05-05-2003, 11:38 PM
Hi,
The terms "rich" and "poor" exist to demarcate those with a different amount of net worth under this giant math game we call Capitalism. For one person to have "more", another person MUST, by definition, have less.
Sorry, but I think that is false. If "rich" and "poor" did indeed mean the same as "having more" and "having less" then you would be right. But that is not what those words mean. Poor means living without a sufficient amount of the fundamentals (which seem to increase every year). By today's definition of poor (no electricity, inside plumbing, less than some number of square feet per person, varied and balanced diet, etc.) everyone who ever lived before 1900 was poor. ;)
Rich, OTOH, doesn't just mean having more than the poor, it means having a *lot* more than what one needs to live on. And, indeed, there are relatively few rich.
What the idiot in the interview seems to have overlooked is that most rich people, in the processes of becoming rich, generated jobs for many people who left poverty behind and entered the middle class. Not saying that it was always sweetness and light -- the history of the labor movement is way too bloody for that. But it isn't the existence of the poor that makes the rich. If anything, the making of the rich has been beneficial to society as a whole.
What the extreme socialists seem to fail to realize is that they have it in their power (if they are worth a damn, which is a BIG assumption) to get the world they want. All they have to do is what the people that started the industries did. Put up their money, put up their talents (assuming they have any other than bitching) and put up their work. Create their own means of production where they are the owners as well as the workers. Funny thing is that every time that's been tried, either by individuals or by governments, it has been a big failure. Maybe they should try to read Animal Farm. Assuming they can read.
As to capitalism being zero sum, I don't think so. All economic structures are built on the means of production. If the value of the goods produced is greater than the cost of producing them, then wealth is being generated. The distribution of that wealth can make everybody better off. If, OTOH, the goods are worth less than the cost, then wealth is disappearing and everyone is worse off (except for some "bosses" for some time). An example of such a system was the USSR under communism.
Also, capitalism is not a pure strategy as played anywhere in the world, AFAIK. To a large extent, governments exist to pass and enforce regulations to limit what capitalism can do. Which is why the combination of capitalism under a representative democracy seems to be very successful model. Perhaps not the best, but better than all those that have been tried to date.
--Pete
The terms "rich" and "poor" exist to demarcate those with a different amount of net worth under this giant math game we call Capitalism. For one person to have "more", another person MUST, by definition, have less.
Sorry, but I think that is false. If "rich" and "poor" did indeed mean the same as "having more" and "having less" then you would be right. But that is not what those words mean. Poor means living without a sufficient amount of the fundamentals (which seem to increase every year). By today's definition of poor (no electricity, inside plumbing, less than some number of square feet per person, varied and balanced diet, etc.) everyone who ever lived before 1900 was poor. ;)
Rich, OTOH, doesn't just mean having more than the poor, it means having a *lot* more than what one needs to live on. And, indeed, there are relatively few rich.
What the idiot in the interview seems to have overlooked is that most rich people, in the processes of becoming rich, generated jobs for many people who left poverty behind and entered the middle class. Not saying that it was always sweetness and light -- the history of the labor movement is way too bloody for that. But it isn't the existence of the poor that makes the rich. If anything, the making of the rich has been beneficial to society as a whole.
What the extreme socialists seem to fail to realize is that they have it in their power (if they are worth a damn, which is a BIG assumption) to get the world they want. All they have to do is what the people that started the industries did. Put up their money, put up their talents (assuming they have any other than bitching) and put up their work. Create their own means of production where they are the owners as well as the workers. Funny thing is that every time that's been tried, either by individuals or by governments, it has been a big failure. Maybe they should try to read Animal Farm. Assuming they can read.
As to capitalism being zero sum, I don't think so. All economic structures are built on the means of production. If the value of the goods produced is greater than the cost of producing them, then wealth is being generated. The distribution of that wealth can make everybody better off. If, OTOH, the goods are worth less than the cost, then wealth is disappearing and everyone is worse off (except for some "bosses" for some time). An example of such a system was the USSR under communism.
Also, capitalism is not a pure strategy as played anywhere in the world, AFAIK. To a large extent, governments exist to pass and enforce regulations to limit what capitalism can do. Which is why the combination of capitalism under a representative democracy seems to be very successful model. Perhaps not the best, but better than all those that have been tried to date.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?