Distributism

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1078177' date='Sep 28 2006, 03:28 PM']
All data taken from 2000-2005:

1,678 jobs have been added for an increase of 1.3% increase in job totals. This is all well and good. But what does this translate into?

The median household income has dropped: -1,273 or -2.7%.

So while there are more jobs. There is less money, meaning people are making less. Contrary to what you have been saying.

And this is an interesting number:

The number of people going into poverty in this country has jumped 5,369 people, a staggering 17%.

How about bankruptcy?

822,967 increase - 68.4% increase in personal bankruptcy filings.

So yes, while it seems more jobs are being "created" to fill the numbers, it clearly has not translated into better economic stability for the country as a whole.



Creating jobs doesn't really help if it's not bringing more wealth to the American person. As the statistics show above, there are more jobs. But clearly they are not bringing in more wealth. Whenever you lay somebody off for no reason except to better your own self needlessly you are taking away their opportunity.


Start with the statistic I gave above: The number of people going into poverty in this country has jumped 5,369 people, a staggering 17%

In America, poverty is normally equated with the subsistience level.
Things must always be taken in steps. Let's identify if there is a problem before trying to find out the cause of the problem. I'm saying there is a problem because just in the last 5 years (I haven't looked much to see what it is further back than that) the poverty level has increased 17 percent. That's a problem.
Umm I'm not sure what you consider data. I've been providing numbers this whole time. I'd like to see numbers to the contrary if you have them.
Good questions. Let's go over the data above and see how it fits first. Yes I know it won't answer all of your questions just yet.
[/quote]
This discussion is all very interesting, but I thought I'd point out that comparing figures today with those [b]five years ago[/b] to make a sweeping case against "capitalism" is rather bizarre, to say the least!

So was the economy in A.D. 2000 less "capitalist" than it is today?

"Capitalism" (as normally defined) had been in practice for well over 200 years by that point!

The economy has fluctuated over the years, but it is silly to compare current economic conditions against those of the '90s, '80s, or '50s to make a denouncement of a "capitalist" economy, as a "capitalist" economy was already well-established before all of these decades.

It would only make sense to compare against a non-capitalist economy. (In a real time and place, not some fairy-land dream theory).



[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1078443' date='Sep 28 2006, 07:36 PM']
Do I need to remind you that you are the one who brought up the issue of imperalism and territorial expansion? I just pointed out the simple fact that the US had enough land and resources on its hands without colonizing Africa or Latin America.

There is no need to turn a blind eye to history since history tells us almost everything we need to know about where we came from (and chances are where we are now and might be likely to go).

Also, I am not equating capitalism with the commandment to be rich -- that is just what history and its players have done.

And just because we have exported and out-sourced the ugly side of capitalism to another part of the world doesn't make it right.
That would imply that they gave the countries back! Well I guess that is the case if you believe in Indian reservations.

Again, I am not saying capitalism is inherently evil or couldn't be in line with Christian ethics. I am just saying from a historical perspective this hasn't really been the case and presently I am suspicious as well.
[/quote]
So everything would be better if the white man stayed in Europe, the Indians were left in their teepees, and America were never founded?

I'm not denying that the U.S. government did some unconsciable things to the Indians, but what you're posting here just sounds like typical anti-Western, anti-American neo-Marxist Lefty rhetoric, rather than substance, and adds little to the discussion on economic systems.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Socrates

[goldenchild17]

[b][quote]While I'd agree that inflation is a problem, that really has nothing to do with what I posted, nor with "capitalism" per se.

In my previous post, I said that the standard of living went up for most people under a "capitalist" economy after the industrial revolution. I was talking about actual wealth and standards of living; such things as having homes, clothes, cars, running water, t.v sets, etc. Capitalist countries have the highest standards of living. The fact that the vast majority of people in America do not have to worry about starving to death has nothing to do with inflation.

And further, excessive inflation and the devaluation of the dollar is not the natural result of "capitalism" and a free market economy. It is caused by the dollar no longer being backed by anything solid (such as gold) as it was in the past. It is a result, not of a capitalism, but of government control over the economy, printing out paper money that is not backed up by actual wealth, but based on what the federal reserve sees fit to print. (It only began doing this in the 20th century - I'd have to look up the exact date.) Some of the harshest critics of this practice that I have read are strong advocates of the free market economy. The truth is that abandoning a free market economy would do nothing to solve the problem of inflation, but only make it worse.

How what statement ccan be true? I'm not following you here at all. What paper money and inflation has to do with my statements that people's standards of living has rose under a "capitalist" economy is beyond me.
Again, there is a case for restrictions on outsourcing and international trade, in order to protect the national interest (Americans vs foreigners).[/quote][/b]

I'm making a bit of a retreat, as I don't know enough about this subject. So I'm using a different tactic. I am saying that I think inflation is inherently attached to the success and/or failure of capitalism. In capitalism, wealth is determined by your cashflow, or your stocks. In distributism it is based on land ownership and control over one's own destiny without being affected by another. Which is more stable? The ever changing currencies? Or good land?


[b][quote]However, I would not make restrictions on trade below the national level.
How would "the local level" and "their vicinity" be defined?[/quote][/b]
That is something I'm not sure I could develop as economics is not my specialty. But I think it is something that could easily be constructed, either by going back to townships, and closeknit communities like we had in medieval times or some other such method. That would be how I would do it.


