@ Chrisp,
There is a book, but that's a link to a 4 page (maybe) article, which says enough to inform. And debates the effects of free-market capitalism, plus its an interesting read.

@Gmveral,
But is there such a thing as a "free market economy?" There's some nasty stat that shows a very small percentage has the large majority of the wealth (in the US, but I would assume that's globally true), given our baser human nature to want to keep it all for ourselves and those we like, this is the nature of the beast at this time.

And who's lining the pockets of the government reps? Not the have nots, so whose "best interest" gov't officials are looking out for, assuming that it's beyond their own/party, is a matter for debate. I can't really posit a solution to this, but it's why I suggest that we still live in a feudal society, a little more humane, perhaps, and certainly there are enough of us serfs with food, shelter and amusements to keep us quiet, less "your lordship" and "more what can I get for me?"

Our weakest members of society are not well protected nor given equal opportunity. I know for a fact that even here in "socialist" Canada, that different neighbourhood public school have different curriculum and expectations of their students, pretty much based on socio-economic demarcations, and this is certainly true both of education and access to health care in the US.

@ Jamie, like much of what you have to say, except "productive citizens" is not reflective of the fact that not all of us are. Children, the elderly and some of the disabled are not "productive" in an economic sense, and productivity is usually judged this way.

Less military would be a way to start, but ...

@giapeep - How can you pass judgement on the US Education system? Did you attend here? You only get what the media (US and Canadian) wants you to get. Our education system is lacking universally, not just across socio-economic divides. Sure, there is private school for the rich, but the government funded schools all have their issues and many states have started voucher programs for those who would like to send their kids to private school so that they essentially get the money that would have been spent in the public school system to use on the private education, making it affordable for more and more people to send their kids to private school.

@giapeep: "There's some nasty stat that shows a very small percentage has the large majority of the wealth "

The 'stat' you were thinking of goes like this: The richest 1% of the US population have more wealth than the remaining 99% combined.

I cannot understand how anyone can think this is a good way to distribute society's resources. It stinks.

Eat the rich!

"...even here in "socialist" Canada..."

Your inverted commas are well placed. Canada is not socialist. Not at all. It's just that right-wingers in the US think it is, because it is _more_ "socialist" than the US.

"@ Jamie, like much of what you have to say, except "productive citizens" is not reflective of the fact that not all of us are. Children, the elderly and some of the disabled are not "productive" in an economic sense"

No, but most of the children will become productive citizens, and most of the elderly have been productive citizens and have earned the right to retire. So in general I stand by my statement.

@ Draugnar: The solution of course is to scrap private schools.

Once the elite are forced to send their own kids to state-run schools, they will begin to care about ensuring state-run schools provide a good education. This would benefit all children.

The government is not a guarantor of human survival. Survival, being the most basic of human needs, after which come food, a home, happiness, etc, is the sole responsibility of the individual. This is the case because the government does not have the resources necessary to determine what the needs of each individual are on a case by case basis and because no one is better suited to determine the needs of the individual than the individual himself. If you give the government that responsibility then at what point could individual responsibility come into play in society? Also, it's one thing to vote your own freedoms away for the sake of security, but when the individual is unwilling to surrender his freedoms when the government claims that he must do so for his own protection, watch out, a totalitarian state is coming sooner or later. Even so, when an individual is willing to vote away his freedoms as well as those of his neighbors, a functional government must not allow this to happen for the reasons I stated above. Again: the government must protect the liberty of the minority from the will of the majority.
"Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
-Benjamin Franklin

"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Amendment IV, The US Constitution
The right to private property, as enumerated by our constitution, is as inviolable as our right to free speech and press. Thus, any argument that private property is only allowed to a point must be made arbitrarily and is dependent on the circumstances. In doing so, you are governing not by that which is right and just, but by that which is expedient. How can the argument be made that the ownership of only so much private property is allowed while any more than your arbitrarily determined amount is an infringement on the rights of others?

@Jamie: To say that allowing individuals to amass wealth is evil is your opinion, which I respect, but it is not an argument. What is your argument for the personal generation of wealth as an evil act?

