This is a good discussion but let's be aware of the trap laid by commies (time and again) of pitting the poor versus the rich. Very old trick.

In fact the commies deliberately arrange for the creation of such extreme classes of people, exactly to create this kind of division and strife and animosity.

The catch is that the commie overlords end up being despotic oligarchs lording over everyone who is still poor (got tricked), or is newly poor (previously well to do).

This poverty analysis is not as simple as a level playing field. There's a lot of devious manipulation going on (e.g., reducing the number of American jobs by shipping them overseas will increase poverty, while rewarding those corporate owners who profit from this offshore labor cost reduction, making those guys richer, all under the banner of free enterprise). All these factors are interrelated and there are many such factors.

It is tricky to read commie stuff (BTW this is not directed at anyone, is a general statement). What happens is that they start off with some very reasonable issues and reasonable concerns that any decent person will agree with. Then along the way they somehow trick you with subtle ideas that gradually get to what they want to achieve, instead of actually solving the original problem as stated.

Isn't it interesting how discussions of fairness, income inequality, wealthy, wealth redistribution, "pay your fair share", corporate greed and so on always end up as a discussion of Socialism and/or Communism? 

Capitalism, unencumbered by government manipulation, is the most fair and moral form of economic system there is.  Each party, buyer and seller, makes a free decision on whether the exchange is something they accept.  If not, each is free to walk away and seek alternative parties with which to trade.  That includes labor.
...
Economic Socialism has failed in every society which has tried it.  Is it ignorance that keeps people clamoring for it.  Or is it pure arrogance?  Or perhaps it's the constant desire for a utopia even though adopting the same old rules under new names is destined to fail?

That's as good (or bad and naive) an argument about capitalism as the argument for socialism.

Without government manipulation, there would be no patents, trademarks or copyrights, etc.
anyone who could produce a comparable product for less could sell it for less.
In country or out of country because there would be no tariffs.

Mexico and China, et. al. making bigger bucks on the American consumer.
Less U.S. Jobs and lower pay.

Not to mention monopolies ( U.S Steel and Standard Oil coming to mind, big banks coming to mind )

The U.S is economic socialism. Even before the New Deal.

The problem with these fair trade deals is they are breaking the american economy, They allow other countries to make goods at lower cost and avoid the import traffis that should create a fair playing field.

For example if a product costs $10 to make in America and $8 to make in China, The imported product should have an import Tariff of $2, This money is what is meant to pay for the federal government (not your wages) The problem is this and previous administrations have created global deals to bypass these tariffs destabilizing the american economy by shipping Trillions of dollars overseas.

You are correct that many of these so-called fair trade deals are neither fair or mutually beneficial on an international scale.  However, if you look at pure capitalism, it states that in order for all domestic/global markets to run efficiently, there should not be any government controls, which naturally includes taxes and tariffs.  We see, however, that for the US, the absence of such barriers causes great social-economic stress for most Americans.  Consequently, this is why you have many people who are not staunch capitalists.

What is the solution then?
Nothing yet, but its certainly very important to discuss this issue in all perspectives if a solution is to be found.     


Kuleana
 

Mexico and China, et. al. making bigger bucks on the American consumer.
Less U.S. Jobs and lower pay.

Aieahound,

I think you forgot to mention that its Mexico, China, and the US Corporations who import and sells those items that are making the big bucks at the expense of the American consumer.


Kuleana

Because CRONY capitalism is manipulative.  Capitalism in practice requires some regulation to prevent predatory practices.

FJ,

I am afraid I have to disagree with your take on capitalism in practice.  Pure capitalism is the economic practice that is free from any government interference.  Government interference in an economy whether good or bad intentioned are aspects of socialism.  Socialism in economics is based on government influencing the market in the effort to achieve societal goals (e.g. predatory capitalists, illegal activities, etc.).

Kuleana

FJ,

I am afraid I have to disagree with your take on capitalism in practice.  Pure capitalism is the economic practice that is free from any government interference.  Government interference in an economy whether good or bad intentioned are aspects of socialism.  Socialism in economics is based on government influencing the market in the effort to achieve societal goals (e.g. predatory capitalists, illegal activities, etc.).

Kuleana

Pure capitalism, as you define it, can only exist if all producers/sellers are playing by the rules dictated by supply, demand, costs and competition.  Any tactic or practice which eliminates competition or erects barriers to market entry is working against the fundamental principles of capitalism.  Monopolies, collusion and predatory pricing are not readily remedied by the capitalistic system.  Therefore, to protect the system, certain practices must be regulated so capitalism has a chance to work for both buyers and sellers.

I agree wholeheartedly, as I believe markets are the way to go.

However, the point I was trying to get at is the fact that capitalism is not perfect and needs regulation to ensure its integrity.  As such, although most people will not admit it, such regulation is indicative what socialist based economics is all about.  Monopolies, collusion, predatory pricing, unsafe products and services are essentially not in society's interest, which is at the center of the goals of socialist economics.

Is socialist economics the answer?
Maybe not, however, some of its elements should not be discounted outright.


Kuleana

Socialism does not exists, The concept of socialism is every one puts in equally and every one gets out equally,

I agree, just like pure capitalism, pure socialism does not exist.  What we see in practice are different variations of both.


Communism is where the government decides how much is put in and how much every one gets out,

I agree.


Every example of socialism that exists today is infact Communism.

Not exactly.  China, for example, a so-called communist state is actually a socialist state that has incorporated market elements.


Kuleana

Not everything that is created by government and benefits the society at large is "socialism."  People like to argue roads, bridges, schools, sewers, and so on are socialistic because government takes taxes and pays for these services for everyone.

You may be right, but you can't say the building of public infrastructure that benefits the common good is a byproduct of capitalism either.


That's not socialism.  We have rights as citizens and voters to approve or reject projects the government proposes using tax dollars.  That's part of our democratic process.

True, but there are lots of countries in Europe that practice some degree of socialism and still have active democracies.


The majority normally rules, but in some cases in Hawaii's legislature, they tend to act Socialistically, doing what they believe is best for all in spite of vocal opposition.   If we allow that to continue, we are allowing Socialism to govern us no matter what we call it publicly.

The may say they are doing things in the name of the common good, but that is not correct.  For example, the rail project was sold to Hawaii residents that it was for their benefit.  However, this project is not socialist based, but rather fascistic in the sense it was the construction interests and developers in Hawaii who partnered with the state legislature to undertake this clearly not affordable endeavor for their own financial gain at the expense of the resident tax payers.


Kuleana

Not exactly.  China, for example, a so-called communist state is actually a socialist state that has incorporated market elements.

The government decides who puts in and how much, the government decides who gets out and how much, Not all that put in get out and not all who get out put in. That is Communism.

Sounds like the U.S.
And just about every other country in the World.

(By that definition)

But is it fair?
(Reference back to OP)

Waiting for the institutionalized discrimination to decrease to a level that allows a fair chance.

Socialism is a pure fictitious state that has never and will never exist. What we (as a planet across all nations and governments) have is govement controlled social programs.
The government decides who puts in and how much, the government decides who gets out and how much, Not all that put in get out and not all who get out put in. That is Communism.

For example the Hawaiian nation was communist, The chiefs owned everything and got to decide who put in what and who got out what. People worked fro the greater good but ultimatly they were told how much they got.

I disagree, ancient Hawaii through Kamehameha I was not communistic, but feudalistic.  After Kamehameha I, the Kingdom of Hawaii was a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain.

Kuleana