Socialism Vs. Capitalism

[HondurasKeiser]

All capitalism is inherently selfish and that is how it derives it efficiency.

I disagree. It is people who are greedy, but the system allows one to set a price they think is fair and they are willing to work to provide that service or product. That is not greed. That is freedom.

But it is the "capitalist" side of the health care system that generates all the high prices

Much of this price is caused by government regulation and reporting. Some doctors are opting out and going to a cash only and charging so much less.

You make a very complex issue sound so simple, but it is not.

I look at several societies that lean much ore socialist and you do not see the development of new drugs or technologies. There is little incentive, so they do not.

Perhaps replace the offending "selfish" with "self-interested" and that seems to come close to the idea animating capitalism.

[Ken]

I disagree. It is people who are greedy, but the system allows one to set a price they think is fair and they are willing to work to provide that service or product. That is not greed. That is freedom.

How does this "negotiate a price they think is fair" system work for say the Amazon venders that Josh talks about.

Much of this price is caused by government regulation and reporting. Some doctors are opting out and going to a cash only and charging so much less.

You make a very complex issue sound so simple, but it is not.

I look at several societies that lean much ore socialist and you do not see the development of new drugs or technologies. There is little incentive, so they do not.

We have the most "free market" health care system in the developed world by far. We also have the most expensive health care system in the world by far. And we also lag behind much of the developed world in terms of health care outcomes. None of that is a coincidence.

But we do have new cancer drugs that cost north of $500,000 per treatment so I guess that balances things out?

Which societies are you talking about that lean more socialist? Scandinavia?

[Josh]

The best and cheapest doctors we see are the cash only ones who don’t take insurance and don’t carry malpractice insurance.

The worst providers are ones taking Medicaid. Recently one of us opted to go to Mexico for necessary care instead of dealing with Medicaid.

Capitalism is also not selfish. People are. The most selfish regimes have been socialist ones. The people in socialist regimes hoard luxury goods for themselves and live opulent lifestyles. The people at the bottom are impoverished, and often forced to buy basic necessities. (Hospitals in China have cash registers as soon as you walk in, and patients are evicted if they can’t keep paying.)

This has been observed in regimes the world over that chose socialism, from Zimbabwe to China to North Korea to East Germany.

In “capitalist” countries like America nobody goes hungry. Food aid and food banks - many privately funded - are abundant. I don’t see starving skinny people - quite the opposite. People are homeless by choice, usually choosing drugs and alcohol.

There are those who want to make America more socialist, but many of those now want to pass more control in America to the super wealthy and to big corporations. We see people like Bill Gates and George Soros doing this. This is another form of socialism, as these people use their money to buy government influence and then try to control how the rest of us live. They are not capitalists at all.

[Ken]

In “capitalist” countries like America nobody goes hungry. Food aid and food banks - many privately funded - are abundant. I don’t see starving skinny people - quite the opposite. People are homeless by choice, usually choosing drugs and alcohol.

This is simply not true as the slightest bit of research will tell you. Large numbers of the hungry in this country are children who come from dysfunctional families or no families at all. I see it in the public schools and I don't even teach in a poor area.

No we don't have mass famines and starvation like in parts of Africa. But there are plenty of children and families who are food insecure and often go hungry for a variety of reasons.

[Robert]

Large numbers of the hungry in this country are children who come from dysfunctional families or no families at all.

Generally, the children or hungry, but their parents are not. This does not point to poverty not bad parenting.

The concept of socialism is that a few should dictate what the rest do. This forum is a form of socialism. Ken, you are one of people who do not accept the thread guidelines. You want socialism, but will not conform to the policies set up. Why project this onto others when you are not willing to live it?

[Ken]

The concept of socialism is that a few should dictate what the rest do. This forum is a form of socialism. Ken, you are one of people who do not accept the thread guidelines. You want socialism, but will not conform to the policies set up

That is not in fact the definition of socialism contained within the series of articles upon which this thread is based. Not even close. Did you not read the articles? My views are actually somewhat close to the author's views although I would state things differently.