@giapeep: That corporations are able to buy our politicians is a major problem, the blame for which lies, a little bit, with everyone. Corporations ought not to attempt to generate wealth through any means other than competition and the market. Politicians ought not to take money from corporations because then the legislation they are passing is based on what it good for them and for their corporate "owners". We must not willingly buy the products of companies that seek to take our money through means of political pull, nor must we continue to vote for politicians who are so easily purchased by corporations.

In this case you are right. We do not have a free market economy. On the contrary, we have so much government regulation that competition is stifled and corporations no longer need our consent to exist. Take for example the auto bailouts. When a person buys a car, he determines what is the car best suited for his needs. If no one buys from one specific company, then too few people have determined those cars to buy worth buying. Thus that car company should no longer exist. The problem arises when that failing car company has sufficient political pull to stay in existence from government money. Th natural selection of a free market is destroyed, and a company that does not have the right to exist continues to do so because it's good for the politicians they own.

@ gmvera07 "The government is not a guarantor of human survival. Survival, being the most basic of human needs, after which come food, a home, happiness, etc, is the sole responsibility of the individual."

What if an individual is not capable of securing these things for themselves? You think they should just be left to die?

""No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Amendment IV, The US Constitution
The right to private property, as enumerated by our constitution, is as inviolable as our right to free speech and press."

To argue that something is right or just simply because it is written in your sacred constitution is the same as fundamentalist Christians arguing that God exists just because it says so in the bible. Bullshit.

"@Jamie: To say that allowing individuals to amass wealth is evil is your opinion, which I respect, but it is not an argument. What is your argument for the personal generation of wealth as an evil act?"

First of all your use of the term 'generation of wealth' is misplaced. Many wealthy people did not generate their wealth for themselves. What about all the people who inherit vast wealth? They did not generate that wealth.

Now to answer your question more generally:

Allowing individuals to amass property and wealth is evil because it is inherently selfish. Individuals do not, by and large, live as islands. We are all part of society and our actions have an impact on the lives of other members of that society. By allowing individuals to own private property, you are allowing one person to have private dominion over resources which should belong to all of society. Private property creates poverty - allowing the rich to hoard the majority of society's economic wealth inherently denies others their fair share of said wealth. Private property is selfish, encourages greed, and is in my view evil.

Fear not gmvera, when I'm done my organic chemistry midterm I'll be here to back you up. =D

Get some tag team debating going. =P

@Jamie: The US constitution is the basis of US government, which is why I quote it. However, to use the constitution as the basis for an argument is no less reasoned then for you to make the blanket statement that selfishness is evil. That you say it is evil does not make it so. The same may be said for your usage of other terms. Let's analyze a paragraph of one of your arguments:

"Private property creates poverty - allowing the rich to hoard the majority of society's economic wealth inherently denies others their fair share of said wealth. Private property is selfish, encourages greed, and is in my view evil."

"Poverty"- The US is arguably the most capitalistic country in the world, yet no where in the world is the average standard of living higher. The average impoverished person in the united states has a color TV and a car. Also, nowhere else in the world are the impoverished as likely to suffer from obesity. Think about that. Hunger is a true symptom of poverty, and as such, the US's impoverished have fuller stomachs than those of any other country in the world.

"Hoard"-The most charitable contributions/taxes/non-profit organizations are created by the "rich". While some of the wealthy do refuse to use their wealth for anything other than themselves, those people are the exception to the rule. Also consider the practical application of your statement. The wealthiest in the country are so because they generated that wealth. If you tax the rich to the point that they are no longer any higher than those to whom all their money is going (the impoverished), what's to stop them from discontinuing their generation of wealth and getting in line for the handouts they once made possible?

"Fair share"-Fairness is a loaded concept. Who determines what is fair and what determines whether or not that person is qualified to make such a determination? Why is it not fair that one person has made a million dollars in a year while another only made ten thousand regardless of the manner in which each earned his respective amount? If you propose that each individual have the exact same amount of personal belongings, why would anyone take a job that requires more work, either physical or mental, when the payoff is going to be exactly the same?

