

Capitalism vs. Democracy   - ChristianMarks
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/capitalism-vs-democracy.html

======
lettergram
Can tell he came from France... You can't have a democracy without capitalism,
if you remove capitalism you instead have to put in place a committee, if
someone in the committee eventually makes a grab for power (at some point this
will happen), then you have a dictatorship...

It's happened tons of times throughout history, no matter what people want
power. If a society values money the most (as in a capitalist society) one
will strive to make money and in turn products. If the society values
position, then one will strive to gain status, and so on with military,
strength, etc.

The point being, regardless of work, it's fairly clear though a remedial
understanding of history (Rome, Russia, North Korea, Greece), capitalism
doesn't destroy a society nor does it create a gap. The gap is always there,
it simply changes form. If for example the average worker has a home, food,
water, essentially a stable life they will still complain because they want
MORE.

This will always happen, I know very few people who don't want more. I suspect
that this is the root of it, the root of all statements such as "Capitalism
vs. Democracy.."

It's pathetic, it's as if these authors sole goal is to destroy democracy and
instantiate communism.. We've seen that in the past and it doesn't close the
gap between rich and poor it makes it worse. For when you remove the hope that
work can make you rich, you put in place instead a status (or military,
strength, etc.) based market, where the "wealthiest" in the society are those
with that instead of currency. Unfortunately, that change in efforts towards
status, or what have you, forces greater despair. As time goes on the society
eventually will lose all hope and collapse...

/end rand

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School)

~~~
kungfooguru
If you are going to make bullshit claims at least don't back them up with
provably false accusations about wealth gaps being worse in non-capitalist
countries.

The wealth gap in Russia increased at astonishing levels after the fall of the
USSR.

What those who want to make your point do is say that this doesn't matter
since the "pie" is larger under the capitalist system, so the gap doesn't
matter as much.

Still not true, but at least not as easily shown to be false as your "clear
remedial understanding of history".

~~~
lettergram
My point had nothing to do with wealth gaps...

My point was that people want power any way they can get it, with a capitalist
system it's much more about hard work than who you know, your name, your
status essentially. Other systems simply trade one out for the other, as in,
e.g. mostly who you know and less about how hard you work.

I am not arguing about wealth, I am arguing about hope, happiness, and
fairness. If I work harder and receive more there is a form of symmetry work =
money = food, shelter, happiness. On the other hand if work doesn't mean I
receive more or I receive very little for my increased work, it changes the
equation. The latter system supports not working that hard because that
benefits you more than working hard.

Now, discussing directly the wealth gap, wealth is a sign of how hard you
work, how intelligent you are, and in corrupt systems how many people you
know. Thankfully, in a capitalist system since work translates into wealth you
can often MINIMIZE the corruption, or at the very least its better than a
system where a committee/laws redistributes wealth. My point there being, a
fair distribution of wealth should be based off market pressures because it is
more likely to be a fair distribution, sure that means some people lose, but
those people are the ones who don't want to work, don't have the intelligence
to make money and don't have friends to support them. In that case, they are
free to join a church or local community center, which are also supported in
capitalist nations.

All that being said, I don't actually feel that my claims are "bullshit,"
perhaps I misrepresented them, but there is evidence to support my argument...
That would be the two schools of economics at the bottom of my original post.

~~~
foolrush
“I am not arguing about wealth, I am arguing about hope, happiness, and
fairness. If I work harder and receive more there is a form of symmetry work =
money = food, shelter, happiness.”

However, this hypothetical loop you outline is clearly neglecting the hidden
scaffolding of privilege and agency.

While it might seem perfectly logical as a theoretical standpoint, it also
hides a tremendous complexity of “value”, something typical in hypercapitalist
perspectives.

When reducto ad absurdum appropriates “value” to equivalency with “monetary
wealth”, we might as well yield to Burger King slogans that allow us to
experience “value” through a kid's meal.

Value of culture is obviously subjective. To use your example, I value a
culture that can see the value of the populace. To feed a person without
privilege or agency, and expect nothing in return, is not something that fits
into your Utopian feedback loop.

One can only wonder how many other cultural values may not fit into the same
loop.

“That which is not good for the bee-hive cannot be good for the bees.”

------
coldcode
Every time I read something about economists arguing I remember the old joke

"The definition of "waste": a busload of economists plunging over a precipice
with three of the seats unoccupied."

------
e40
_...defies left and right orthodoxy by arguing that worsening inequality is an
inevitable outcome of free market capitalism._

Let's fix that:

 _...defies left and right orthodoxy by arguing that worsening inequality is
an inevitable outcome of UNRESTRAINED free market capitalism._

The greed that is pure free market capitalism needs some bounds, else the
inequality gets out of whack like it is right now.

------
ataggart
If this[1] is what "increasing inequality" looks like, I welcome it.

[1]
[http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/~/media/Annual%20Let...](http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/~/media/Annual%20Letter%202014/Myth%201/Myth1Info1_Curves_Final_EN_0122.jpg)

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
That particular graph has several issues. The first of which is the lack of
scale. It's set up so the tail ends nicely around $100 dollars a day when in
reality it should extend over 2 orders magnitude to the right. When talking
about inequality, if you can say "most of humanity" exists in this hump orders
of magnitude away from a select few that represents a problem.

------
kungfooguru
"[D]efies left and right orthodoxy by arguing that worsening inequality is an
inevitable outcome of free market capitalism."

Huh? How does that defy left orthodoxy? Edsall might want to pick up some
Leftist works... Maybe something from that little known author Karl Marx.

~~~
dragonwriter
You probably won't find any references to "free market capitalism" in Marx,
since the "free market" marketing label was only added by supporters of
capitalism to distract from the socialist critique in which the system
organized and managed to serve the interest of capitalist called "capitalism"
was named.

Treating "free market capitalism" as if it is a meaningful term defies left
orthodoxy, arguing that it is something other than ideal defies right
orthodoxy.