[b][quote]Would you restrict companies or individuals from doing business beyond their home town, or immediate local area?
How would this be acomplished?[/quote][/b]
If companies kept their workers and their buildings within their community this wouldn't be an issue.


[b][quote]Seems it would in practice require heavy government restriction of all commerce.

However, in practice, this restricting of business to the "local level" would require massive government micro-managing of the economy, as we shall see. [/quote][/b]

I'd say it'd require some.

[b][quote]Again, how do we define the "local landscape," and how would businesses be restricted to their "local landscapes"? Would they all do this willingly of their own accord, or would intrusive government regulation be reguired?[/quote]
[/b]
Again, it is an ideal situation. Can it be done in a country I think is already so far gone? Probably not. I think most people would not be willing to go along with this. But that doesn't stop me from thinking it's the right thing to do.


[b][quote]And whose job would it be to determine when a business "affects another man's ability to thrive"? Seems that this charge could be brought up by whomever does not like the owner of a particular business.

Would businesses be punished for doing business or providing for customers outside their "local landscape" (however that would be defined)?
What about customers? Would they be forced by law to only shop locally?
Would they be punished for shopping or ordering services from outside their own local area? Would businesses be punished for providing for customers or clients outside their local area?

And what about rival businesses within a local area?[/quote][/b]

Something affects another man's ability to thrive when his job is taken or his business is bought out or forced to go under due to another one taking over. I think some form of punishment should be had for those who tried to take advantage of others by overstepping their boundaries. Crimes should be punished. I believe taking advantage of another man should be a crime. I don't know about the customers end of it yet. That is the one thing I need to think more on . And in this system rival businesses would be non-existent because no two businesses would be providing the same goods or services.


[b][quote]We'll use a simple example.
Let's say a town has a local pizzeria, Tony's Pizza. It is the established Pizzeria in the distributist community. But let's say Tony's pizza smells of elderberries. Paolo starts a pizza place where the pizza is much better and is sold at a lower price. Paolo's threatens to put Tony's out of business. Would the government be required to stop or hinder Paolo's business because it threaten's Tony's livelihood?[/quote][/b]

I think so. However, I think in a distributist society, quality would go way up, so I don't think there would be the threat of a sucky pizza .


[b][quote]And let's say in a neighboring town, Benito has a place which sells even better pizza for evn cheaper. The people of the first town begin making the trip to Benito's[/quote][/b]
Again, the consumer end I need to think more on.

[b][quote], and Benito starts a delivery service to the first town. This begins after time to seriously hurt the business of both Tony and Paolo.
Is it then the job of the distributist government to step in and protect the interest of Tony's livelihood, by restricting or punishing Benito's or Paolo's business, or by restricting pizza customer's choices by force of law?[/quote][/b]

I think so. This would affect those who were trying to make an honest living. I think if people want to make the trip to get the better pizza then fine. This will force the local pizza company to try a little harder. Where the better pizza company oversteps it's bounds is when it starts the delivery service, because this would be directly entering another man's domain to put it simply.

[b][quote]Picture this sort of thing on a much larger scale, and you'll get a picture of the problems inherent in this kind of "distributist" system.
In practice it requires much intrusive and restrictive government, which would ultimately hurt businesses and customers alike.[/quote][/b]

Initially sure government would need to be involved to put everything in order. Why would it hurt the businesses and customers?

[b][quote]And the price gouging issue you bring up is a very real problem. In a free economy, prices are a bargain between the buyer and the seller. Competition between sellers for customers keeps prices affordable.
And setting consumer prices by the government does not work. It has been tried in many Communist and socialist countries, and has resulted in economic disaster.
(Again, not room to explain all the why's of this, but I'd suggest reading [url="http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Catholic-Studies-Economics/dp/0739110365/sr=8-1/qid=1159501401/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5666631-3271942?ie=UTF8&s=books"][i]The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (Studies in Ethics and Economics)[/i] by Thomas E. Woods Jr. [/url].)[/quote][/b]

Can't really afford a book right now. Link might be better. I think Communist and Socialist countries had other issues than price limiting. I would be interested in seeing how setting a maximum price is harmful to a society.


[b][quote]But as I've shown, that is what your brand of "distributism" would entail in actual practice.
As I said before, setting prices by the government does not work. Selling price is an agreement between the buyer and seller. In a free, competitive economy, prices will be fair, because if they are set too high, consumers will refuse to buy from that seller, and buy from someone cheaper. However, they will stay high enough that the seller is able to profit from the deal (or else he goes out of business). Businesses which provide the highest quality goods at the lowest prices are those that thrive in a free market economy.[/quote][/b]

Just because something works better doesn't make it ethical though.

[b][quote]Price setting by the government invariably harms the economy. The government micro-managing of the economy you advocate would be an economic disaster and a bureaucratic nightmare, which would in fact end up hurting all in the name of equality and economic justice.

" . . . And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw."

Socialism by any other name . . .[/quote][/b]

Possibly. I am interested in seeing the data that shows that doing this is actually what hurts an economy.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1078750' date='Sep 29 2006, 12:25 AM']It would only make sense to compare against a non-capitalist economy. (In a real time and place, not some fairy-land dream theory).
[/quote]

I think you're absolutely right. But I'm not sure if there exists an economic system today that I would be okay with? Are there any distributist countries in existence today? I'm not sure actually.