Another general problem with your argument is that your assuming that the creation of wealth is a zero sum game, or that, in order to make money, another must lose it. How do you qualify this?

While no man is an island unto himself, the best way for a person to contribute to society is to look after his own interests first and foremost. Rather, he does best for society by asking nothing of society. If a man has a right to the wealth generated by another, how long do you honestly think that the person generating that wealth will continue to generate that wealth on which the other man's survival is dependent? After the government has redistributed the belongings of the wealthy, where then will it come from? At that point your either hoping that people will continuing to generate that wealth OR you simply think the system will allow you to will said wealth out of nothing.

Glad to hear I have a partner in crime, Chrisp. :)

@gmvera07: "The US constitution is the basis of US government, which is why I quote it. However, to use the constitution as the basis for an argument is no less reasoned then for you to make the blanket statement that selfishness is evil. That you say it is evil does not make it so."

I agree. That is why, in response to your earlier post, I have now given an explanation of my view on the issue of selfishness, property and evil.


"The US is arguably the most capitalistic country in the world, yet no where in the world is the average standard of living higher."

1. Could you provide a link to some proof of this?
2. Quoting an 'average' standard of living does not mean there is not widespread poverty. If you have a country in which live 100 very rich people, and 100 very poor people, then 'on average' everyone is reasonably off, but still half the people in your country are very poor.


"The most charitable contributions/taxes/non-profit organizations are created by the "rich"."

I believe you are mistaken. It is a fact that the poorest 50% of society give more to charity than the richest 50%.


"The wealthiest in the country are so because they generated that wealth"

I have already pointed out that this is not always the case - a good few of them inherited much of their wealth. You have not addressed this point. Many of the rest "generated" their wealth by screwing other people.


"If you tax the rich to the point that they are no longer any higher than those to whom all their money is going (the impoverished), what's to stop them from discontinuing their generation of wealth and getting in line for the handouts they once made possible?"

I do not believe in "handouts" in the way you probably think of them. I certainly do not believe that people should be rewarded just for sitting on their ass. My view is that if people are willing to work hard and contribute they should be entitled to a decent standard of living. This is not achieved under the present system.

As it happens I also believe that taxation is a very inefficient system for funding state projects.



"If you propose that each individual have the exact same amount of personal belongings, why would anyone take a job that requires more work, either physical or mental, when the payoff is going to be exactly the same?"

1. This is not what I propose. For one thing, to insist that everyone should have "the exact same amount of personal belongings" fails to identify the fact that different people have different needs. What is important is that society should ensure that everyone's needs are being met, which is not being achieved under the present system.

2. You appear to be arguing that if scientists and rat-catchers were paid the same, all scientists would suddenly want to become rat-catchers. This is clearly not the case. Their job is more rewarding, more challenging, and more stimulating than that of a rat-catcher, and considerably less disgusing and smelly. So they are still getting more reward from doing it, even if they are paid the same.


"Another general problem with your argument is that your [sic] assuming that the creation of wealth is a zero sum game, or that, in order to make money, another must lose it. How do you qualify this?"

I do not argue that the creation of wealth is a zero-sum game. However it is also not an infinite-sum game. Society will always have to make decisions about how wealth is distributed. Currently, wealth is distributed in a highly inefficient and unfair manner, resulting in poverty which could easily be abolished being allowed to persist.

@ Draug,
I read books and don't rely on the media as my main source of information. I have family who are university professors who deal with students at this level who do not KNOW basic geography, can barely read and who's concept of Socrates come from Bill and Ted.

Oddly, you go on to defend my arguments, and yes socio economic divides are just one factor, racial issues also play a role.

Private school is not the answer for most under-educated kids. It's just not.

* Professors in the US... btw, these are often the kids on sports scholarships.. who come from the inadequate schools/ districts..

@Giapeep - my point is that public schools generally suffer equally, despite funding differences (states do more school funding than the feds). And most racial divides *are* socio economic divides. Schools in the US are integrated. There was evena time when kids were bussed to better balance the racial percentages, but that time has pretty well past. Go into any inner city school and you will see a population that reflects the community. And the irony is that the school districts that spend mroe per student have not shown any marked improvement in their graduates skills and knowledge via standardized testing than their "poor" counterparts.

