How compatible are democracy and capitalism?

The Economist (2019/06/1]: How compatible are democracy and capitalism?

Excerpt:

'Nuff said? Methinks not - over to you (plural) ...

 

Though we never met, I am inclined to think JS quoted above is mostly correct about what is happening in the US today. We simply do not know how to put a break on an economic evolution that can seriously destabilize the country.

The "people" have not had enough - yet. But this new generation is more spoiled than mine - whereas mine was patient enough to continue on and see how economies evolved (without wars!), this present generation does not have that ... uh, patience.

If they make an error, it is this one: I want it all and I want it now !

Alas, we cannot all have the Quick Megabuck (of our dreams). Were it to be so, a BigMac would cost $15K ...

PS: French motto - All for one and one for all!

 

Maybe a better question is how compatible is democracy long-term with high level socialism?

The hand that giveth can also take.
And there's a big connection between wealth and power. You don't want to overcentralize one.

 

An important aspect of the economic evolution of the US has been that of indirect monopolistic market-concentration. It is evident that the more competition in market, the lower the price customers pay. (All else being the same, which is not the least bit possible in most markets).

Nonetheless, market-concentration that started in (let's say in the 1970s and prompted further by the Internet) has seen once highly diverse markets merge. Just a few examples are needed. Who is really competing with Amazon? With Google?) Mergers have been a boondoggle for lawyers and those seeking market concentration (in order to obtain better prices and therefore revenues. And who pays those augmented prices? Yes, you do!)

The US was in this same position (of manipulated markets) very early in its life - with the advent of the Industrial Age . It devised the Sherman Act in 1890 that supposedly "made it illegal for competitors to make agreements with each other that would limit competition." And where does that legality stand more than a 130 years later? Nowhere. And why?

Because of the consolidation binge of large companies buying smaller competitors in such a manner of creating OLIGOPOLIES. Which is like but is not a monopoly. It is just a market that is so concentrated that the top three, four, five participants arrange a "pricing agreement" (without ever having met formally to decide to do so) amongst themselves. What has become key (particularly for new product/service markets) is simply "to get there firstist with the mostest".

It's a great shame that Obama's Attorney General did not take on the task of making the national economy more competitive. Whyzzat? I don't know. All I know (or think I know) is that this lawyer now works out of Las Vegas and has some very, very Large Corporate Clients ...

 

As I've said, there is no such thing as Socialism per se in any developed nation on earth.

There is only Social Democracy as practiced throughout the European Union (which is a population larger than that of the US) ...

There is indeed. Because money can buy political-power. How so? Well, in the US, spending one helluva-lotta-muney on TV commercials works wonders. (Americans watch more TV per day than any other nation on earth.)

And wherever electoral political manipulation exists formidably there is also clear Income Disparity.

See the chart for Income Disparity amongst developed countries (OECD) here ...

 

We don't have any examples of Social Democracy lasting longer than 70 years.

That's a relatively short timescale going by long-term historical standards, about the length of a single generation.

The living standards of several of these EU countries are not that high (Eastern and Southern Europe) or they have rather serious long-term economic or employment problems. (If they weren't allowed to migrate to Western Europe for work, their economic situations would be much more grim)

 

So another violent leftist would prefer a dictatorship and genocide to capitalism and democracy.

 

The English were the first to embark upon nationalized Healthcare in 1950 ...

 

"Plural"? Then you should say "Methinks not - over to yous".

Joking aside, methinks it adds up to capitalism granting/allowing (some minimal) democracy as long as it suits capitalism as defined by the most powerful capitalist interests in any country. IOW as long as they can afford to allow it.

Currently, capitalism is in crisis and they are trying very hard to hide it. But I'm not convinced they'll be able to keep the game going to the satisfaction of the majority hereafter.

 

In Finland, from Finland:

"The creed of Social Democracy is that certain sosial benefits have been proven to be good both for a country’s population, and for its economy. That is why we have universal healthcare, free education, subsidized day care/kindergarten and other benefits here - no matter which side of the political spectrum our government belongs to."

https://www.quora.com/Do-Norwegians-like-socialism?share=1

 

You are asking the wrong question, it should be

How compatible are Democracy and Liberalism

 

Well that might be a tough one. First we would need your definition of "liberalism".

 

That's a very... interesting claim. Especially since financial markets have never been stronger and lending continues to increase. Sure, there are some issues and some places, but the idea that another system is going to replace it is fantasy.

Scandinavian countries, (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland) are very much Capitalist countries. They're not socialist by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Who said another system is going to replace it?

The article didn't say they were socialist.
You're not doing well here Socs. 0 for 2.

 

Nobody. I'm merely saying, despite the claim that it is "in crisis," there is no indicators that it will ever be replaced.

The Quora question "LITERALLY" asked if Norweigns like socialism. It's the very first line. Did you bother reading it?

 

Yeah, the question. So like I said, the article didn't say they were socialist in spite of your claims.