Edited September 29, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1078463' date='Sep 28 2006, 07:11 PM']
Justified,
Get a grip. You brought it up, not me, by calling Americans 'expansionists' and characterizing them as saying taking resources from the indians was their 'obedience to the commandment to be rich'. Discuss this with us without hysterical stereotyping.

Another thing I'd like to point out. (reference g-child's post of today, 1:34pm) Most people are good and have a decent nature. Sometimes they take the easy way out, but that's not the fault of the system. If people are naturally 'not good' then who are you to think you are better than them?
[/quote]

That is factually untrue -- "stick to the facts" I believe you say. Check your post from Sep 26 2006, 06:29 AM to which I subsequently responded. So as long as we are being techincal, you are the one who "brought it up" so no need to deflect accountability.

Also, I am not claiming to be better than anyone -- that is a red herring. But so long as human nature is "basically decent" then you will always overlook just how sinful and evil it can be. That is something that devout capitalists are usually pretty quick to acknowledge too!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1078693' date='Sep 28 2006, 10:43 PM']
What you say is true. However to be fair we have to consider all those in poverty. To take only families leaves out a significant portion. I consider things such as divorce rate and morality as totally irrelevant to the discussion to be honest, because these things are going to exist regardless of either distributism or capitalism. So it cancels it out. This being the case poverty rates in both a capitalist system and a distributism will both go down equally. Things that are part of the equation that you have mentioned otherwise should be the focus.


Well it's good that we both consider the Census Bureau a good source. Which is why that is where I got my stats as well. How can both be right?
I'll get back to you on this when my computer stops being stupid, I can't open the page . If this is the case then that is good. Wait I think I found another version of the page (my cpu doesn't like pdf). Is this it? [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html"]http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html[/url]
It does seem that it has lowered a little bit, although it seems to fluctuate having risen the last couple years.
Over the last 50 years it does seem that way. But again, how does it work that the cashflow is still this unevenly spread? I guess what I'm saying is that you are okay with this disparity because there is more money, so the .2% that is going to the 40% of the pop. is a good thing? This may be the case, but it just doesn't sit well with me.
But let's move away from the actual cash numbers for a bit. Distributism holds that true wealth is in ownership. Ownership of your work/business, ownership of land, ownership of how you take care of yourself and your families. Do you disagree that currency is not necessarily the best way to measure wealth? How many times in the course of civilization have currencies changed and/or become obsolete. Even in America's histories we have had many different forms of money, worth different amounts. It is rumored that it is happening again. I'm sure it's no secret that the dollar, and pretty much all coins are becoming worthless. Nobody wants them anymore. Who says we're not in for an overhaul of our currency?

Instead one thing that has always been valued, always been treasured, is land. Everybody wants it, few people get it. And I'm not talking about going into major debt to get it either, because technically how is it really yours?
[/quote]I guess I'll retire from this thread since you seem unwilling to see reason. You don't concede facts when presented to you and give the excuse that you aren't an expert in economics, but continue to present your unsupportable claims. No point in investing time or energy in an endeavor with no return.

Let's sum up the points we're discussing that are true.
-Poverty has been steadily decreasing in the US.
-Per capita income has been steadily increasing in the US.
-Wealth growth is not equitable accross the population.
-Wealth growth is a factor of capitol investment in a risky market.
-The entire population's income over poverty has increased steadily.
-The choice to invest OR spend excess income is the choice of the individuals.
-Capitalism is the economic system that allows people who chose to invest their money can, or they can choose to spend it.
-Capitalism is the economic system that allows people to make their choice.
-Capitalism has the track record and proven history that it does improve the over-all living standards of the greatest amount of people.

Given this, to argue against capitalism, you have to show with economic realities, how a different system is an improvement by honestly recognizing the performance of captialism. Capitalism has been around for more than 200 years. Capitalism is based on allowing people the freedom to control their capital (whether it's labor, skill, or finances) in a market driven system. Even in the bible when Jesus talks in parables, the principles of capitalism are evident. Finding a treasure in a field than selling all that you own (liqudating your assests) and purchsing the field (investing your assets) for an increase in wealth (increase net worth, return on investment) when you then uncover the treasure. The parable of various amounts of talent given to the workers, some who invest, one who doesn't. It's acknowledged that there is risk in investing the talents. Even consider Job. He was blessed with riches, had them taken away, and was blessed again.
We all have capital, our human effort, talents, and skills. In a market driven econmic system, we have the opportunity to invest it. Honoring human dignity is having a system that we can invest our capital and get a return that at LEAST meets our minimum needs. Kinda like the Dec of Indep. We have the right to pursue happiness, not the guarentee of happiness.
How we spend our profit is up to us, not the government, as long as we aren't removing the freedom of others. Monopolies are bad morally and in capitalism because they remove proper competition. Too little regulation allows fraudulent or immoral competion.
Profit from commerce is a tremendous benefit to the society of man. We commission art, support musicians, build better than 'utilitaritan' buildings with inspiring architechture. Government control leads to the lowest common denominator. How can Government justify spending money on art when people are hungry? Is no money to ever be spent on art as long as there is an empty stomache in the world? Communism attempted that with the idea 'the State' comes first. Humanity is gifted and graced by God and we aren't all (or even the majority) prone towards evil.
Self interest is not selfishness. If we love cooking, we could open a restaraunt where we can delve into our personaly style of cusine. If other's like it enough to spend $ to patronize your business, you could be successful. If not enought people like it, you could go out of business. Recognizing the vastness of the market is the first step. Allowing people to attempt to meet market demands is the second. Distributism is another form of socialism. It is attempting to regulate the number and location of eateries to ensure they have market share. If the cook isn't as good, some people will choose to drive the extra 5 minutes to the other eatery that isn't part of it's economic area. Distributism in that case will reward mediocrity. Unfortuantely, Government controlled market makes that endemic to Distributism. Capitalism, on the other hand, rewards excellence. People don't always purchase the cheapest, they look for the value that is affordable. People who can buy luxuries, will if they feel it's worth the money. The jeans I buy in wal-mart for $12 aren't the same jeans that are bought for $35 in JCPenney. It's a choice I make in how I spend my capital. I don't resent those who can spend more. I have the opportunity to work and purchase all my clothing and do not have to rely on charity to dress myself and my family.

