Subject:
|
Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Sep 2002 04:00:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1244 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > <snip>
> > > I disagree and I see no further proof necessary other than to point out that
> > > the closer one gets to a pure capitalist system the better off on average
> > > everyone is, and the closer one gets to a pure socialist system the worse
> > > off on average everyone is. That's pretty generally accepted, I think,
> > > because we have so much empirical proof all around us.
> >
> > I'd generally accept that ;-).
> >
> > But in accepting that, I have to accept that, as one gets closer and closer
> > to a pure capitalist system, there are more and more people who are worse
> > off than average.
>
> That's not entirely accurate, but even if it was, it's not a good metric.
> The average standard of living in the US is significantly higher than, say,
> China.
Indeed, but I'm not comparing the US to China, nor the US or China to a
world average - I'm merely comparing people to the average within their own
system.
My statment was "as one gets closer and closer to a pure capitalist system,
there are more and more people who are worse off than average." but I
probably should have added "... within that system."
People are better off, on average, under a capitalist system. However,
because the average can - and does - get so high, it leaves a lot of space -
and people - under it.
In fact, at some point, the average ceases to be a useful measure for the
average person.
Consider a population of 5 with a standard of living score of 100 (an
arbitirary number for an arbitrary figure). One person doubles her standard
of living to 200. The average standard of living goes up to 120, but the
*majority of the population* is now below average.
There is always going to be a lower limit to how well you are off under any
system (death, or something like it), but - and this is certainly the case
under pure capitalism - there is no upper limit. And people are always going
to strive for that upper limit.
The inevitable result is that the majority of the population tends to fall
below average.
I don't think that there is anything fundamentally wrong with an uneven
distribution of wealth nor with the majority of the population being below
average in well-offness. And this is particularly true while I'm in the
(ever decreasing) above average group.
> I don't tend to agree with Larry on political ideals, but as a goverment
> moves closer to pure socialism, the potential abuse becomes greater. This
> is not to say that socialism is more prone to abuse than capitalism, but
> that abuse in a pure socialist system is farther reaching. It is easier to
> become a tinpot dictator coming from a socialist gov't than a capitalist one.
>
> Capitalism, by acknowledging and explicitly incorporating the tendency of
> people to put themselves first is better protected against it.
Agreed.
My comment "And I'm not sure how acceptable that is." did not end "...how
acceptable that is to me".
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
