Our system my be "the best road" at this time........ but no one knows what will come down the pike in the future.
If human nature substantially changes then something other then freedom and democracy might be best. I don't see that happening, and don't think it is useful or interesting to speculate about. In any case until and unless such a change happens freedom and democracy are generally the best way to go.
Soros was talking more about our economic system. As I have contended in the past, and as he also contends, our economic system may be the best now but its not likely to be in the long run.
However, what IS clear at this time is that our model is flawed as evidenced by the large number of poor in our society
In an absolute sense democracy and freedom, including free markets have tremendously helped the poor. The poor are better off in countries with free or at least mostly free markets (no country has totally free markets and obviously there is no hard data about hypothetical situations), then in countries with unfree markets. The poor in the US would not be considered poor in say North Korea.
the environmental damage we have done and continue to do
The environmental damage in countries with free markets has been much less then that in countries with industry but without free markets. Also the wealth that free market systems generates allows us to afford to be concerned about, and pay more for, cleaner ways of producing goods and services.
the great disparities in incomes between peoples
The disparity is probably greater in free market countries however in unfree countries those who direct the economy do much better then those at the bottom so even if this is true it is exaggerated by many people who complain about it. In any case since the poor in free market countries are wealthier then the poor in countries with controlled economies I personally see little reason to change the system. I think its better if the poor have X and the rich have 1000x then if the poor have 1/4 X and the rich have 1/2 X.
Expand your definition to economic and then respond to these issues if you want. I intended the issues as ones resulting from a capitalist system, and not a political system.
Our particular success requires dominance.......we consume manu. products made by others and provide services to the world. The nations you cite above are producers of the products and/or commodities we consume.
No our particular success does not require dominance. It might require some nation or coalition of nations that is powerful enough to deter or destroy threats to the joint success with have with these other countries, but the fact that we are the main force to do that is more a burden on us then something that helps us with our success.
Our system requires dominance because we are at the top of the food chain. Its that simple.
If you are correct why are the French and Germans treated as outcasts?
They aren't. There is a difference between having a disagreement with or even a tiff with other countries and treating their governments or their people like outcasts. Outcasts would be more like how we treat N Korea, or how we treated Sadam's regime, or Al Qaida or to a lesser extent countries like Libya and Cuba.
I assure you......the breach with Germany and France is not a minor tiff. Whether it can be repaired will be determined by another administration. This one does not have the patience or understanding to make the necessary repairs.
No the Bush administration's ideology is far from market "fundamentalism" in economic matters. I wish it was a bit closer but its closer to the democrat's ideas about the economy then it is to laissez faire.
I am unclear how you can tell.
Its easy to tell. Just look at the administrations record. There has been no great reduction in regulation. Trade has not become freer, in fact in certain cases it has become less free. Taxes have been reduced but they are still complex and provide incentives for some things and disincentives for others, and they are still far to high to be an example of free market fundamentalism.
I didn't realize that a laissez faire economy was part of the conservative ideology. If so, no modern administration could competently realize such an economy. Its virtually impossible given our complex society.
It is a huge and wasteful use of our revenues.
So you think we should reduce our military power to the point where we no longer have the most powerful military??
We could reduce our military power significantly and still we would be the most powerful. So, yes, I want our military reduced. The notion that a bigger military is better and more weapons is nicer has become outdated in a very crowded world IMO. A military that acts as a deterrent to our enemies is all we need......again in my opinion.
ted |