This lies at the heart of my lament that people who have not have the full experience of working and supporting themselves. You do not learn that in school, nor can you trust the various political agendas that tell you how Great or how Awful the economy is. I can't speak with athority on the best way to live during winter in Chicago as I have never experienced there as an adult. Nor can a Chicagoan speak with athority how to survive August in Tampa if they never have experienced it. We both may have some knowledge from visits, family, books, and TV, but our knowledge is superficial and not tempered with experience.

[goldenchild17]

[b][quote name='Anomaly]I guess I'll retire from this thread since you seem unwilling to see reason. You don't concede facts when presented to you and give the excuse that you aren't an expert in economics' date=' but continue to present your unsupportable claims. No point in investing time or energy in an endeavor with no return.[/quote'][/b]
If that's the way you see it then fine. I think it's been made clear that I agree with you on a number of the facts now. If you refuse to acknowledge that then we aren't going to get anywhere. Besides, there are a number of facts that simply don't match. We are both using the Census Bureau, and the numbers don't match. That means something is wrong. I'm open to my numbers being wrong. But I'm not going to agree that there wrong simply because you say so.
[b]

[quote=Anomaly]Let's sum up the points we're discussing that are true.
-Poverty has been steadily decreasing in the US.
-Per capita income has been steadily increasing in the US.[/quote][/b]
Agreed.

[b][quote=Anomaly]-Wealth growth is not equitable accross the population.[/quote][/b]
Definitely which is my point on the economic part of this.

[b]
[quote=Anomaly]-Wealth growth is a factor of capitol investment in a risky market.
-The entire population's income over poverty has increased steadily.[/quote][/b]
You may be right. Still not sure I agree yet. Overall I think my 17% increase is a correct number according to the Census Bureau. Now that may be heavily affected by single parent families, but overall I still say it's rising, whatever the factors.

[b]
[quote=Anomaly]-The choice to invest OR spend excess income is the choice of the individuals.[/quote][/b]
I agree. This also plays a part in the poverty levels as well, because some people choose to spend all of the little money that they get instead of using it wisely.

[b][quote name='Anomaly]-Capitalism is the economic system that allows people who chose to invest their money can' date=' or they can choose to spend it.[/quote'][/b]

Yes this is the positive aspect of capitalism which is why it has been successful in many ways.
[b]
[quote=Anomaly]-Capitalism is the economic system that allows people to make their choice.[/quote][/b]

I don't agree with this yet at all. It allows some people to make their choice, at the expense of most others. Which is my main gripe with it. I believe this is the primary factor in the overall wealth disparity.

[b][quote=Anomaly]-Capitalism has the track record and proven history that it does improve the over-all living standards of the greatest amount of people.[/quote][/b]
Not sure yet. How can you compare it to something that isn't in existence anymore? Worth of money has changed, cost of things has changed, many things have changed. It is seeming to bring in more money. Overall wealth is going up. But the disparity resulting from people taking advantage of others is still too much for me to accept.

[b]
[quote name='Anomaly]Given this' date=' to argue against capitalism, you have to show with economic realities, how a different system is an improvement by honestly recognizing the performance of captialism.[/quote'][/b]

I recognize what capitalism has done, both good and bad. It has raised overall wealth it seems. The disparity of this wealth is not something I accept however. And I have the problems with it on a moral level too of course.

[b] [quote name='Anomaly]Capitalism has been around for more than 200 years. Capitalism is based on allowing people the freedom to control their capital (whether it's labor' date=' skill, or finances) in a market driven system.[/quote'][/b]

Some people.
[b]
[quote name='Anomaly]Even in the bible when Jesus talks in parables' date=' the principles of capitalism are evident. Finding a treasure in a field than selling all that you own (liqudating your assests) and purchsing the field (investing your assets) for an increase in wealth (increase net worth, return on investment) when you then uncover the treasure. The parable of various amounts of talent given to the workers, some who invest, one who doesn't. It's acknowledged that there is risk in investing the talents. Even consider Job. He was blessed with riches, had them taken away, and was blessed again.[/quote'][/b]
In none of these cases does it compare to what capitalism effectively does as well, however. None of these cases say anything about taking other peoples jobs, closing down others businesses, etc. If a person wastes their money of their own volition (sp?) then fine, smells of elderberries to be them. If a person loses his ability to provide for his family, even temporarily, because his job was given to some dude in India for a fraction of what he was making, that's where it crosses the line. If a person wants to do poorly at serving the people with whatever business he runs that's his problem. If he can't serve the people because their are 3, 4, 5 or more other businesses trying to sell the same product that's over the border.

