# Is capitalism a zero-sum game?



## BradK (21 September 2009)

Well, is it? 

Given the multiple levels and sites of capitalism, is it zero-sum? At what levels? 

Does my wealth as a Westerner come at the expense of some poor Third World peasant? 

Cheers
Brad


----------



## Solly (21 September 2009)

BradK said:


> Well, is it?
> 
> Given the multiple levels and sites of capitalism, is it zero-sum? At what levels?
> 
> ...




Brad, only if you choose it to be that way............


----------



## Mr J (22 September 2009)

BradK said:


> Well, is it?
> 
> Given the multiple levels and sites of capitalism, is it zero-sum? At what levels?
> 
> ...




I see it as a pie, and all that ever changes is the distribution of that pie. I don't believe wealth is ever created, merely transferred, as I don't judge wealth by specifics (e.g. dollar amounts), but by position relative to everyone else. Example, if we went back to the stone age, the first guy with a wheel would be extremely wealthy, despite the fact that we would view everyone as poor.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (22 September 2009)

BradK said:


> Well, is it?
> 
> Given the multiple levels and sites of capitalism, is it zero-sum? At what levels?
> 
> ...




not sure of the question after the thread title.

but no, capitalism is not a zero sum game. or else technology and living standards would not be rising all round the world.


----------



## theasxgorilla (22 September 2009)

Wealth can indeed be created, so I don't think it's ever zero sum.  On the most basic level, a country endowed of fertile farmland and good conditions can indeed yield more than the resources input to produce.  The difference becomes profit/wealth, which can be used to trade with another country which did exactly the same thing.  Both countries are becoming wealthier at the same time.  Although how wealth is distributed determines whether someone, somewhere along a supply chain is being milked or not.

Capitalism depends upon those providing input labour and resources not being paid the full value of their utility.  The difference is often explained as being the risk premium deserved of the entrepreneur who is sticking his/her neck out.  But we know that in reality this playing field is not level.  Even within the country that purports itself to be the purest living example of capitalism.

On a micro-level, only recently, we see their government backstoping entrepreneurial risk-taking gone wrong, and landing the costs of that exercise with those providing the input labour/resources... and on a macro-level we see what happens when this country isn't happy simply trading to get milk, they wanted the cows and so they took them (think Iraq).


----------



## jono1887 (22 September 2009)

It was a zero-sum game up to the turn of the 18th century and the start of the industrial revolution. GDP growth now is essentially the % growth in wealth in the economy...

Technology is probably the main reason the overall pie is increasing for everyone. But the people with the larger slices tend to have slices grow faster then the people with the smaller ones :


----------



## theasxgorilla (22 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Technology is probably the main reason the overall pie is increasing for everyone. But the people with the larger slices tend to have slices grow faster then the people with the smaller ones :




Ah yes, the phenomenom of _percentage gains_.


----------



## many@k (22 September 2009)

No because the TAX from the governMINT is the rake or commission. 
So yes there might be a winner for every loser but the governmenrt takes it share from both sides.


----------



## matty2.0 (22 September 2009)

No. 
Not the best of questions.


----------



## Atlas79 (22 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> I see it as a pie, and all that ever changes is the distribution of that pie. I don't believe wealth is ever created, merely transferred, as I don't judge wealth by specifics (e.g. dollar amounts), but by position relative to everyone else. Example, if we went back to the stone age, the first guy with a wheel would be extremely wealthy, despite the fact that we would view everyone as poor.




Want proof that you're wrong? Look around you. There is vastly more wealth than there was 100 years ago, let alone in the caveman days. Therefore wealth can be created.

The system is however large enough that some can play a parasitic role rather than by creating something of value. Those who are motivated to slag off capitalism will cite such people as an example of capitalism being entirely evil, when in fact it is human kind's only guiding light to keep the dark ages at bay.


----------



## Atlas79 (22 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> It was a zero-sum game up to the turn of the 18th century and the start of the industrial revolution. GDP growth now is essentially the % growth in wealth in the economy...
> 
> Technology is probably the main reason the overall pie is increasing for everyone. But the people with the larger slices tend to have slices grow faster then the people with the smaller ones :





Might I add that the people with the smaller pies will jealously eye off the larger pies and think the system is unfair. They often won't realize that their own pie slice, due to the system, is far larger than 99% of all human beings who have ever walked the earth. So they will demand the system be changed, that the pies be made smaller for "fairness", and soon we're all eating dirt again...


