State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[Richard Barrett]

As teamsaint says, your quote about beneficiaries simply isn't true. The extremely rich have been the biggest beneficiaries. Also many poorer parts of the world are suffering under violent conflicts of various kinds which can usually be traced to imperialistic adventures of one sort or another (economic exploitation, carving up of lands between spheres of influence with scant respect for the integrity of ethnic groups and so on). Some of the advances you mention (all of which apply principally to Western countries of course) were achieved despite rather than through the priorities of capitalism: women's rights, universal education and universal suffrage, to name only the ones you mention.

I really don't recognise your terminology.

[Beef Oven!]

As teamsaint says, your quote about beneficiaries simply isn't true. The extremely rich have been the biggest beneficiaries.

It most certainly is true. For example, anyone in this forum from the UK who is over the age of 50 and comes from a poor, working class or modest background, will know that people today, from a similar socio-economic group are far, almost immeasurably, better off than those of half a century ago. The rich may have done well too, but this is insignificant compared to the benefit that poorer people have experienced. This is also true around the world.

Also many poorer parts of the world are suffering under violent conflicts of various kinds which can usually be traced to imperialistic adventures of one sort or another (economic exploitation, carving up of lands between spheres of influence with scant respect for the integrity of ethnic groups and so on).

This is specious. Brutal, vicious territorial, ethnic, tribal, etc conflicts have been going on since the beginning of our species - that's to say nothing of some of the most evil things that human beings have been doing to one-another prior to capitalism, including the enslavement of African people, for example.

Some of the advances you mention (all of which apply principally to Western countries of course) were achieved despite rather than through the priorities of capitalism: women's rights, universal education and universal suffrage, to name only the ones you mention.

All of the benefits that I have mentioned have developed throughout the capitalist epoch, and so too have the advances that you mention - they certainly did not exist prior to capitalism, so your 'despite' notion is erroneous. As regards to applying 'principally' to western countries, this is to be expected, since capitalism originates from the west. The benefits to non-western countries have been enormous however, and there is much more to do in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia etc. And we will see huge improvements for the poor of countries like India, China and Brazil over the coming decades as they become bigger stake-holders in world-wide capitalism.

I really don't recognise your terminology.

I don't believe you, since 'scientific socialism' (Friedrich Engels), 'Utopian socialism' (Henri de Saint-Simon) and 'Falsification' (The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper) are so widely known, that it's impossible for you to hold the views you do, without having at least looked in their direction.

I should be making my breakfast, by now.

[teamsaint]

7 years is not "year on year", it is almost half a generation.

Over recent time, any increases in the "invisible" benefits that you mention have gone into reverse.

Poor people may be better off in financial terms than 50 years ago, but there is a medium term process of decline, and , for instance, things like mental health issues may well be on the rise,associated with inequality.
I have yet to see a report anywhere that says that more societies function better , and become wealthier, as they become more unequal.

[Beef Oven!]

"Originally posted" by teamsaint

7 years is not "year on year", it is almost half a generation.

Mid point pay fluctuations since 2007. So what? Seven years is not much, no matter how much you try to big it up. And it does not consider the most important benefits, that matter far more than relative pay-levels.

Over recent time, any increases in the "invisible" benefits that you mention have gone into reverse.

Invisible? "...gas heating, cars, smallpox vaccinations, indoor plumbing, cheap travel, rights for women, low child mortality, adequate nutrition, taller bodies, doubled life expectancy, schooling for their kids, newspapers, a vote, a shot at university and respect."

These benefits have not gone in reverse. They are here to stay.

Poor people may be better off in financial terms than 50 years ago, but there is a medium term process of decline, and , for instance, things like mental health issues may well be on the rise,associated with inequality.

We have no more mental health issues than we did 50 years ago.

I have yet to see a report anywhere that says that more societies function better , and become wealthier, as they become more unequal.

Societies function better when people are lifted out of poverty and are facilitated to take part in democratic processes. Focussing on inequality is a dead-end street, lifting people out of poverty is what it's all about.

It's about making the pie bigger, not slicing it up differently. If you took all the wealth in the UK and redistributed arithmetically equally, poor people would be a better off by about 30% in the short term. But then where do you go from there, when you have negated the people that create the wealth through innovation?

[P. G. Tipps]

It most certainly is true. For example, anyone in this forum from the UK who is over the age of 50 and comes from a poor, working class or modest background, will know that people today, from a similar socio-economic group are far, almost immeasurably, better off than those of half a century ago

That for me is the biggest clincher argument of all. The evidence of our very own eyes!

It is impossible to prove that a theoretical alternative to a mixed-economy form of capitalism, which is the norm today, would be better or worse until it has been tried. What we do know for certain is that the alternative systems that have been tried (Fascism, Communism etc) have either collapsed or are run by fear until the inevitable collapse eventually happens.

Rather than capitalism re-inventing itself I think it is more of a case that capitalism is all about change due to its competition ethos. Anyone who has worked in business knows that change happens all the time in order to keep ahead of the pack. That is why when we (even Flossie) look around we see how much better off even "poorer" folk are these days. Most people have private cars, colour televisions, fridge/freezers, washing machines and even smartphones are now entering that category.