[b]
[quote name='Anomaly]We all have capital' date=' our human effort, talents, and skills. In a market driven econmic system, we have the opportunity to invest it.[/quote'] [/b]

If we had a more fair fraction of the wealth then yes this could happen. As it is most people have to use what they've got to pay the bills. It's the top percent of people who have the insanely high portion of the cash, who have plenty left over to do this investing thereby creating even more of a disparity.

See, this is where I see it as not enough to have "enough to get by". Yes that will do, unless you lose your job of course. However, because they have only enough to get by, they are not provided the opportunity to improve upon this. They cannot invest, because everything they have goes toward what they need to live.

[b]
[quote name='Anomaly]Honoring human dignity is having a system that we can invest our capital and get a return that at LEAST meets our minimum needs. Kinda like the Dec of Indep. We have the right to pursue happiness' date=' not the guarentee of happiness.[/quote'][/b]

How happy are people living paycheck to paycheck, knowing that others have plenty left over to invest and create even more for themselves? Yes, I know many families that don't care as earthly things are not a focus for them, and this is how it should be. However, I don't think the Dec. of Independence is referring to a spiritual happiness.

[b][quote name='Anomaly]How we spend our profit is up to us' date=' not the government,[/quote'][/b]

Definitely. But people who have nothing left over after paying for clothing and shelter and food have no profit, thus nothing they can do with it.

[b] [quote=Anomaly]as long as we aren't removing the freedom of others.[/quote][/b]

People who lose their jobs, even temporarily, have no freedom. They have to take what they can get. People who are put out of business by other business' have no option but to quit or start over. People who have no significant surplus after paying their bills have no option to invest because they have nothing to invest. What little one might have is saved for the next month's rent, in case something should happen, like losing their job to someone in Mexico or China or India etc. Such people could never dream of investing this money because they have no security that they will have the ability to bring in income after a certain period of time. Even people who are under contract run out the contract eventually. I consider the family I come from to be financially stable. My dad did 20 years in the Air Force and was successful at that. Once he decided to retire he started looking for work months in advance. It took him until he was out of work for months before he got hired in a contracting company. Yes he got another job, but those months without work were not so pretty. And this doesn't even compare to what happens in the world of capitalism, especially through company expansion and outsourcing.

[b] [quote=Anomaly] Monopolies are bad morally and in capitalism because they remove proper competition. Too little regulation allows fraudulent or immoral competion.[/quote][/b]

Okay I agree pretty much, but let's work with this one. What is "proper competition" and "too little regulation". Depending on their definitions I could agree with this.
[b]
[quote name='Anomaly]Profit from commerce is a tremendous benefit to the society of man. We commission art' date=' support musicians, build better than 'utilitaritan' buildings with inspiring architechture. Government control leads to the lowest common denominator. How can Government justify spending money on art when people are hungry? Is no money to ever be spent on art as long as there is an empty stomache in the world? Communism attempted that with the idea 'the State' comes first. Humanity is gifted and graced by God and we aren't all (or even the majority) prone towards evil.[/quote'][/b]
Let's work with the theory then. You agree that to little regulation is bad as well as too much. Now we need to define what is too little or too much, competition and gov. control.


[b][quote name='Anomaly]Self interest is not selfishness. If we love cooking' date=' we could open a restaraunt where we can delve into our personaly style of cusine. If other's like it enough to spend $ to patronize your business, you could be successful. If not enought people like it, you could go out of business. Recognizing the vastness of the market is the first step. Allowing people to attempt to meet market demands is the second. Distributism is another form of socialism.[/quote'][/b]

That is about as far from true as possible actually. What I've been getting into, some gov. control etc. is not a good representation of the theory and I'm working to revise that mistake that I made. If distributism is another form of socialism you need to back that up with something other than just my words.
[b]
[quote name='Anomaly]It is attempting to regulate the number and location of eateries to ensure they have market share. If the cook isn't as good' date=' some people will choose to drive the extra 5 minutes to the other eatery that isn't part of it's economic area. Distributism in that case will reward mediocrity. Unfortuantely, Government controlled market makes that endemic to Distributism. Capitalism, on the other hand, rewards excellence. People don't always purchase the cheapest, they look for the value that is affordable. People who can buy luxuries, will if they feel it's worth the money. The jeans I buy in wal-mart for $12 aren't the same jeans that are bought for $35 in JCPenney. It's a choice I make in how I spend my capital. I don't resent those who can spend more. I have the opportunity to work and purchase all my clothing and do not have to rely on charity to dress myself and my family.[/quote'][/b]

Ah okay so now you agree with me that there are not such good quality products out there? Not long ago you were screaming at me to find an example. You just gave one.