I was simply pushing back on Josh's assertion that there is no hunger in America or in "capitalist societies". That is simply not true.

[Josh]

In “capitalist” countries like America nobody goes hungry. Food aid and food banks - many privately funded - are abundant. I don’t see starving skinny people - quite the opposite. People are homeless by choice, usually choosing drugs and alcohol.

This is simply not true as the slightest bit of research will tell you. Large numbers of the hungry in this country are children who come from dysfunctional families or no families at all. I see it in the public schools and I don't even teach in a poor area.

Given the universal school breakfast and school lunch programmes, that seems unlikely. Is your school somehow full of children who can't get enough food to eat? Have their parents tried going to the local food bank or EBT?

No we don't have mass famines and starvation like in parts of Africa. But there are plenty of children and families who are food insecure and often go hungry for a variety of reasons.

Aha, there we have it. "Food insecure." What exactly does that mean>

Children actually "going hungry" is extremely rare in America, unless you're going to define that as ever feeling hunger pangs, in which case my household is suffering from hunger right now.

[Ken]

In “capitalist” countries like America nobody goes hungry. Food aid and food banks - many privately funded - are abundant. I don’t see starving skinny people - quite the opposite. People are homeless by choice, usually choosing drugs and alcohol.

This is simply not true as the slightest bit of research will tell you. Large numbers of the hungry in this country are children who come from dysfunctional families or no families at all. I see it in the public schools and I don't even teach in a poor area.

Given the universal school breakfast and school lunch programmes, that seems unlikely. Is your school somehow full of children who can't get enough food to eat? Have their parents tried going to the local food bank or EBT?

No we don't have mass famines and starvation like in parts of Africa. But there are plenty of children and families who are food insecure and often go hungry for a variety of reasons.

Aha, there we have it. "Food insecure." What exactly does that mean>

Children actually "going hungry" is extremely rare in America, unless you're going to define that as ever feeling hunger pangs, in which case my household is suffering from hunger right now.

Two specific examples? Couple of years ago I had a kid who's parents were meth addicts. Dad was in prison and the useless mom basically vanished and abandoned the family when they were evicted. He was sort of living with his 21 year old sister in her tiny apartment until her live-in boyfriend basically kicked him out so he kind of lived in his old car and sometimes couch-surfed with friends when he couldn't sleep at his sisters. I kept granola bars and fruit in the classroom because he often came to school hungry, often missing breakfast at school because there was no one to wake him up and get him to school on time. The school actually had a volunteer food bank and teachers would pack backpacks of food for students to take home on the weekend and evenings but a lot of that was stuff that required cooking. A box of spaghetti and jar of pasta sauce isn't very useful if you are sleeping in your car. Was he starving? No, but I know he went hungry a lot.

Second example? A few years earlier when we were doing the usual Christmas season food drive that most schools do I caught a kid stealing cans of food out of the boxes in the corner of the room that students had collected. I kept him after class to talk and it turned out that there was no food in his home. Mother was some kind of druggie with a useless abusive boyfriend and there was a parade of other druggies through the house. If he brought home one of the school food bank backpacks it would all quickly get stolen and traded for drugs or whatever. So he actually had to keep his food hidden in a bush outside the house so he and his sister could get something to eat in the evenings. Were they starving? No. But they went hungry a lot.

Multiply that across a country as vast as the United States and you have pockets of hunger everywhere. Everyone's story is different and a whole lot of children slip through the cracks of social programs intended to alleviate hunger like WIC and suburban food banks. One problem is that cheap food and healthy food are often not the same thing. And a lot of healthier food options requires cooking and preparation which is often difficult when living circumstances are also a problem.