As far as universities go and the scholarships, that is a problem with the higher education system, a system only partially publicly funded, where many schools are more interested in getting a national title or a bowl game appearance than they are getting quality students who deserve an education. On that, I will admit, our system is flawed. On the whole, this nation values athletics more than academics, and that is a tragedy of the highest order.

@ gmvera,
Re: "On the contrary, we have so much government regulation that competition is stifled and corporations no longer need our consent to exist. "

I think this is reactive regulation; it's required because corporate sociopathy nearly collapsed your economy (and others) into a depression that would have been lethal to your way of being as a country. It's possible that the balance of the lobby's, who represent corporate interest (greed), among others, essentially prevented proactive legislation to line their pockets and keep their "friends", which would have, potentially, avoided the crisis all together; in the end the conditions were predictable and proved out.

Still, doesn't it kill you that no small number of well informed people anticipated the collapse in the US, and still it happened effecting the world in such a disastrous way? It does me.

It kills me that small factions demand that "our belief is the only belief" and you kill because they cannot expand their minds to include other views in equality? They still possess their women. It saddens me that there is a psychological type willing to mass murder, and manipulate theft. But maybe our nature is creative destruction, because for all I've listed to the bad is equaled by those who do much despite how much they do or do not have.

I don't know if our economic cycle theories may be creating what we are living to the benefit of so few, if so, their ability to occasionally predict a trend would be, well, predictable.They may have been accurate at some point, before we began to acknowledge that our resources are finite and fragile. And yet resources may be our present day gold standard, while corporations even going so far as wasteful production ( Story of stuff dot com. and b) there seems to be many new cars here on this planet, and no one to buy them...)

If the car companies, among others, had crashed, the rate of unemployment would have sky rocketed, hundreds of thousands would not be able to afford shelter, food... Social collapse in the weaker communities would expand outward. (checked out Detroit lately? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQCHJUOvbzU). Crime rates would have increased, health would have declined. And no one would be able to buy stuff and fewer now than in the 30's can grow their own food. (Dude, the poor are fat not just because of the affordability and tasty addictive quality of fast food, it's a lack of affordable fresh food within a relative walking distance which means their choice is limited to what is accessible to them--like, oh, fast food restaurants.

So the bailouts are because of gov't officials, who compromised previous administrations and effected policy and colluded , and possibly created by lobby's, which are themselves also boughtm sold and owned by.., hmm, who could afford to do that? Sadly it is greed, of money and power, that motivates a chance to suck up what they could for their cohort, as the financial crisis was ignored, much in the same way as Hurricane Katrina.

The corporate model is about creating demand to pay for products and services we really do need to make a profit for those who got their first, and found a way to manipulation of the impulse and desire for things we don't need in as much abundance as possible, in the hopes that one day we shall hit out dream lottery; meanwhile is more like first one to the watering hole...

With our resources issues, from the natural to the social, this strikes me as backward.

Has anyone read Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address, where he warns against the military-industrial (changed it to corporate-- trying to fool us) complex?
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html


It seems to me that as long as government does not reflect in action liberty for all, then it's not democracy and it's not a government in the way we imagine it to be when we vote.

Ok, back to that 1%. Can we at least agree that this is out of proportion? I'd like to see more consideration in public debate to include many potentially beneficial ways to redistribute some of that wealth to even things out and strive for the only way true liberty can be met by first the recognition that all humans are not created equal nor are we treated as such, and start from there.

I'd also contend, that as long as government does not reflect in action liberty for all, then it's not democratic; it's been bought to protect the interest of the few.

Giapeep - capitalism will always create these problems for itself because it is a system based on greed. Not a sensible basis for modern society.

"Dude, the poor are fat not just because of the affordability and tasty addictive quality of fast food, it's a lack of affordable fresh food within a relative walking distance which means their choice is limited to what is accessible to them--like, oh, fast food restaurants."

