The balance between socialism & capitalism could be the best economic system
If you divide Socialism by Capitalism you'll get a well balanced economic system.
We are all familiar with these two terms by now. If we didn't learn them in school, the election between the president & senator McCain surely exposed these terms to us. President Obama is often accused of promoting socialism, as if this was the worst thing that could happen. I think it's fair to say that any president who encourages competitions among members of society couldn't possibly be promoting socialism.
Socialism is based on egalitarianism and total government control. Apparently this president wants to create an economic platform in health care system that will discourage the need for any company to monopolize the market. This by no way discourages competitions, if anything it enhances it. It is a plan that will promote fairness, but at the same time, it allows insurance companies to maximize their means of productions as long as they follow the rules like everyone else.
This will leave the people with more options, providing us with alternatives so that we can purchase affordable insurance at reasonable price. Once this plan is in place, the government will be able to hold insurance company accountable for the insurance plan that you have signed, and thereby restricting the insurance companies from denying you health coverage for pre-existing conditions.
If the president plan is not a method of capitalism, it is obviously the economic balance which exists between socialism and capitalism. And that economic balance is that which I intend to talk to you about today, because obviously they must be something wrong with capitalism since it hasn't been proven to work efficiently.
The capitalistic system is the capital of laissez-faire. It permits less restriction among the transactions of private sectors. It served as a stepping stone to economic inequality, and it allows the economy to stagnate long enough to be confused with real economic growth.
The capitalist system welcomes deviations of profits, and yet has no control over the formation of monopolies. It allows the country’s wealth to be purchased, but has no clue who truly own those wealth. After all, we have realized that the capitalist system needs help, and social capitalism is here to give a helping hand.
To some people, the term capitalist mean rich people. Although some of us could argue otherwise, the meaning of the word is undeniable, it is impossible to remove capital from the word “capitalist”. In retrospect, folks with the most capitals were those with the most cattle, lands and properties. Therefore, why should we believe now that the word capitalist has a different meaning?
As stated on Wikipedia, in 1753 the word capitalist appeared with the narrow interpretation of "The state of one who is rich". Now we have been led to believe that capitalism offers us a plain field of fairness. Meanwhile, poor whites & blacks are struggling to survive, fighting over the last piece of the pie.
I believe it was Michel Moore who gave this example, where he compared ten pieces of pizza as the capital. In the example Moore illustrated how in a society of 100 people, one rich guy takes possession of 90% of the pie and leave 10% for the 99 people to share between themselves.
Michel Moore emphasized that this is the direct result of the society we now live in, a society where 5% of people own 90% of the wealth. However, what Michel Moore had fail to elaborate on, was the consequence of the choices that the 99 people had to make in order to share that one slice of pizza among them.
Well, the most obvious, to say the least, is that one slice of pizza is not enough to be shared among 99 people. And because of this, more people will be left hungry, crimes will escalate, jails will be overcrowded, and the need for society to reproduce will be discouraged.
They are those who can dispute that capitalism is not the cause of these effects, but what they can't disproved is that monopoly is the result of capitalism. And it is part of the reason why we have unfairness in our economic system.
Now in terms of socialism, we don't think that's good either, although socialism offers some sort of egalitarianism for its people, it can also diminish the strengths of an economic system. Therefore, it is that middle ground of both economic systems that we're looking for.
Socialism discourages productivity because it doesn't offer any incentive for us the workers to want to work. We don't work because we love to work; we work because we need money. Money is the CNG which makes us work, without it productivity will run out of gas. The employer will get less productivity when the incentives are not there.
On the same token, productivity is not the first priority for every company. To some companies, safety is their main priority; productivity is only the after math, until safety has been assured. However, it is all depends on the nature of the business; safety may not even be an issue.
The problem with capitalism is that it encourages a monopolistic system, because it is obvious for the rich to get richer, they must have control over greater amount of capital. Otherwise, they'll stay average with very minimal political power. What’s not obvious to some people is that whenever the rich get richer, the middle class crushes.
This in turn decreases the strength of the economic system of the country, because the middle class is the support beam of the economic system. A high amount of middle class people in any country signifies a strong economy.
As it is known, the more middle class people there are in a country, the better off is the economic system of that country. Since the middle class is afraid of big investments, their monies are more likely to stay in the country of origin, which thereby decreases the capital flight of that country.
And since the middle class isn’t going anywhere, that money will also stay in the county. The middle class will stay in the country until he is departed from it, while the rich is forever traveling, investing in all market segment. Therefore, any president who invests in the middle class of his country is a president who wishes well for the economic system of his country.
Aristotle thought that the household was the middle ground for a good life, and all economic system must be judged by whether it enables the household to perform its duties as locus and support for the human good. Aristotle never envisioned how this capitalistic system would change the value of the household. Money which Aristotle did not hold in high regard has become the epiphany of all living organism.
It is also the need to compete that has caused our daily consumption to increase so much. Competition defines capitalism, a system that doesn't allow the possibility to compete among individuals of the same society, is off - course not capitalism. The rich wants to get richer because their colleagues are getting richer.
Capitalism is based on a competition principle, because it allows individuals under a capitalist society to trade freely as they wish. Under a capitalist society, government has limited control over the economic system. And it is because of this laissez-fair capitalist ideology that our economic system has become unfair.
This is why we the people think that a middle ground economic system is necessary. A system by which government can have more control over trades, and business conduct of corporations. We not asking for socialism, we simply want our government to place our interest first before that of the corporation.
The profit that a corporation generates should coincide with the level of employment. What should not be is when you have a corporation who has doubled their profit margin in one year and yet they've hired the same amount of people the following year. As if the reason for this increase in profit is not part of employee’s efforts. If they're increasing their profit margin, the amount of people they hired should also increase. We're only asking for our government to monitor fairness, we don't think that's too much to ask.
The rich guy doesn't believe in country, the world is his country. Within an hr he can be in Texas and two hrs later he's picking up his girlfriend in Japan to go have a cocktail in France. So when you say country to these guys is like you speaking in parables, they don't understand you. Their monies are invested worldwide; they don't believe in American market, they believe in the world market. Where ever they can maximize on their investment, that's where you'll find them. So it is these guys who add meanings to the word capitalism, because within capitalism exist the word “capital” and capital is exactly what they have.