And no, social service programs don't always help. They are hugely overworked and underfunded and older teens are not usually a priority. Not that there is often anywhere to actually place them in the foster parent program if they were taken up into the "system"

[Josh]

Two specific examples? Couple of years ago I had a kid who's parents were meth addicts. Dad was in prison and the useless mom basically vanished and abandoned the family when they were evicted. He was sort of living with his 21 year old sister in her tiny apartment until her live-in boyfriend basically kicked him out so he kind of lived in his old car and sometimes couch-surfed with friends when he couldn't sleep at his sisters. I kept granola bars and fruit in the classroom because he often came to school hungry, often missing breakfast at school because there was no one to wake him up and get him to school on time. The school actually had a volunteer food bank and teachers would pack backpacks of food for students to take home on the weekend and evenings but a lot of that was stuff that required cooking. A box of spaghetti and jar of pasta sauce isn't very useful if you are sleeping in your car. Was he starving? No, but I know he went hungry a lot.

This anecdote has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, though, but does have a great deal to do with drug abuse. Drug abuse leads to problems like becoming homeless. I don't see how a "mixed economy" or "socialist economy" would change that at all. Maybe a really strict authoritarian government would have less drug abuse?

Second example? A few years earlier when we were doing the usual Christmas season food drive that most schools do I caught a kid stealing cans of food out of the boxes in the corner of the room that students had collected. I kept him after class to talk and it turned out that there was no food in his home. Mother was some kind of druggie with a useless abusive boyfriend and there was a parade of other druggies through the house. If he brought home one of the school food bank backpacks it would all quickly get stolen and traded for drugs or whatever. So he actually had to keep his food hidden in a bush outside the house so he and his sister could get something to eat in the evenings. Were they starving? No. But they went hungry a lot.

I'm seeing a pattern here: drug abuse and parents not being married/staying together. Keeping drugs out of a community and making sure parents are married and stay together does a lot to prevent poverty. (Socialist countries like China or Vietnam implement a lot of policies to make sure this is the case.)

Ultimately, this is not about "hunger". This is about parents who choose to abuse drugs and thus abuse their children as well. The solution here is harsh penalties for drug abuse, including both pushers and dealers and end users.

[Ken]

Two specific examples? Couple of years ago I had a kid who's parents were meth addicts. Dad was in prison and the useless mom basically vanished and abandoned the family when they were evicted. He was sort of living with his 21 year old sister in her tiny apartment until her live-in boyfriend basically kicked him out so he kind of lived in his old car and sometimes couch-surfed with friends when he couldn't sleep at his sisters. I kept granola bars and fruit in the classroom because he often came to school hungry, often missing breakfast at school because there was no one to wake him up and get him to school on time. The school actually had a volunteer food bank and teachers would pack backpacks of food for students to take home on the weekend and evenings but a lot of that was stuff that required cooking. A box of spaghetti and jar of pasta sauce isn't very useful if you are sleeping in your car. Was he starving? No, but I know he went hungry a lot.

This anecdote has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, though, but does have a great deal to do with drug abuse. Drug abuse leads to problems like becoming homeless. I don't see how a "mixed economy" or "socialist economy" would change that at all. Maybe a really strict authoritarian government would have less drug abuse?

Second example? A few years earlier when we were doing the usual Christmas season food drive that most schools do I caught a kid stealing cans of food out of the boxes in the corner of the room that students had collected. I kept him after class to talk and it turned out that there was no food in his home. Mother was some kind of druggie with a useless abusive boyfriend and there was a parade of other druggies through the house. If he brought home one of the school food bank backpacks it would all quickly get stolen and traded for drugs or whatever. So he actually had to keep his food hidden in a bush outside the house so he and his sister could get something to eat in the evenings. Were they starving? No. But they went hungry a lot.

I'm seeing a pattern here: drug abuse and parents not being married/staying together. Keeping drugs out of a community and making sure parents are married and stay together does a lot to prevent poverty. (Socialist countries like China or Vietnam implement a lot of policies to make sure this is the case.)

Ultimately, this is not about "hunger". This is about parents who choose to abuse drugs and thus abuse their children as well. The solution here is harsh penalties for drug abuse, including both pushers and dealers and end users.

You made the exact claim that "In “capitalist” countries like America nobody goes hungry."

I'm simply pointing out that this is wrong. It doesn't matter what the causes are. They are complex and varied. As are the solutions. But capitalism isn't a cure for hunger or any other social problem.