Giapeep +10

In this case the obesity of poor americans is a result of their poverty, rather than proving they are not IN poverty as gmvera07 claimed.

I wish I was a part of this conversation, so I'll just say this:
Jamiet99uk + infinity.

Thanks Onar.

Thanks Jamie, for getting through that awful bit of composition and the +10

The poor may have fuller stomachs (and tv's with no cable and cars they cannot afford to put gas in), but they have it at a huge cost to their health and society's well being and for what? So they can starve their bodies of nutrition, in the guise of a fat tummy filled with "yummy?"

As any good lordship has learned, ya gots to keep the masses fed, but do it cheaply.

@ Daug,
From what you've written, which I know already, your public school system is an abysmal failure. So instead of getting together with other citizens and working to change it, those who don't like it leave -- taking money with them, and leaving those who do not have access to those options with less access to better education and an educational system this does not serve it's purpose. The teachers are paid shite, the books and educational materials are out of date if available at all, and the students don't get the same information (in part because their minds are messed up by malnutrition and hopelessness).

100 years ago education was considered a privilege, with the male population benefiting the most (the few women in higher learning at that time took a lot of shit and were discouraged from using it in any practical way) and it still is a privilege determined by the lottery of birth. A difference is, back then, without the distraction of "entertainment," and because they lived closer to natural realities, they knew it. Every body of my grand parent's generation wanted education, fewer had access to it, but there was a general respect for it that motivated the majority of citizens to demand it be available to all. Still, availability and with equality are two different things.

@Jamie: I am not speaking about the average citizen in the United States, in which case you would be correct. I am talking about the average impoverished citizen in this country. I leave it at that. As far as links, I’m sorry but I can’t provide them. Most of my information I get from books. If you’d like me to cite them, I’d be more than happy to.

Now I would like to see your numbers for the 50% lowest contributing more to charity. We may be misunderstanding each other here. While more people in the lower 50 give money, more money comes from the top 10 altogether. You understand? Even then, I’m still disinclined to believe that the poor are more charitable than anyone else.

On inherited wealth: That money was originally made bay someone who earned it. Certainly this is the case in the United States which has never had a real landed aristocracy like that of Europe. Some examples of self mad millionaires include Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ross Perot, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, I could keep going here. In any case, why are they not allowed to pass their millions on to their progeny, as they certainly couldn’t spend it all within their own lifetime?

Your argument automatically assumes a few things: That anyone wealthy is so by having cheated other people. That anyone in poverty made in honest attempt at work and was unable to succeed because of the attempts of the wealthy to stop them. That those who are wealthy have not actually worked hard. What you are forgetting is that some people are simply far more intelligent than others. Those who work hard will be able to make a good living for themselves while those who are hard working as well as intelligent will be able to do so much more. I propose that the wealthy got there, for the most part, because of that fantastic combination of intelligence and hard work.

As far as the rat catcher and the scientist are concerned, your statement reveals a contradiction in your argument. Does the scientist work because the job is fulfilling and because the job is demanding, or because it pays well? It’s both. Does the man who starts his own business do it because there is a chance at great success or because he loves it? Both. But these things take a lot of hard work. Ask any law students or any med school students if they’re willing to continue with their schooling if they know that they won’t be making any more money than a McDonalds employee. You may get a fair number of holdouts to stay, but how many do you really think will, really? Also, and here is the contradiction, do people work hard because they are greedy, or because they love what they do? You’ll argue that the wealthy are greedy regardless because they should give their money to those who need it and that only those who are not wealthy work because they love what they do. So then who is going to generate that wealth in the place of the greedy? You are going to lose a lot of wealth generation.

One other question, if communism works as well as you propose, why hasn’t it? Why did the USSR fall? Why did China, which is now experiencing major economic growth under a more free market system, drop the planned economy system? Why does Venezuela, whose existence is dependent on oil revenues, have a poverty rate of 40%? Lastly, who determines need? I’ve asked this before but not gotten an answer. Am I to let some government bureaucrat tell me what I need and tell me I’m wrong when I tell him I need something I apparently don’t? Does he know more about my needs than I do? You assume people are greedy, yet you advocate a system that seems to run on good will.