----------



## theasxgorilla (22 September 2009)

Atlas79 said:


> So they will demand the system be changed, that the pies be made smaller for "fairness", and soon *we're all eating dirt again...*




Citation please? When did we used to eat dirt???


----------



## Atlas79 (22 September 2009)

theasxgorilla said:


> Citation please? When did we used to eat dirt???





Metaphorical dirt! (It's the most nutritious)


----------



## white_goodman (22 September 2009)

BradK said:


> Well, is it?
> 
> Given the multiple levels and sites of capitalism, is it zero-sum? At what levels?
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr J (23 September 2009)

Atlas79 said:


> Want proof that you're wrong? Look around you. There is vastly more wealth than there was 100 years ago, let alone in the caveman days. Therefore wealth can be created.




No there's not, it's just that overall living standards are better. You're not any better off relative to someone of your class/status 100 years ago. Many people in this thread are mistaking standard of living for wealth, assuming we are defining wealth in terms of financial status. Where's your proof?



> Technology is probably the main reason the overall pie is increasing for everyone.




Technology doesn't improve wealth. Real wealth is financial position relative to other people.



> but no, capitalism is not a zero sum game. or else technology and living standards would not be rising all round the world.




So your argument is that a rise in technology and general standard of living is proof that capitalism is a positive sum game? I don't think it is. Technological level can rise while relative wealth remains consistent.


----------



## Atlas79 (23 September 2009)

> Real wealth is financial position relative to other people.




You have defined power, not wealth.



> You're not any better off relative to someone of your class/status 100 years ago.




Must disagree. Our lower middle class live better than kings of 200 years ago. Literally better than kings. Better medical care, gadgets those kings would think must be magical, longer lives, better lives, more leisurely time, refrigerators, etc.



> So your argument is that a rise in technology and general standard of living is proof that capitalism is a positive sum game? I don't think it is. Technological level can rise while relative wealth remains consistent.




When capitalism was allowed to prosper, technology improved at a faster rate than it ever had in history. That's not a coincidence. Capitalism is simply what naturally arises when people are allowed freedom from excessive rulers.


----------



## Mr J (23 September 2009)

Atlas79 said:


> You have defined power, not wealth.




No I haven't, as someone can be powerful yet not wealthy. 



> Must disagree. Our lower middle class live better than kings of 200 years ago. Literally better than kings. Better medical care, gadgets those kings would think must be magical, longer lives, better lives, more leisurely time, refrigerators, etc.




In some ways, yes. But they're not better off relative to society as a whole, which is my point. You're way off with some of your suggestions, such as leasurely time, and arguably better living.



> When capitalism was allowed to prosper, technology improved at a faster rate than it ever had in history. That's not a coincidence. Capitalism is simply what naturally arises when people are allowed freedom from excessive rulers.




You make it sound as if capitalism was only embraced in the 19th Century. It has existed with "excessive" rulers. You're comparing an economic system to a political one, i.e. apples to oranges. The same could have been achieved under a socialist system if we were to all hold hands and aim to better humanity.


----------



## theasxgorilla (23 September 2009)

Atlas79 said:


> When capitalism was allowed to prosper, technology improved at a faster rate than it ever had in history. That's not a coincidence. Capitalism is simply what naturally arises when people are allowed freedom from excessive rulers.




Actually, I think war is also a very high driver of technological innovation.  I would argue more so than the free market, and it stands to reason, as the feedback loop is MUCH shorter, and war threatens several things that feature as higher priorities than money in Maslows hierarchy of needs.


----------



## Atlas79 (23 September 2009)

Wealth can be an indicator of status - status is not necessarily an indicator of wealth. For instance take the worker's paradise of North Korea or Cuba, or those other socialist systems where people are "striving to better humanity" at their own expense (or was that at gunpoint? I forget. Might hop on a plane, then go pop into a concentration camp and ask around.) You can be second in command in these places, which is far more power over other people than you or I will have. Unless your name is Kim Jong Ill or Castro, they are likely to be poorer than you or I. Relative to them, you and I are both rich. But relative to our society, we have less power. Which is fine by me. I would rather serve in heaven than rule a part of hell.