[b][quote=Anomaly]This lies at the heart of my lament that people who have not have the full experience of working and supporting themselves. You do not learn that in school, nor can you trust the various political agendas that tell you how Great or how Awful the economy is. I can't speak with athority on the best way to live during winter in Chicago as I have never experienced there as an adult. Nor can a Chicagoan speak with athority how to survive August in Tampa if they never have experienced it. We both may have some knowledge from visits, family, books, and TV, but our knowledge is superficial and not tempered with experience.
[/quote][/b]

No one can speak of something because they have not physically experienced it? I'm sorry I can't agree. I have respect for scientists, at least those who are ethically upright, but I believe philosophy is the groundwork for understanding things, especially those of a nature not related to the earth or outer space or physical life in general. People can think. We're not animals. We don't need to physically experience something to understand it. There are fundamental principles that guide all things. The key is to figuring out what these principles are and applying them.

Edited September 29, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Anomaly]

You don't know where philosophical theory ends and practical reality starts. Stop trying to put an extreme spin on me pointing out the limits that lack of experience put on it.

Sure it smells of elderberries if a business owner decides to eliminate or outsource jobs. That's why some people chose to run their own business. Others, like me, don't want to have to depend on employees and want to be an employee without any control whether the company wants to eliminate my job or close my division. Since a greater percentage of people continue to live above poverty level, it seems the overall trend that lost jobs are replaced with better jobs. That's a general trend, so exceptions don't make the rule. Back to the 17% increase of those in poverty, I'm sure you can grasp the concept that if the population increases with poverty rates being stable, then the # of people in poverty increase but the percentage of the population in poverty remans the same.

[goldenchild17]

Stand corrected on poverty levels. I was reading my graph wrong. It does seem to have gone down .

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1079269' date='Sep 29 2006, 12:53 PM']
Ah okay so now you agree with me that there are not such good quality products out there? Not long ago you were screaming at me to find an example. You just gave one.
[/quote]The shog-gun approach is getting tiresome and too Budgelike. I DON'T agree with you that there are only cheap products out there and that quality can't be found. There are cheap products out there that we can choose to buy (or not). There is a broad range of quality to let people make their own value choices.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079287' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:05 PM']
You don't know where philosophical theory ends and practical reality starts. [/quote]
Ok. Thanks for pointing out my stupidity once again . Practical reality starts once we determine what the principles are. Once we do that then we are able to start working on a method to employ these principles. It's a two step process.


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079287' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:05 PM']Stop trying to put an extreme spin on me pointing out the limits that lack of experience put on it. [/quote]
What's extreme here? I'm just saying that because we dont' have experience in a specific thing does not mean we cannot come to understand it. We can never come to understand the physical pains of pregnancy, if you're a guy, but we can come to understand whether or not abortion is wrong based on reason.

[quote]Sure it smells of elderberries if a business owner decides to eliminate or outsource jobs.[/quote]

This we agree on .

[quote]That's why some people chose to run their own business.[/quote]

And many who would like to can't. Either because they are run out of town by bigger companies, or they have recieved such a small percentage of the wealth that they have not enough extra to start a business, which is expensive to do. Yes, they may have enough to live off of. But they have no choice to run a business if they choose to because everything they have goes towards living, not towards starting a business.


[quote]Others, like me, don't want to have to depend on employees and want to be an employee without any control whether the company wants to eliminate my job or close my division. Since a greater percentage of people continue to live above poverty level, it seems the overall trend that lost jobs are replaced with better jobs.[/quote]
Yet even if this be the case, it remains that any time lost due to a person having to switch/find a new job makes the difference obsolete as far as I can tell.


[quote]That's a general trend, so exceptions don't make the rule. Back to the 17% increase of those in poverty, I'm sure you can grasp the concept that if the population increases with poverty rates being stable, then the # of people in poverty increase but the percentage of the population in poverty remans the same.

[/quote]

Makes sense. I'm not going to focus on numbers any more so it doesn't really matter to me anymore. Yes capitalism seems to help people stay at a subsistence level. If people wish to remain at nothing more than a subsistence level living paycheck to paycheck fine, that's their own prerogative (sp?) But I maintain that those at a subsistence level have no choice but to remain there (unless they catch a major break, which happens not so often) because they have nothing over and above with which they can either invest and/or start a business.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079291' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:14 PM']
The shog-gun approach is getting tiresome and too Budgelike. I DON'T agree with you that there are only cheap products out there and that quality can't be found. There are cheap products out there that we can choose to buy (or not). There is a broad range of quality to let people make their own value choices.
[/quote]

hmm but I never said quality doesn't exist. I simply said that the cheap products are becoming more prevalent. For every good brand there are at least a few crappy brands that provide the same product. That's all I'm saying. Many people settle for these lesser brands because they don't have the extra income to choose anything better. So it becomes a vicious cycle. And that applies to those poorer people who are trying to do the best they can. Many poor people make bad decisions and take the expensive stuff, going into debt and becoming even more poor.

Edited September 29, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Anomaly]

Making progress...

You said captialism only helps people stay at a subsistence level with no choice but to stay there.
That's wrong based on the fact you just acknowledged the poverty rate has gone down. In just the last 40 years it's gone down almost 40% while singel income households have increased.