This argument was written by someone whose parents are Cuban refugees. My grandparents came here with the clothes on their bodies. My father is a Doctor in the Veteran’s Administration and his son (me) has never had a day of private schooling in his life with the exception of college, for which he (I) received a full academic scholarship equaling $160,000 in worth, and is gainfully employed. Gentlemen, I dare you to find a success story equal to mine in any communist country.

I’m coming for you next, Giapeep…I can spend the time because I have the day off from work.
:)

@Giapeep:
For starters:
"It kills me that small factions demand that "our belief is the only belief" and you kill because they cannot expand their minds to include other views in equality? They still possess their women. It saddens me that there is a psychological type willing to mass murder, and manipulate theft. But maybe our nature is creative destruction, because for all I've listed to the bad is equaled by those who do much despite how much they do or do not have."

...What?

@Giapeep:
In regard to obesity as a widespread problem amongst the US's lower rungs of the economy. Eating at McDonald all the time is not cheap. Trust me, I know because I went to college. You get fat not from eating crap food. You get fat from eating too much crap food. You get fat from eating too much ANYTHING. A Dorito will not make you fat. Scarfing the whole bag in one sitting will. And addictive? Where are you even getting that from? Who's addicted to McDonalds?

"So the bailouts are because of gov't officials, who compromised previous administrations and effected policy and colluded , and possibly created by lobby's, which are themselves also boughtm sold and owned by.., hmm, who could afford to do that? Sadly it is greed, of money and power, that motivates a chance to suck up what they could for their cohort, as the financial crisis was ignored, much in the same way as Hurricane Katrina."
There are no logical arguments in this paragraph. Simply a bunch of opinions stated as fact.

While you brought up Katrina...It is recorded that private charitable organizations did far more to help the relief effort than FEMA. I'll see if I can't get you some stats...

Lastly, are the auto bailouts the result of government corruption or a necessary move to hold up the national economy? You seem to argue both.

@Giapeep and Jamie:
Are either of you even from the US?

Capitalism is a poopy-head.
Communism is a booger-eater.

I cede victory to Sicarius.

Why did I let myself fall into the void of having an argument online...

Hey someone has to pay me a penny. I had copywrited the term poopy-head, as well as poo-flinging monkey.

I am composing a reply to gmvera07, and will be with you in a few minutes...

@Jamie: "I am not speaking about the average citizen in the United States, in which case you would be correct. I am talking about the average impoverished citizen in this country. I leave it at that. As far as links, I’m sorry but I can’t provide them. Most of my information I get from books. If you’d like me to cite them, I’d be more than happy to."

Yes please. I have access to a good academic library. Kindly cite the books.

"Now I would like to see your numbers for the 50% lowest contributing more to charity. We may be misunderstanding each other here. While more people in the lower 50 give money, more money comes from the top 10 altogether. You understand? Even then, I’m still disinclined to believe that the poor are more charitable than anyone else."

I am happy to provide a link to a reputable recent study which backs up my statement: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/68456.html

"On inherited wealth: That money was originally made bay someone who earned it. Certainly this is the case in the United States which has never had a real landed aristocracy like that of Europe."

So by "earned it" you mean "stole it from the Native Americans?"

"Some examples of self mad millionaires include Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ross Perot, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, I could keep going here. In any case, why are they not allowed to pass their millions on to their progeny, as they certainly couldn’t spend it all within their own lifetime?"

What right do the children of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and the others you mention have to their wealth? Why is it just for them to be vastly wealthy just through accident of birth? They have no right, and it is not just. Inheritance is a crime against society.

"Your argument automatically assumes a few things: That anyone wealthy is so by having cheated other people. That anyone in poverty made in honest attempt at work and was unable to succeed because of the attempts of the wealthy to stop them. That those who are wealthy have not actually worked hard. What you are forgetting is that some people are simply far more intelligent than others. Those who work hard will be able to make a good living for themselves while those who are hard working as well as intelligent will be able to do so much more. I propose that the wealthy got there, for the most part, because of that fantastic combination of intelligence and hard work."