> In some ways, yes. But they're not better off relative to society as a whole, which is my point. You're way off with some of your suggestions, such as leasurely time, and arguably better living.




And if society as a whole is better off, including everyone in it, they are richer than the previous, poorer society. Those very same people are better of materially than their direct descendants were. They have more stuff and a better standard of living. If having more stuff & living better (and longer) isn't a good measure of wealth for you, I guess we're going to have to disagree.




> You make it sound as if capitalism was only embraced in the 19th Century. It has existed with "excessive" rulers. You're comparing an economic system to a political one, i.e. apples to oranges. The same could have been achieved under a socialist system if we were to all hold hands and aim to better humanity.




Can you give me an example of a socialist system in which this noble intent has worked in actual practice?


----------



## theasxgorilla (23 September 2009)

Atlas79 said:


> Can you give me an example of a socialist system in which this noble intent has worked in actual practice?




Sweden.  A capitalist system with socialist bolt-on bits.  Although I suspect it works because Sweden is full of Swedes... in other words, don't try this at home.


----------



## Atlas79 (23 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> No I haven't, as someone can be powerful yet not wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






theasxgorilla said:


> Sweden.  A capitalist system with socialist bolt-on bits.  Although I suspect it works because Sweden is full of Swedes... in other words, don't try this at home.




Sweden is now in terminal decline. The birth rates and demographics are shot. It took time for socialism to grind the country down, but it is happening now. (And you cannot be a little bit socialist any more than you can be a little bit pregnant.)


----------



## theasxgorilla (23 September 2009)

Atlas79 said:


> Sweden is now in terminal decline. The birth rates and demographics are shot. It took time for socialism to grind the country down, but it is happening now. (And you cannot be a little bit socialist any more than you can be a little bit pregnant.)




Admittedly I see things in Sweden that trouble me, and I have to wonder, if long term, some of the decision making and actions of the folk there will lead to this terminal decline that you mention.  But, without a doubt they live in better houses, drive better cars, are better dressed, better groomed, have a higher proportion of second home ownership (for leisure, not landlordship), work less hours, have more holidays... and whilst the birth-rate is indeed a concern, if you do have children the parental-leave allocation is second to none in the world.

So whilst Sweden may be in the throws of a terminal decline, and Australia may be on the ascent, by virtue of it's less bridled capitalist system... right now, the scoreboard very clearly indicates who is leading whom.

They're handing the proverbial to us on a plate.


----------



## Mr J (23 September 2009)

> Wealth can be an indicator of status - status is not necessarily an indicator of wealth




I'm not talking about status, but financial worth relative to those around you. And no, second in hell is still wealthier than most in heaven. While the majority are extremely poor in those countries, the powerful (which are effectively rich, even if it is not official) live very well. Far better than you or I, if we are to define 'living well' by the typical definition, rather than our own.



> And if society as a whole is better off, including everyone in it, they are richer than the previous, poorer society




They may be richer in terms of technology or lifestyle, but they're not richer in financial terms, which is generally the way we define 'rich'.



> Can you give me an example of a socialist system in which this noble intent has worked in actual practice?




I don't have to, as it is only a statement of a theoretical alternative. As has been said, war does far, far more for technology than what our economic system can achieve. Most of our current technology can probably be directly attributed to advances made during WW2 or the Cold War. Technology comes when resources are poured into technological development. 

It can be argued that a capitalist system actually hampers this, as capitalism has lead to large service-based industries, which takes resources away from technological development. Capitalism is also driven by profit, not by better products. Most products do improve, but most only slightly evolutionary in order to keep up or stay 1 step ahead of the competition. Far slower than if we went all out on technology.


----------



## Atlas79 (23 September 2009)

Why state a theoretical alternative we know doesn't work? It's me proving my point by saying "If we could only travel in time." You point out we can't, but in theory we could, so the point stands...?

If war itself were the great driver of invention, why have the capitalist societies still invented far more than the socialist ones, even during war? (And for that matter, what is war? War is competition without rules. What is capitalism? Competition with rules. So you are saying competition is the driver. What does socialism do? Stifles competition, because the state is the only producer and owner. The only competition a socialist state has is when it is warring with other states.)

And are you saying that we have the same amount of wealth in the world today as we did in, say 1700? You seem to be saying that. If you aren't, it means someone has created that extra wealth. Which means wealth can be created, which means capitalism isn't a zero sum game.

