I got an E-mail suggesting I share what's on my mind on Daily Kos. So. In my opinion....The capitalists are firmly in control of Congress. Political ideologues that think Democracy and Capitalism cannot exist in separation and that associate Christianity with Capitalism are undoubtedly pleased with the outcome of the 2014 General Election. I, however, am not pleased. Continue reading to find out why.
While it seems to me that some political ideologues give the
impression that Capitalism was born in America and that Capitalism is
inextricably blended with the ideals of Democracy and the teachings of
Jesus, it requires only a little research to shed doubt on these ideas.
What is Capitalism? It is an economic system in which the means of
production are privately owned. The concept of capitalism involves
using wealth to create more wealth. One way to do this is to lend money
at interest, a practice that the Old Testament regards as the sin of
usury (Ezekiel 18:13, e.g.). According to www.worldhistory.net the
roots of Capitalism lie in the European Middle Ages, where and when the
Church governed, more or less, but not in a Democratic fashion.
According to this website, capitalism was practiced in Europe for
hundreds of years prior to the Eighteenth Century. Private ownership
exists in undemocratic Russia, as well as in other countries that are
considered socialistic.
As I understand it, Socialism is a system in which a country's wealth and the means of production are controlled by the national government. Profits from production of goods and services go directly to the government which then distributes the wealth, as needed, to the populace. Some countries that we consider socialist actually have some private ownership of the means of production. I have read that the citizens of these countries pay more taxes than U.S. citizens pay.
As far as I know there are no purely Socialistic nor purely Capitalistic (laissez faire) countries.
If the U.S. were a pure Capitalistic non-socialistic system, we would not have work safety regulations. There would be much more pollution and environmental degradation than there is now. There would be no unions without the permission of business owners. The government would not care for orphans nor for the elderly nor for those unable to work. All of this might result in lower taxes. It would also result in an unhealthier population and higher health costs.
In a purely laissez faire system there would probably be no income tax. I don't know how the government would fund itself sufficiently without taxation. That is probably one good reason there are no purely Capitalistic countries.
Those who believe in laissez faire capitalism don't worry about anyone's health and well-being. They assume everyone is as capable of looking after him/herself as they are. Capitalism is an ideal system for people with above-average abilities that others value; with super immune systems; with a complete lack of appreciation for the natural landscapes not yet despoiled by people; and who have no concern for the "bigger picture" or a naive belief that pure Capitalism can correct all the world's problems.
Capitalism has resulted in tremendous technological growth. The competition of capitalism allegedly produces more affordable goods and services. The other side of that is "The Story of Stuff"(https://novoed.com/...), the excessive consumerism that is supported by affordable goods and which leads to global problems that Capitalists see as opportunities to make more money, if they notice these problems at all.
Capitalists are motivated by self-interest and greed. Any benefits of Capitalism are due to those psychological factors. I concede that more people in this country have a higher standard of living than they would if our system was purely socialistic. On the other hand, more people would be worse off if all socialist-type government benefits, including social security, were eliminated. If it were demonstrated that a "higher standard of living" were actually threatening the quality of life on Earth, would "higher" still mean better? I no longer wonder why capitalists will be the last people to stop denying global burning, er warming.
There is a myth that the super rich are actually altruistic rather than scrooge-like. Why do I call it a myth? If the wealthiest business owners actually cared about people in need, trickle-down economics would have created a job for every unemployed citizen willing and able to work, a job that would pay at least enough to allow each person to live a healthful lifestyle.
Trickle-down economics only occurs if the wealthy owners of the means of production want it to happen. Private enterprise holds all the cards. They have the power to create jobs and to make jobs disappear. Some people speculate that if there were a Republican president, economic conditions for the Middle Class would be better. If there were a Republican president and a Republican-dominated Congress, there may be more jobs. If the federal government eased up on enforcing regulations designed to protect environmental quality, worker safety, and the quality and safety of American-made products and manufacturing. Why? Because big corporations could make more profits more easily without the expenses incurred by conforming to those government regulations.
The rich like free trade agreements which remove import fees and tariffs on foreign goods. The cheaper available foreign products decrease the cost of living for those of us who have given up trying to find American-made products. Perhaps employers feel justified in cutting benefits and hours and wages since their employees' cost of living is decreased by cheaper foreign goods. Since the cost of living has not allegedly increased, the Federal Government probably thinks increased Social Security checks are not necessary. The government has, nevertheless, raised the amount taken out of our social security checks to pay for Medicare. Does the government think we can afford to pay more for Medicare with the money we are saving by buying cheaper foreign goods? Ironically if there is any one group in the United States that believes in "buying American" it is retirees on Social Security.
Perhaps the government reasons that more American-made products can be sold out-of-country when no tariffs, etc. are added to the cost of these exported products. (I don't tax yours and you won't tax mine.) Unfortunately, many American companies have gone out of business because they could not compete with less expensive products from other countries. The American government evidently has faith in the innovative ability of entrepreneurs to invent products that other countries will want but that only America can produce. Unfortunately, this works to the benefit of Americans for only as long as it takes China to steal the technology and produce the same innovative products less expensively, as happened with solar panels.
As long as the United States government supports foreign manufacturers by allowing their products to be sold cheaper than American-made products in American stores, what is supposed to motivate American entrepreneurs to invest in the USA? The United States used to be a model that other countries would seek to emulate. Now it looks more like a mentally-challenged sacrificial lamb!
What is the solution? The solution is to go back to our political ideals which capitalistic greed and self-interest do not support. Everyone has the inalienable right to life. That means everyone has the right to a healthy existence. Relaxing regulations that protect that right so that the Upper 1% can thrive is unacceptable.