Your argument also automatically assumes things - particularly that rich people are saints of some kind, who we should worship because their wealth proves that they are better than us. I refer you once again to inheritance. Is it genuinely your opinion that, for example, Paris Hilton is one of the most intelligent and hard working people on earth?

"As far as the rat catcher and the scientist are concerned, your statement reveals a contradiction in your argument. Does the scientist work because the job is fulfilling and because the job is demanding, or because it pays well? It’s both.

Exactly. It's both. So if his wages were reduced to the national average, his job would still be more rewarding than many others. So he would still do it.

"Ask any law students or any med school students if they’re willing to continue with their schooling if they know that they won’t be making any more money than a McDonalds employee. You may get a fair number of holdouts to stay, but how many do you really think will, really?"

Most McDonalds employees are seriously underpaid. Therefore I would not ask anyone to work for their money. That's part of my argument you seem to have missed. I propose that high earners should get less precisely so that low-earners could be given a fairer share.

"Also, and here is the contradiction, do people work hard because they are greedy, or because they love what they do?"

If they love what they do, they do not need huge amounts of money to motivate them, do they?

"One other question, if communism works as well as you propose, why hasn’t it?"

This is a VERY complex question and I do not claim to be able to fully answer it. However I will try to address some of your specific sub-questions:

"Why did the USSR fall?"

The USSR was a failed attempt at communism, and it is remarkable in my opinion that it survived for as long as it did. There were a number of serious problems with Soviet Communism, but to summarise the main ones:

1. The Russian Revolution happened at a time when Russia was simply not ready for communism. As Marx explains, capitalism needs to happen first in order to develop the economy, and industry in particular, to a point where the economy is ready to take the next step into communism. The majority of Russia had barely left the medieval era in 1917.

2. As a result of (1) above, communist Russia was almost immediately attacked by numerous external and internal forces. This actually helped the Party to stabilise and build its core support, but further held back the development of the country's economy, and also began a trend for over-spending on the military which continued into the Cold War (see 5 below).

3. Partially as a result of (1) and (2) above, communism in the USSR was never democratic in the way that Marx, Engels or even Lenin had envisaged, with the result that a significant proportion of the population did not feel engaged by the project.

4. Once Stalin was in power things got much worse. His idea of 'socialism in one country' was a pragmatic but ill-advised response to the situation the USSR found itself in, but only added to the long-term likelihood of failure.

5. The Cold War arms race saw the USSR spending around two-thirds of its GNP on the military throughout the 1960's, 70's and 80's. Imagine if this had only been one-third - how much higher would the living standards of its citizens have been?

6. Eventually with the shadow of Stalin still looming over the USSR, and with history and technology overtaking it, failure was inevitable. Again, the surprising thing was that Soviet Communism lasted so long.


"Why did China, which is now experiencing major economic growth under a more free market system, drop the planned economy system?"

I do not regard China as a communist country, and never have. Just because a country claims it is communist does not mean it is. China is a bizzare totalitarian dictatorship. The fact that it is about to become the world's most powerful nation is quite scary.

"Why does Venezuela, whose existence is dependent on oil revenues, have a poverty rate of 40%?"

Venezuela is not a communist country. It has a socialist president, but he is a socialist, not a communist. I therefore fail to see why you mention the example of Venezuela as an example of communism not working, since Venezuela is not attempting to operate a communist system.

"Lastly, who determines need? I’ve asked this before but not gotten an answer. Am I to let some government bureaucrat tell me what I need and tell me I’m wrong when I tell him I need something I apparently don’t? Does he know more about my needs than I do? You assume people are greedy, yet you advocate a system that seems to run on good will."

Ensuring people's needs are met, first and foremost, is about making sure everyone has a decent standard of living, and the resources to decide on some of their own needs. It is NOT about micro-managing people on the level that your question implies. There are already many academic and governmental studies on living standards, and the methodologies of the best of these could be applied to measuring how well the system was meeting society's needs.