3rd world countries are 3rd world because they choose a tyranical model of government (which won't allow a free economy.) Zimbabwe chose to be socialist. They destroyed their means of making wealth, the farms, and have descended to savagery. Someone at some point in the past had created those farms. Therefore wealth can be created.

(Wealth to me means standard of living. Your idea of wealth seems to be my idea of power, since you define your wealth by what other people around you have. Why don't you think it's a valid comparison to compare what past generations have compared to present ones?)


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 September 2009)

Atlas79 said:


> 3rd world countries are 3rd world because they *choose* a tyranical model of government (which won't allow a free economy.) *Zimbabwe chose to be **socialist*. *They* destroyed their means of making wealth, the farms, and have descended to savagery. Someone at some point in the past had created those farms. Therefore wealth can be created.




Well I think you got it wrong there. I`m sure most would agree there are countries around the world where the people don`t choose what model government they have. More research my friend.


----------



## Atlas79 (23 September 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Well I think you got it wrong there. I`m sure most would agree there are countries around the world where the people don`t choose what model government they have. More research my friend.




Would it have pleased you more if I said "socialism won the argument in Zimbabwe"? At the point of a gun of course. We in the west march off cliffs quite voluntarily.


----------



## Dukey (23 September 2009)

Atlas79 said:


> Metaphorical dirt! (It's the most nutritious)





:homer:   and Homer says:


" Mmmmmmm...... metaphorical dirt.....mmmmmmmmmmmmmm"
(slobber, drool etc.)


----------



## Mr J (23 September 2009)

Atlas79 said:


> Why state a theoretical alternative we know doesn't work?




We don't know it doesn't work. We only know that it hasn't worked in our past. I'm sure there are people far more intelligent than us who would suggest that the USSR has triumphed over the West in a parallel universe.



> If war itself were the great driver of invention, why have the capitalist societies still invented far more than the socialist ones, even during war?




If you think this is a sensible argument, perhaps you should argue elsewhere. To argue that the capitalist countries made greater technological advances without considering any other factors just isn't a sensible argument. I could point out an example to counter your point anyway, such as the out-manned and out-resourced USSR beating the West to put a man in space. Another example with Nazi Germany and many of advances made.



> What does socialism do? Stifles competition, because the state is the only producer and owner. The only competition a socialist state has is when it is warring with other states.)




What makes you think the the state is the owner and producer in a socialist system? You are thinking of a communist system. It may lower competition, but this can raise cooperation. Both can work.



> And are you saying that we have the same amount of wealth in the world today as we did in, say 1700?.




This is a difficult question to answer. My explanation could probably argue either way. One question would be whether wealth is created, or whether it it just 'hidden' and then 'discovered'. Example, Australia is obviously wealthy in resources. How would we define this wealth before we knew about it? Many would argue that the discovery of these resources made us resource wealthy, but the resources were there, so it's arguable we were resource wealthy and just didn't realise it. I think it's arguable that all wealth is transferred. I'm not against the concept of financial wealth creation, I just haven't seen an example of it.



> 3rd world countries are 3rd world because they choose a tyranical model of government




I hope you don't actually believe this.



> (Wealth to me means standard of living. Your idea of wealth seems to be my idea of power, since you define your wealth by what other people around you have. Why don't you think it's a valid comparison to compare what past generations have compared to present ones?)




I've been talking about financial wealth, and while there are various definitions of wealth, when wealth is talked about it generally refers to financial wealth. In terms of quality of living, many of us are arguably far wealthier than we were at any other time in history. However, standard of living is subjective, which is why I say it's arguable. Many would prefer a simple life.


----------



## Atlas79 (23 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> We don't know it doesn't work. We only know that it hasn't worked in our past. I'm sure there are people far more intelligent than us who would suggest that the USSR has triumphed over the West in a parallel universe.




Hilarious. Hasn't worked in the past, so let's try it again. 

Not sure about parallel universes, I'll leave that to the experts.




> If you think this is a sensible argument, perhaps you should argue elsewhere. To argue that the capitalist countries made greater technological advances without considering any other factors just isn't a sensible argument. I could point out an example to counter your point anyway, such as the out-manned and out-resourced USSR beating the West to put a man in space. Another example with Nazi Germany and many of advances made.