It doesn't take substantial personal wealth to start up a business and small business aren't always crushed by large businesses. When a small business attempts to compete for the exact same market as a large business, of course it will fail. That's common sense, but people don't always use common sense. If a small business attempts to compete for the lowest price on cheap goods, it cannot generate the volume to make the low margin work. The small business has to cover higher costs by selling something else such as convenience, a greater selection, higher quality, better service, etc. If you can justify your higher price with value and enough people recoginize the value and are willing and able to pay for it, you're in the money. Otherwise, you're out of business. That's capitalism.

Edit to add:
I kind of had an epiphany. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but does the following statement make sense to you. I think you equate capitalism as being materialsim.

Capitalism is not materialism. Capitalism is an economic system while materialism is a symptom of cultural mores that is able to thrive in a capitalist economy.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Anomaly

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079303' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:28 PM']
Making progress...

You said captialism only helps people stay at a subsistence level with no choice but to stay there.
That's wrong based on the fact you just acknowledged the poverty rate has gone down. In just the last 40 years it's gone down almost 40% while singel income households have increased. [/quote]

Sure, I'm not positive that the two are exactly related though. Are people from the poverty levels the ones creating businesses? Or is it those in the middle class who have a little left over?

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079303' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:28 PM']It doesn't take substantial personal wealth to start up a business [/quote]

I wouldn't say it's easy though. One needs to buy the property and the equipment, and hire people which costs money and whatever else. I don't think someone that has to use all their income for living expenses is quite capable to accomplishing this.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079303' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:28 PM']and small business aren't always crushed by large businesses. [/quote]
Yes, not always, because some are allowed to operate on their own scale. This is how I think the economy should work.


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079303' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:28 PM']When a small business attempts to compete for the exact same market as a large business, of course it will fail. That's common sense, but people don't always use common sense. If a small business attempts to compete for the lowest price on cheap goods, it cannot generate the volume to make the low margin work. The small business has to cover higher costs by selling something else such as convenience, a greater selection, higher quality, better service, etc. If you can justify your higher price with value and enough people recoginize the value and are willing and able to pay for it, you're in the money. Otherwise, you're out of business. That's capitalism. [/quote]

Hence the problem I have with big business. Mega corporations, like Wal-mart for example, try to provide everything that a person needs. Everything from food to clothing to healthcare to whatever. This leaves few options for others who would like to provide what they are good at.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079303' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:28 PM']Edit to add:
I kind of had an epiphany. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but does the following statement make sense to you. I think you equate capitalism as being materialsim.

Capitalism is not materialism. Capitalism is an economic system while materialism is a symptom of cultural mores that is able to thrive in a capitalist economy.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say it IS capitalism. But I would say that it is inherently driven by it. Materialism is the driving force, Capitalism is the method employed to achieve this force. That's how I would put it at this point.

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1078783' date='Sep 28 2006, 11:36 PM']
I'm making a bit of a retreat, as I don't know enough about this subject. So I'm using a different tactic. I am saying that I think inflation is inherently attached to the success and/or failure of capitalism. In capitalism, wealth is determined by your cashflow, or your stocks. In distributism it is based on land ownership and control over one's own destiny without being affected by another. Which is more stable? The ever changing currencies? Or good land?[/quote]
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, yet you have no qualms about telling others how the economy ought to be run.

Land retains its value in a free-market economy. You're not making a cohesive argument here, merely throwing around words and blowing smoke.

[quote]That is something I'm not sure I could develop as economics is not my specialty. But I think it is something that could easily be constructed, either by going back to townships, and closeknit communities like we had in medieval times or some other such method. That would be how I would do it.[/quote]
Yeah, all we need to do is simply go back to medieval times. It's easy if you try . . .

[quote]If companies kept their workers and their buildings within their community this wouldn't be an issue.[/quote]
And what if they don't? Seems that would require a lot of government interference to enforce.
And what if they want to export their goods services to other communities? Or people in other communities want to buy their goods or services? Would all commerce between "communities" be outlawed by our ever-benevolent distributist government?
(More on this later)


[quote]I'd say it'd require some. [/quote]
I'd say goodbye to the principle of limited government.


[quote]Again, it is an ideal situation. Can it be done in a country I think is already so far gone? Probably not. I think most people would not be willing to go along with this. But that doesn't stop me from thinking it's the right thing to do.

Something affects another man's ability to thrive when his job is taken or his business is bought out or forced to go under due to another one taking over. I think some form of punishment should be had for those who tried to take advantage of others by overstepping their boundaries. Crimes should be punished. I believe taking advantage of another man should be a crime. I don't know about the customers end of it yet. That is the one thing I need to think more on . And in this system rival businesses would be non-existent because no two businesses would be providing the same goods or services.[/quote]
How do we define "taking advantage of another man"? Simply providing better quality products or services at a lower price is to be considered a crime in Distributist-Land, if it happens to hurt someone else who cannot compete?
Such a system would reward mediocrity and make excellence in business a crime. (As well as give government unprecedented power over people's lives).
The trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe and saw!
(I think the only people who would really prosper here would be the lawyers!)
All I can say is I thank God your Distributist utopia is only a fantasy!

[quote]I think so. However, I think in a distributist society, quality would go way up, so I don't think there would be the threat of a sucky pizza .[/quote]
I'm sorry, my bad. I was forgetting that in our imaginary Distributivist Big Rock Candy Mountain utopia, everything would be perfect and wonderful and there would be no problems or defects with anything!