Some of us can remember when going on holiday to France or Spain was considered an 'exotic' experience. Now, people visiting relatives in Australia/NZ is not unusual and a weekend in NY quite unremarkable. This hasn't happened by accident it is entirely due to the capitalist system's encouragement of change and invention and the consequent reduction of real costs.

Of course there are weaknesses in the system, the most obvious being the huge disparity in wealth between the very rich and poor. However, surely it is better to try and address these extremes within the system than throw the baby out with the bathwater?

After all, even Communist China came to the conclusion that the capitalist system might not be so bad after all and, indeed, is now enthusiastically embracing it with no little gusto!

[Beef Oven!]

The evidence of our very own eyes!

Indisputable

Of course there are weaknesses in the system, the most obvious being the huge disparity in wealth between the very rich and poor. However, surely it is better to try and address these extremes within the system than throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Inequality is a secondary issue, raising the poor out of poverty and facilitating them to play a part in democratic society is the prime objective.

After all, even Communist China came to the conclusion that the capitalist system might not be so bad after all and, indeed, is now enthusiastically embracing it with no little gusto!

Indeed.

[MrGongGong]

Before some folks disappear into misty eyed flag waving
Surely the fundamental problem with the free market capitalist system is that it is based on the idea that people consume more and more, everything is about "growth"?
As with music, success and expansion aren't necessarily the same thing.
There is a finite amount of copper, oil, land and so on.

I once had a really interesting conversation with someone who works for Water Aid in India. She was telling me that one of the main problems they face is that having a flushing indoor toilet is seen as a sign of "development" , something desirable that people wanted as a symbol that they were "doing well". The problem being that there often isn't enough clean water to drink let alone use for flushing toilets.

Many things which are hailed as "Universal" solutions to problems turn out to be something else entirely.
The simplistic view that somehow we live in a time where people have somehow worked out the "best" way to do everything, free market capitalism, so no point in thinking about other ways of doing things, isn't really supported by history.

The evidence of my own eyes tells me that people often want to organise things in very different ways when they are given a real choice.

[Flosshilde]

The evidence of our very own eyes!

It depends on where you look

the most obvious being the huge disparity in wealth between the very rich and poor. However, surely it is better to try and address these extremes within the system than throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Difficult, when it's the system that creates the disparity

After all, even Communist China came to the conclusion that the capitalist system might not be so bad after all and, indeed, is now enthusiastically embracing it with no little gusto!

And seeing increasing inequalities.

[amateur51]

Life expectancy and virtually all other health-outcomes have improved. Working conditions have improved enormously. Most NHS workers for example have enjoyed income increases of over 4% year on year in the last 5 years, more in previous years (most of them will get at least a 3% inflation busting rise this year). The EU Agency Workers directive, Stautory holiday/annual leave increases, fixed-term contract protection, automatic pension enrolment, flexible working arrangements, carers' leave, adoption leave, the list is almost endless.

Three diseases associated with poverty and malnutrition, rickets, TB and diabetes type II , are on the increase in UK. A generation ago most GPs only knew of the first two from text books.

[amateur51]

We have no more mental health issues than we did 50 years ago.

Self-harm, child sexual abuse, body image dysphoria, gender dysphoria, an epidemic of depression?? These were largely uheard of fifty years ago.

[Beef Oven!]

And seeing increasing inequalities.

But what is more important, raising people out of poverty and facilitating them to participate in democratic society, or cutting down tall poppies? World living standards have risen tremendously in the last 100 years within a global free-market capitalist system, and will continue to do so. This is far more important than seeking to ensure that everyone has the same as everyone else.

In Britain, for example, the top 3,000 earners pay more income tax than the bottom 9,000,000 earners in total. You can't run an NHS, welfare benefits system, etc, vital for eradicating poverty, without these innovative, talented people, why disincentivise them?

As PGT says, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[teamsaint]

If there was greater income equality, the poor would contribute more in come tax.the bottom 10 percent contribute. A greater proportion of income in tax than the top 1 0. Percent

There are no economic certainties that dictate that greater equality must be at the expense of reduced GDP.

I am still waiting to see a report that says. That the more unequaly a society, the better it functions.

[Beef Oven!]

I am still waiting to see a report that says. That the more unequaly a society, the better it functions.

Inequality does not harm health, poverty does. You are waiting for the wrong things, IMV.

[amateur51]

But what is more important, raising people out of poverty and facilitating them to participate in democratic society, or cutting down tall poppies? World living standards have risen tremendously in the last 100 years within a global free-market capitalist system, and will continue to do so. This is far more important than seeking to ensure that everyone has the same as everyone else.

In Britain, for example, the top 3,000 earners pay more income tax than the bottom 9,000,000 earners in total. You can't run an NHS, welfare benefits system, etc, vital for eradicating poverty, without these innovative, talented people, why disincentivise them?

.

With respect, a good proportion of these people are fortunate through the accident of their birth.

[amateur51]

Inequality does not harm health, poverty does.

Sophistry