The USSR did many innovative things with GULAGs, too, now that you mention it. But I know where I'd rather live. The USSR backed the wrong horse to the bitter end. And its demographics are shot worse than Sweden's. Russia is a basket case. All socialist countries go that way to varying degrees. Amazes me that people still have faith in something responsible for more deaths than any other ideological fad in history. Each to their own I guess, just wish they didn't insist on dragging the rest of us with them.



> What makes you think the the state is the owner and producer in a socialist system? You are thinking of a communist system. It may lower competition, but this can raise cooperation. Both can work.




Like I said earlier, "you can't be a little bit socialist any more than you can be a little bit pregnant". Socialist Germany under Hitler allowed a little private ownership, as long as you did everything the government told you. Russia allowed none under Stalin. Not a lot of difference between them, but the thing is, neither was the implementation of absolute communism. Both states were socialist. And if you have a little socialism, government invariably expands. I can see you won't take my word for it, nor likely anyone else's, so I guess it's just about time to shrug and say "I tried to convert one, but it just made him stronger".





> This is a difficult question to answer. My explanation could probably argue either way. One question would be whether wealth is created, or whether it it just 'hidden' and then 'discovered'. Example, Australia is obviously wealthy in resources. How would we define this wealth before we knew about it? Many would argue that the discovery of these resources made us resource wealthy, but the resources were there, so it's arguable we were resource wealthy and just didn't realise it. I think it's arguable that all wealth is transferred. I'm not against the concept of financial wealth creation, I just haven't seen an example of it.




Very well, I'd counter this by saying there is untold wealth not yet discovered which capitalism is the most efficient method of bringing to us. Which is evident if you compare standards of living in socialist states to relatively free ones. But I think you're wrong anyway. If I discover a way to get better use out of the field I'm sowing, I have just created wealth. If space tourism kicks off, we will eventually be shooting nuclear waste into the sun, which means we can more widely use (for instance) nuclear fuel, cheaper & cleaner than others. Less expense, more wealth. Advanced by rich people wanting to go into space for ****s & giggles, just because they can.

Medical innovations. A huge number of these are a result of rich individuals using expensive, experimental treatments which were not available on the market yet as they weren't proven safe. I regard having 5-10 years of extra life as an example of wealth (regardless of whether everyone around me does - but then, I don't need others to suffer for me to feel comfortable / powerful, as your previous statements indicate is the case with you. You remind me of Jackie Kennedy who famously said, when she saw her chauffeur drive to work in a BMW, "What's the point in being rich if poor people can have nice things too?" Unlike Jackie, unlike you apparently, I'd be content to have a chauffeur. I would not gain extra satisfaction knowing he was struggling to feed his kids.) 

More examples abound. Try to PC you're using right this second.




> I hope you don't actually believe this.




Stunning argument there, sure to win over the fence-sitters. Kudos.


----------



## Mr J (23 September 2009)

> Hilarious. Hasn't worked in the past, so let's try it again.




I didn't say to try it again, I said that evidence it has not worked in the past is not proof that it cannot work. Drawing such conclusions is results-oriented.



> The USSR did many innovative things with GULAGs, too, now that you mention it.




And what has that got to do with technological advancement? Apart from suggesting scientists get on with it or risk spending winter in Siberia.



> Amazes me that people still have faith in something responsible for more deaths than any other ideological fad in history.




Communism did not cause those deaths. Why are you even bringing this up? I haven't mentioned any political views, you're making assumptions and trying to turn this political.



> Very well, I'd counter this by saying there is untold wealth not yet discovered which capitalism is the most efficient method of bringing to us.




If the wealth is undiscovered, then it will be transferred, not created. Capitalism may or may not be the most efficient method - I don't pretend to know the unknown. We're merely speculating here.



> Which is evident if you compare standards of living in socialist states to relatively free ones. But I think you're wrong anyway.




Socialism is not black and white. Despite what you stated earlier, socialism can exist to different extents. Even in Australia we have a reasonable extent of socialism. Define a socialist country? Much of Europe is socialist and has an excellent standard of living. Or you only allowing previously communist countries as an example?



> If I discover a way to get better use out of the field I'm sowing, I have just created wealth.




I don't believe this is true. It can be argued various ways, such as suggesting that you were destined to become more efficient, and therefore the wealth was hidden and unlocked. It can also be argued that you haven't created wealth, you have just transferred it to yourself by transferring less out on expenditure.