 

No not the definition, check if the policies are compatible.

Liberalism is not compatible with Democracy NOR Capitalism, it is compatible to Communism and Tribalism

Open Border policies, Democracy and its majority rule will result in an invasion, a takeover of country...similar to what happened in South Africa, once the new migrants become the majority. Also lead to conflict, Xenophobia again visible in South Africa with the violent murders of Nigerians and other Africans in South Africa

The open borders policies also result in the demise of the property ownership concept that is capitalism. You can watch this video below to see what liberal open border policies does to capitalism.



Liberal Gun ownership policies are also more suitable to tribalism than democracy, in South Africa the whites have been disarmed and are now sitting at stage eight genocide... there are ten stages. Genocide is widely practiced by tribes in Africa.

 

That's nice. I wasn't responding to the article.

 

You're dancing all over the map to avoid facing your errors. You say you weren't responding to the article, but you previously said in defense of your challenged statement that the Nordic countries aren't socialist... "The Quora question 'LITERALLY' asked if Norweigns like socialism. It's the very first line. Did you bother reading it?"

So your posting is very .... uh ...... "disingenuous" to use a more polite term.

I'm done with this and your dance.

 

I'm guessing you don't know how Quora works. Shame. I'll provide a brief primer.

Quora is a knowledge-sharing website that allows people to ask questions related to their specific interests and have their questions answered by people more knowledgable than themselves (or someone with a unique perspective). The question is, well, questions. The articles are the answers to the question.

To reiterate, I was not responding to the article... Does that make more sense now?

 

So, you tell us the answer. This is a DEBATE forum, not a Message Board ... !

 

PIG'S PEN

Been there, done that.

That part of your remark above is HIGHLY questionable. They are neither more nor less knowledgeable than we here on a Debate Forum!

Moreover, they have the silliness of exacting that people use their "real names". What's a "real name" over the Internet without showing either a Birth Certificate or a Marriage License ?!? (Which they never ask as proof of identity.)

Identity over the Internet is a sham! Which is why the principle of Caveat Emptor is the prevailing rule on any Internet site!

PS: I've been on the Internet since its inception publicly in the 1990s. It has become a PigPen ... !

 

"How compatible are democracy and capitalism?"

pretty compatible, corporatism is getting more powerful then the government though, they are becoming like mini governments within the government and are starting to pull the strings of government

 

WHAT SOCIALISM?

Your right - but only because Dictionary Socialism no longer exists in the world (with the exception of North Korea). "Dictionary Socialism" is an economic system in which the means of production are owned by the state.

You evidently do not live in Europe. The proper words to describe this place where more than 600 million people work and live is a "Social Democracy". And what does that mean?

Social-Democracies have established key societal protections that other capitalist-economies - AND PARTICULARLY THE USofA - do not have. Principally National Health Care as well as free (or nearly free) Post-secondary Education.

Financial markets are mere tools of any capitalist market-of-exchange. And "capital" is not the buggery that it is made to be. Since at least 2500 years it is simply a Medium of Financial Exchange. (The one that replaced selling apples for rabbit meat a long, long time ago.) That is, capital is just another expression of the word money or monetary-value.

VICIOUS CYCLE

What we DO with that word is today's BigQuestion.

In America, some think (erroneously) that "accumulating it" is the height of social-sophistication and mental-acuity. Like a sports-game where the winner is designated by the number of points "won".

(And Jeffrey Epstein today is putting that notion to the test it so RICHLY DESERVES. This "winner" is going to jail!)

Which does not in the least mean that capital is all bad. When revenues are taxed to reduce Income Disparity to decent levels, then capitalism per-se is OK. It does what it was intended to do.

The world does not need billionaires to make itself go-round, go-round, go-round. It needs more so a functional market-economy where all make a decent-enough living - that is both the rich and the poor (but differently).

But neither does that happen in the US. The poor - that is, the 14 million who live below the poverty threshold - are left to lead menial lives from which neither they nor their children ever escape.

So, the Vicious Cycle goes on and on and on and on. Ad nauseam ...

 

What a bunch of pathetic nonsense. Given that Americans have already AMPLY SHOWN their dislike for banal physical work.

And enough of the "isms" which is a catch-all phrase-mechanism that one can use either way - Right or Left. (I try to use it in the Center.)

There are three ideologies that exist today: Left/Center/Right. From Left to Right is the mainstay extremity of political thought. In the Middle is where most Americans are today - fed up as they are with the existing Establishment-Party Leaderships. And it is In-the-Middle (which is highly volatile Left or Right) in which politics are won and lost. Or would be, were there not the voting-manipulations of Gerrymandering and the Electoral College.

Whilst both vote-manipulating mechanisms exist, however, the Replicants will continue to have an unfair influence upon election-outcomes. (As when a Donald Dork loses the popular-election by more than 2% of the popular-vote but wins the presidency, which could/should not happen in any Real Democracy on earth!)

No Doubt About It ...