessons for kids life.

I'm sure that you have seen the ad of the guy who has debt up to his eyeballs. That's the kind of person I mean. I know of a couple in their twenties who were driving a luxury car I cannot imagine ever driving-in my neighbourhood. Of course, they lost their home.

Maybe you should learn Russian or Chinese Jasper! Talk to some people who lived under communism!

Jasper - of course this is "revisionist" history, because it hasn't been written by the state-subsidized historians working from within socialized higher education. But you can evaluate its reliability on your own, without resorting to a spurious argumentum ad auctoritas.

There is no homogeneous "current economic thought". Keynesianism indeed suggests what you said, but I agree with you insofar as I consider Keynesianism to be a pseudo-scientific school of economics, somewhat akin to astrology. Stones cannot turn to bread, regardless of much mathematical equilibristics is involved. On the other hand, I respect the greater part of neoclassical economics and especially its Austrian extension.

The article the link to which you posted, written by Roger Garrison, whom I respect very much, is, in fact, sympathetic to the re-establishment of the gold standard - Garrison considers the costs AND benefits of the GS before concluding that the latter vastly outweigh the former.

Quote: "The gold standard has net benefits, not net costs. An appreciation for these benefits, but not a precise quantitative estimate, can best be gained by comparisons of historical episodes which are illustrative of economic performance under a gold standard and economic performance under a paper standard. The superiority of the former in comparison to the latter constitutes the net benefits of the gold standard. (...) The cost of one institution is forgoing some other institution; the cost of the gold standard is forgoing a paper standard; the cost of sound money is forgoing unsound money. "

"Whoa, Jasper! I am not a Republican. I have never belonged to any political party, but I vote. Yes, I know about the banks. I just don't get wound up about it like you do."

You're probably right about that, KT: I do get pretty wound up about the banking class. They reflect a kind of narcissism that's hard to swallow for me.

It all reminds me of the GM spectacle. Do you remember that? The GM bigshots flew to Washington in their own private planes to ask for a government bailout. What's wrong with this picture?

The reason I get a little upset, KT, is that oftentimes people blame one side (the homeowners) while giving the Robber Baron class a free ride. I see that attitude as egregiously unfair.

In fact, it was everybody's fault.

K. T., there never was any communism in USSR or China or elsewhere. It was called real-socialism, meaning the socialism that could exist in reality. The communist parties were trying to lead the society towards communism, which is supposed to be a better type of society. Read Marx. Marx never predicted that communism could exist in the non-industrial countries like feudal China or Russia, communism was supposed to emerge spontaneously in the most industrially developed countries, namely UK and USA. That is going to happen in the next decades.

Yes, as the Guest above me explains, communism has always been and always will be an empty promise of a better life.

What did the Soviet soon-to-be yet never was communism result in? Deaths and ruined lives.

China is currently a market economy under the rule of a government that retains all the worst practices of communist regimes, mainly the repression of free thought, criminal use of force against dissenting opinion, political propaganda, promotion of false patriotism, militaristic buildup, and god knows what else.

Capitalism is primarily a system that supports individual initiative and innovation. No matter what anyone says, it is the most humane economic system, granted, of course, that the government established a framework within which it is to function.

I in no way support communism, but can someone please explain to me why all problems in current and former communist countries are attributed to communism?

How can you explain the fact that there are just as many poor countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that are capitalist? Is this poverty attributable to capitalism?

Damian, your description of Romania sounds quite similar to some things I've seen in Mexico, yet Mexico is capitalist and has been for most of its history. Is it poor because of capitalism?

This is a serious question, please answer it, I want to know your opinion.

The most humane economic system is capitalism with a social state as a regulator, the kind that exists in Sweden e.g.

The poor countries of Africa, Latin America, Asia and other regions are in poverty because unlike Western nations, they did not embrace the capitalistic model until fairly recent times. But capitalism alone does not gurantee prosperity; it must be coupled with democracy to generate real, sustainable wealth. Unfortunately, democracy has not been introduced to the aforementioned regions until very recent times either.

During the 20th century, Latin America suffered from dictatorships and communist aspirations. Its many economies were similar in that they were still following their colonial role of being raw material generators. Africa was torn by endless power stuggles following its emanicipation from colonial rule. Asia had its own set of problems, not the smallest of which was the threat of communism.

Japan, which embraced both capitalistic and democratic systems following its defeat in WWII became a wonderful example of a non-European culture adopting European values for its own benefit. Taiwan, which distanced itself from mainland China after its revolution, is another example. Even India, the largest democracy on earth, though the size of its population is one of its main problems, is a host to a burgeoning middle class. They have done quite well recently (just look at the residents of the Silicon Valley).

"Japan, which embraced both capitalistic and democratic systems following its defeat in WWII became a wonderful example of a non-European culture adopting European values for its own benefit"

Japan is, contrary to public notion, a social democracy, not a capitalist country. Government works very closely with business in direct violation to the principles of a laissez-faire economy. Until recently the top marginal income tax rate was 60%, and Japanese citizens enjoy one of the most efficient socialized medical care systems on the earth.

"Capitalism is primarily a system that supports individual initiative and innovation. No matter what anyone says, it is the most humane economic system,"

The most humane system? I consider it one of the least.

The term "social democracy" does not in any way exclude from itself capitalism, which, according to its most basic definition, is "an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production is privately owned; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; and profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries." Wikipedia (I don't think we can doubt it as a source for the simple task of defining a concept).

Jasper, what other systems do you have in mind? If you will mention anything akin to communism, I will promtly ask you to re-read "The Gulag Archipelago."

<<Even India, the largest democracy on earth, though the size of its population is one of its main problems, is a host to a burgeoning middle class. They have done quite well recently (just look at the residents of the Silicon Valley). >>


The poverty in India is unimaginably enormous. It is on the same level as the worst of Subsaharan Africa.


<<But capitalism alone does not gurantee prosperity; it must be coupled with democracy to generate real, sustainable wealth.>>


South Korea was a dictatorship for ages after WWII and developed rapidly despite that.


<<During the 20th century, Latin America suffered from dictatorships and communist aspirations. >>


So capitalist dictatorship is just as bad as communist dictatorship? So then should we be blaming dictatorship rather than communism? Has there ever been a non-dictatorship communist nation? Maybe that would be a good system...

Whatever you might think that socialism encompasses, it works only as an addition to an established capitalistic state. Its aim is to take care of those people who do not, for whatever reason, benefit from the gains of a free market economy. That, however, costs money, and that money must come from those who were able to work under the system and earn some. As you see, where to draw the line between what is and what is not a fair redistribution policy is a difficult task. This is precisely why the role and level of socialism in a state is such a controversial issue.