> A huge number of these are a result of rich individuals using expensive, experimental treatments which were not available on the market yet as they weren't proven safe.




We don't need a socialist or communist system to achieve this.



> You remind me of Jackie Kennedy who famously said, when she saw her chauffeur drive to work in a BMW, "What's the point in being rich if poor people can have nice things too?"




If I gave that impression, it certainly wasn't my intention.


----------



## Atlas79 (23 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> I didn't say to try it again, I said that evidence it has not worked in the past is not proof that it cannot work. Drawing such conclusions is results-oriented.




I suppose I don't see the problem with results-oriented thinking.



> And what has that got to do with technological advancement? Apart from suggesting scientists get on with it or risk spending winter in Siberia.




Nothing at all. The point was which system is better to live under.



> Communism did not cause those deaths. Why are you even bringing this up? I haven't mentioned any political views, you're making assumptions and trying to turn this political.




Socialist countries - Russia, Germany - conspired to begin world war two. Soviet Russia killed an enormous amount of her own people. Socialist Germany's 6 million (in camps alone) are well publicized. Was this a glitch in the system, then? If you think so, what then is meant by Lenin's term, the great conflagration? It can be substituted with holocaust. Not a historical accident.




> If the wealth is undiscovered, then it will be transferred, not created. Capitalism may or may not be the most efficient method - I don't pretend to know the unknown. We're merely speculating here.




History shows pretty plainly which is the most efficient method. People do not flee capitalist societies in order to live in socialist ones. But people jump in bath tubs with oars to flee Cuba for America. (Or risk certain death to get from North to South Korea. Etc.)



> Socialism is not black and white. Despite what you stated earlier, socialism can exist to different extents. Even in Australia we have a reasonable extent of socialism. Define a socialist country? Much of Europe is socialist and has an excellent standard of living. Or you only allowing previously communist countries as an example?




We do indeed have far too much government, and it is the capitalist part which holds up & allows the socialist part its largesse. We may soon see how Europe fares if the US economy goes socialist and no longer keeps the European ones afloat. Stay tuned.


----------



## Mr J (23 September 2009)

Atlas79 said:


> I suppose I don't see the problem with results-oriented thinking.




A coin comes up heads 5 times in a row. I'm sure you see the problem with that. Now consider that it's possible communism hasn't worked because it didn't work those times. Perhaps it will in the future, or if we replayed history.



> Nothing at all. The point was which system is better to live under.




You can't compare the systems, only the current examples of the systems. This is *not* the same as comparing the systems.





> Socialist countries - Russia, Germany - conspired to begin world war two. Soviet Russia killed an enormous amount of her own people. Socialist Germany's 6 million (in camps alone) are well publicized. Was this a glitch in the system, then? If you think so, what then is meant by Lenin's term, the great conflagration? It can be substituted with holocaust. Not a historical accident.




The USSR and Germany did not conspire to start World War 2, only to split up Poland and declare spheres of influence. Neither power intended to enter a war at that stage.

Glitch in the system? They were two different systems. Germany had a national-socialist system, while the USSR had Stalinist Communism. A system is only as good as the people who run it, and in these two cases they were run by brutal men who were willing to do anything to accomplish their goals. Blaming the systems is just ignorant. Something you must realise is that these systems are political and economic systems, and can't be directly compared to capitalism, as capitalism comes in many flavours.



> History shows pretty plainly which is the most efficient method. People do not flee capitalist societies in order to live in socialist ones.




History does not offer a complete sample.



> We do indeed have far too much government, and it is the capitalist part which holds up & allows the socialist part its largesse. We may soon see how Europe fares if the US economy goes socialist and no longer keeps the European ones afloat. Stay tuned.




You're making political arguments again. I haven't been anything more than objective in my defense of socialism. I wouldn't hold up the USA as the beacon of light of capitalism. You may also be interested to know that 'socialist' European countries always rank above the US in standard of living.


----------



## Atlas79 (23 September 2009)

There are more than five examples, I'm afraid, of this particular coin falling. Talk to those who have lived under it. You also object to "political arguments", but they're unavoidable. If you debate the merits or otherwise of capitalism as a system, it can't be done without mentioning the alternative. You can't ignore then the political aspects of the debate for the sake of purity because that's not the reality we're discussing.