The federal government needs to care more about American workers than about foreign workers. The government needs to care more about the well-being of the working class than about pleasing Wall Street and the captains of industry. Tariffs and import costs on foreign goods need to be increased enough to allow American-made goods to be priced competitively. And every American citizen who is able and willing to work should have the opportunity to earn enough to afford a healthful lifestyle. When that becomes a reality, the "minimum wage" will be a quaint anachronism and the United States will be less of a plutocracy and more of a Republic.
As I understand it, Socialism is a system in which a country's wealth and the means of production are controlled by the national government. Profits from production of goods and services go directly to the government which then distributes the wealth, as needed, to the populace. Some countries that we consider socialist actually have some private ownership of the means of production. I have read that the citizens of these countries pay more taxes than U.S. citizens pay.
As far as I know there are no purely Socialistic nor purely Capitalistic (laissez faire) countries.
If the U.S. were a pure Capitalistic non-socialistic system, we would not have work safety regulations. There would be much more pollution and environmental degradation than there is now. There would be no unions without the permission of business owners. The government would not care for orphans nor for the elderly nor for those unable to work. All of this might result in lower taxes. It would also result in an unhealthier population and higher health costs.
In a purely laissez faire system there would probably be no income tax. I don't know how the government would fund itself sufficiently without taxation. That is probably one good reason there are no purely Capitalistic countries.
Those who believe in laissez faire capitalism don't worry about anyone's health and well-being. They assume everyone is as capable of looking after him/herself as they are. Capitalism is an ideal system for people with above-average abilities that others value; with super immune systems; with a complete lack of appreciation for the natural landscapes not yet despoiled by people; and who have no concern for the "bigger picture" or a naive belief that pure Capitalism can correct all the world's problems.
Capitalism has resulted in tremendous technological growth. The competition of capitalism allegedly produces more affordable goods and services. The other side of that is "The Story of Stuff"(https://novoed.com/...), the excessive consumerism that is supported by affordable goods and which leads to global problems that Capitalists see as opportunities to make more money, if they notice these problems at all.
Capitalists are motivated by self-interest and greed. Any benefits of Capitalism are due to those psychological factors. I concede that more people in this country have a higher standard of living than they would if our system was purely socialistic. On the other hand, more people would be worse off if all socialist-type government benefits, including social security, were eliminated. If it were demonstrated that a "higher standard of living" were actually threatening the quality of life on Earth, would "higher" still mean better? I no longer wonder why capitalists will be the last people to stop denying global burning, er warming.
There is a myth that the super rich are actually altruistic rather than scrooge-like. Why do I call it a myth? If the wealthiest business owners actually cared about people in need, trickle-down economics would have created a job for every unemployed citizen willing and able to work, a job that would pay at least enough to allow each person to live a healthful lifestyle.
Trickle-down economics only occurs if the wealthy owners of the means of production want it to happen. Private enterprise holds all the cards. They have the power to create jobs and to make jobs disappear. Some people speculate that if there were a Republican president, economic conditions for the Middle Class would be better. If there were a Republican president and a Republican-dominated Congress, there may be more jobs. If the federal government eased up on enforcing regulations designed to protect environmental quality, worker safety, and the quality and safety of American-made products and manufacturing. Why? Because big corporations could make more profits more easily without the expenses incurred by conforming to those government regulations.
The rich like free trade agreements which remove import fees and tariffs on foreign goods. The cheaper available foreign products decrease the cost of living for those of us who have given up trying to find American-made products. Perhaps employers feel justified in cutting benefits and hours and wages since their employees' cost of living is decreased by cheaper foreign goods. Since the cost of living has not allegedly increased, the Federal Government probably thinks increased Social Security checks are not necessary. The government has, nevertheless, raised the amount taken out of our social security checks to pay for Medicare. Does the government think we can afford to pay more for Medicare with the money we are saving by buying cheaper foreign goods? Ironically if there is any one group in the United States that believes in "buying American" it is retirees on Social Security.
Perhaps the government reasons that more American-made products can be sold out-of-country when no tariffs, etc. are added to the cost of these exported products. (I don't tax yours and you won't tax mine.) Unfortunately, many American companies have gone out of business because they could not compete with less expensive products from other countries. The American government evidently has faith in the innovative ability of entrepreneurs to invent products that other countries will want but that only America can produce. Unfortunately, this works to the benefit of Americans for only as long as it takes China to steal the technology and produce the same innovative products less expensively, as happened with solar panels.
As long as the United States government supports foreign manufacturers by allowing their products to be sold cheaper than American-made products in American stores, what is supposed to motivate American entrepreneurs to invest in the USA? The United States used to be a model that other countries would seek to emulate. Now it looks more like a mentally-challenged sacrificial lamb!
What is the solution? The solution is to go back to our political ideals which capitalistic greed and self-interest do not support. Everyone has the inalienable right to life. That means everyone has the right to a healthy existence. Relaxing regulations that protect that right so that the Upper 1% can thrive is unacceptable.
The federal government needs to care more about American workers than about foreign workers. The government needs to care more about the well-being of the working class than about pleasing Wall Street and the captains of industry. Tariffs and import costs on foreign goods need to be increased enough to allow American-made goods to be priced competitively. And every American citizen who is able and willing to work should have the opportunity to earn enough to afford a healthful lifestyle. When that becomes a reality, the "minimum wage" will be a quaint anachronism and the United States will be less of a plutocracy and more of a Republic.
