Possible Debate Topic: Communism V. Capitalism (in Debates)
It looks to me like this topic is just dying to break out of freshly hijacked idea thread and into a possible topic for a two person debate.
May 13 2009 9:12 PM EDT
You might be a little late, I think me and Cube are all tuckered out, lol. Although, I'd be up for it, if no one wants to do another topic.
May 13 2009 9:48 PM EDT
Thanks, novice that probably should have been doing a while ago. I guess I'll simply start off by posting here what I was about to post in the other thread if that's okay. As Artemis said though, I'm also probably done for the day.
"I don't like this argument because one works in theory and one actually works. I'd prefer to stick to something we can actually debate more effectively about."
Your original statement wasn't really recognizing that another system can work. I'll still post what I wrote though as it took a while.
1. Your comparison with China's poverty rates is quite a stretch. They have nearly five times as many people as the United States. They also have a sixth of the world's population. This could easily drastically change the percentages, no matter the government. You can probably agree that there is no conceivable way the world could support 5x the number of Americans.
2. The 'socialist'/welfare states of Europe are the best example of countries that have a functioning model very different from the United States. Yet clearly these countries are operating perfectly fine. You want to compare poverty rates though? Here we go. Denmark has the highest tax rate of any country. Nearly half their GDP goes to taxes.
Henk, you're from Denmark right? Care to provide some insight?
These are 1999 poverty rates based on the United States income stolen from wikipedia.
Not even compensated for purchasing power - with one absolute poverty line.
Before welfare: 26.4
After Welfare: 5.9
Before welfare: 21.0
After welfare: 11.7
Compensated for purchasing power, (the numbers are very different as this was done four years later and they are normalized based on some other baseline):
Before welfare: 17.4
After welfare: 4.8
Before welfare: 17.2
After welfare: 15.1
All I'm trying to get you to recognize is that there are other systems, and they do work. There may be some disincentive to work there, but it's not huge, and it's not ruining their countries. But if the poverty line is how you are defining success, we are clearly doing something wrong. What works in Denmark, won't necessarily work here either.
3. I actually do think China could have been worse off had it's economy been left to it's own devices. Sure, you can focus on it's failures, but look at the massive improvements it's made. In the 1950's China was a what would commonly be called a 3rd world country. The planned economy they've created for the most part has been a massive success story. It clearly functions fine.
No, cube I'm actually from Holland. Which is a tad different then Denmark
Ow and I might add that communism in its pure form is no longer present today on this planet.
So this whole debate is rather aimed at welfare vs non-welfare system.
And yes I cry every day to see about 52% of my income is been swallowed up by income taxes. And everything in life costs so much cash.
However the wages here in The Netherlands are higher then in most European countries. Especially the minimum wages for workers over 23 years old are higher then, lets say, the USA. And the gap between rich and poor is present, however the gap between them isn't as deep as, lets say, the USA.
Because the second you lose your job in the USA, you stand to lose everything. There is no social welfare system that keeps this from happening, unlike in the Netherlands. I've seen so many articles on the web explaining how someone worked for 30 years at the same company lost his/her job and is now living on the streets because he/she can't pay the mortgage and taxes. That is just plain wrong.
I've also seen countless of articles explaining how someone needs an operation to save his/her life, but since they have no insurance the operation can't proceed since they can't pay the hospital. Unlike in the Netherlands, we all have mandatory minimum of health insurance that prevents this from happening.
However the system is not perfect; you have freeloaders that abuse this system to gain free cash from the government. The people have to pay a huge amount of taxes each year.
Ow and I forgot one other thing, our schooling system is a tad better...
Which clearly produces less illiteracy...
And most of that illiteracy in The Netherlands is produced by immigration from third world countries.
ow and another thing, sorry for the countless repost, since there is not edit button, those data you collected from the wiki site are outdated, especially now during the credit crisis. The USA was hit the hardest during this period so probably the figures are a tad off...
May 14 2009 8:15 AM EDT
"The USA was hit the hardest during this period so probably the figures are a tad off..."
It's early and I don't have time to read the rest, but the figures I got were not from wikipedia. Also, China was hit harder than the U.S. although, that's for a different reason than communism v. capitalism.
May 14 2009 11:53 AM EDT
Sorry for getting your country wrong Henk, but at least you were able to talk about a similar state of affairs.
The figures I grabbed from wikipedia were just for a general idea. I'm sure they are probably different now. I normally check the original source when reading wikipedia, but in this case it cost money to view it (from a peer reviewed journal).
Artemis, where did you get the idea that China was hit the hardest by the financial crisis?
If you want me to pick, I'd choose.. Iceland.
May 14 2009 12:13 PM EDT
Ranger & marlfox, you can use this thread to complain about China.
As for actual figures
"The rural population in China was recorded at 64 percent of the total 1.3 billion in 2001 and 74 percent in 1990."
"China's rural population stood at 737 million - 56 percent of the total population of more than 1.3 billion - at the end of 2006 [...] Xie said the country's urban population has risen to 577 million to account for 44 percent of the total by the end of last year."
Giant rapidly growing urban center? Doesn't sound bad to me, they nearly have a majority in cities.
May 15 2009 1:46 PM EDT
Reason communism doesn't work... Everyone is equal supposedly right? Everyone has to work...as well they all make the same amount of money (at least this was how the USSR did it). Downside? Poor work ethic. People didn't care about the quality of work. If you slack off or work your tail off..you still get paid the same..no matter what job you did. Welcome to the land of poor crafstmanship and shabby products. If communism was better then capitalism as well..why would so many chineese migrate to a capitalistic country? Maybe its the weather.
Like I said before communism in its pure form no longer exists in the world. Only in government form, not as a market form
May 15 2009 1:56 PM EDT
"Like I said before communism in its pure form no longer exists in the world. Only in government form, not as a market form"
Which is what I initially was meaning when I said it wouldn't work in reality.
May 15 2009 1:57 PM EDT
OK, so only 3/4 a billion people oppressed in the fields.
Wow, what progress.
Still even people in the cities fail to have the basic human rights. Such as liberty, life and the ability to persue happiness. And forget about the right to practice religion.
However, as stated communism in a large scale does not work. People will not work equally to get equal reward.
There will always be slackers. And others will see this and ask "why do more for less?"
In capitalism, however, one gets to see the fruits of ones success. There are people who abuse the system to further their own desires and some sort of regulation is, of course, needed.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002l2L">Possible Debate Topic: Communism V. Capitalism</a>