As for Gulags, they still have them by the way. NK has camps. Cuba too. Venezuela probably does by now. Granted there are more extreme examples of the system's failure than others, but they all lead to the same place, which is dictatorial feudal rule.



> Glitch in the system? They were two different systems. Germany had a national-socialist system, while the USSR had Stalinist Communism. A system is only as good as the people who run it, and in these two cases they were run by brutal men who were willing to do anything to accomplish their goals. Blaming the systems is just ignorant. Something you must realise is that these systems are political and economic systems, and can't be directly compared to capitalism, as capitalism comes in many flavours.




What I told you was that the designers of this system - which goes by many names but equates to the same thing - designed the holocaust as a deliberate strategy for making sure the system, once changed, could not change _back_. By killing a third or so of the native population, this is achieved.

Whatever name you give it, it can be called statism. Incorporates Socialism, Fascism, and their blends and variants. Statism's opposite is liberty. And the people who run statist systems are the same everywhere, the people who rise to the top the same everywhere (no coincidence either.) The only difference is how much license they are given and how much resistance they encounter.

The European states you mention are not as far along in the socialist transition as the more visibly disastrous examples. They still have enough capitalism, but the squeeze is forever tightening. They do not therefore serve to counter the disastrous examples, for they head the same way. Thatcher said it best: "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money". And when that happens, when the system grinds down, the leaders blame the people and the hammer comes down hard.


----------



## doctorj (23 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> A coin comes up heads 5 times in a row. I'm sure you see the problem with that. Now consider that it's possible communism hasn't worked because it didn't work those times. Perhaps it will in the future, or if we replayed history.



I don't think anyone can argue that a socialist system, in an ideal world, wouldn't be favourable for the majority of people.  The trouble is we're not in that perfect world and, as you point out, a system is only as good as those that participate in it.  
There is a very good reason that planned economies don't work and are unlikely to in the future, being the human element.
Isn't the topic of this meant to be whether or not capitalism is a zero sum game, not the relative merits of economic systems?
For capitalism to be a zero sum game, you have to believe that an individual's wealth always comes at the expense of another OR that there is some concept around the conservation of wealth (wealth cannot be created, nor destroyed).
At the individual level, capitalism clearly isn't a zero sum game.  I can convert my time or my entreprenuership to money.  What happens in a more complex situation? Lets assume a closed economy of two people, A & B.  A & B do only two things, grow mushrooms and make mushroom soup.  They both are capable of doing both, but A has nailed mushroom growing but isn't very good at making mushroom soup.  As it happens, B is a gun soup maker, but rubbish when it comes to growing the muchrooms.  They can be self sustaining, but if A swaps some of his mushrooms for B's soup, they can both have more mushrooms and more soup than they had before.  In a sense, wealth has been created in our mushroom-loving world.

You could of course argue that both spent time & skills employed have a value that is just being converted to something tangible, but you have to draw the line somewhere...


----------



## Mr J (24 September 2009)

> You also object to "political arguments", but they're unavoidable. If you debate the merits or otherwise of capitalism as a system, it can't be done without mentioning the alternative.




I'm not debating the merits of capitalist systems. Discussion on political ideology is quite different to a discussion on whether capitalism is a zero-sum game. Capitalism is an _economic_ system, not a political one. Our political system is a democratically-elected parliamentary system (simply describing it as a 'democracy' is not accurate).



> What I told you was that the designers of this system - which goes by many names but equates to the same thing - designed the holocaust as a deliberate strategy for making sure the system, once changed, could not change back. By killing a third or so of the native population, this is achieved.




They're not the same at all. There are many forms of socialism. The holocaust did not have the goal of ensuring the system, but one of racial cleansing.



> Whatever name you give it, it can be called statism. Incorporates Socialism, Fascism, and their blends and variants.




Socialism doesn't have to be statism.



> Statism's opposite is liberty.




Not necessarily.



> The European states you mention are not as far along in the socialist transition as the more visibly disastrous examples.




No, but they're also going down a different path. Historic 'socialist' examples have been communist, and poor examples at that. Socialist countries in Europe are quite different, and some of the most free in the world. Socialism does not mean a lack of personal liberty. Socialism does not even necessarily mean '_everyone gets an equal share_', despite it being portrayed as such. Socialism features a vast range of ideologies, and you can't just throw it around as one word. Some examples are could be described as variants of capitalism.


----------