[quote]Again, the consumer end I need to think more on.[/quote]
True. Think up.
Seems the consumers would be the real criminals here, because they, after all, are the one's choosing to do business with Benito, and thus harm poor Tony's business. Darned consumer choice!

[quote]I think so. This would affect those who were trying to make an honest living. I think if people want to make the trip to get the better pizza then fine. This will force the local pizza company to try a little harder. Where the better pizza company oversteps it's bounds is when it starts the delivery service, because this would be directly entering another man's domain to put it simply.[/quote]
Who defines whose domain is whose? Is it a matter of first come-first served? Whoever happens to have the first business in place is to have his business protected from competition by the law, no matter how lousy his business may be?
Seems a fine way to perpetuate mediocrity and imcompetance!

Perhaps Tony is not cut out to be chef, and should seek employment in some other area to which he is more suited.

And are all deliveries of any goods from one "domain to another be outlawed??

And let us keep in mind that some commerce will be necessary, as not all all local "communities" will be able to supply all their own goods. Import and export of things such as crops, oil, etc. is required for most places.

Sounds like the Distributist-Land police would have their hands full! They'd need quite a force to go about keeping down all this competition - hope they don't have to deal with too many real crimes like robberies or murders!
Our peaceful Distributist utopia is starting to look more and more like a distopian totalitarian police-state.



[quote]Initially sure government would need to be involved to put everything in order. Why would it hurt the businesses and customers?[/quote]
Well, we've seen how it would hurt businesses deemed to competitive, and the customers would suffer without being able to choose the best deals from competing businesses.

[i]Initially[/i] massive government interference would be involved . . . What makes you think this governement would grow smaller or less intrusive with time. Experience shows that once government gains powers, it is loathe to give them up, and usually seeks more. And your whole system seems to assume that those in government would be totally benevolent and wise and just, ,and concerned only for the common good. How naive!



[quote]Can't really afford a book right now. Link might be better. I think Communist and Socialist countries had other issues than price limiting. I would be interested in seeing how setting a maximum price is harmful to a society.[/quote]
Unfortunately, the text in the book is not available electronically as far as I'm aware. I would highly recommend it though. Woods answers all your "distributist" arguments and more, and a lot better and more thoroughly than myself.

In brief, government price-fixing is harmful, because supply and demand fluctuate.
Providing a product costs a business money. The actual cost of providing a good or service can vary with supply and other issues.
Government price-fixing, even at its best, cannot account for these fluctuations and variations.

To use the pizza example, let's say a blight or drought hurts dairy cattle production one year. The price of coagulated milk rises drastically as a result. Tony is forced to raise the price of pizza to keep his business profitable due to the high price of coagulated milk. But the government has fixed the price of pizza to a now-unprofitable level, and Tony is forced to either sell his pizza shop, or have his family starve.

[quote]Just because something works better doesn't make it ethical though. [/quote]
All an economy does is provide for the material good of people. If a system works in raising people's material well-being it should not be replaced by one which does a poor job of this simply because the latter claims to be based on some noble ideal of equality or whatever.

And how is the government fixing prices more ethical than fair prices being reached the natural way, by agreement of buyer and seller?

[quote]Possibly. I am interested in seeing the data that shows that doing this is actually what hurts an economy.[/quote]
And I'd be interested in data showing where government price-fixing has actually benefitted the economy.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Socrates

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, yet you have no qualms about telling others how the economy ought to be run. [/quote]
Basically. At least I'm being honest and have been this whole time. You two's almost obsessive need to point out my obvious stupidity, which I agree with, is really getting overboard. I have no problem positing theories of things I try to think through. If they are wrong then it's wrong. Once I'm shown that it's wrong and I can accept it as wrong, then I move on. Until then I wait to see which theory holds up to scrutiny.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']Land retains its value in a free-market economy. You're not making a cohesive argument here, merely throwing around words and blowing smoke.
Yeah, all we need to do is simply go back to medieval times. It's easy if you try . . .
And what if they don't? Seems that would require a lot of government interference to enforce.
And what if they want to export their goods services to other communities? Or people in other communities want to buy their goods or services? Would all commerce between "communities" be outlawed by our ever-benevolent distributist government?
(More on this later) [/quote]

I don't expect countries to want to. Unless it is a fully Catholic nation in which the concept of a fair shot for everybody and less of an obsession with money. I'm positing how things should be. Not necessarily how they can happen in modern times.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']I'd say goodbye to the principle of limited government.[/quote]

In a Catholic nation there would be minimal need for government intervention, as this concept would be shared among the populace.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']How do we define "taking advantage of another man"?[/quote]

I've given my definition multiple times. Honestly I've been trying to stay patient, but one can only run a discussion in circles so many times. If you want to see my definition again either look through the last few posts of mine (in which it is contained) or ask me which one and I'll show you if you truly can't see it right there.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']Simply providing better quality products or services at a lower price is to be considered a crime in Distributist-Land, if it happens to hurt someone else who cannot compete?[/quote]

If it takes away another man's fair shot yes. Why is considering taking advantage of another man not seen as a bad thing around here?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']Such a system would reward mediocrity and make excellence in business a crime. (As well as give government unprecedented power over people's lives).[/quote]
I believe the opposite. In the system, as evidenced in things such as the guild system, people took pride in their creations and were generally exceptionally good at their craft. Today we have some good products, but for every decent brand there are multiple crappy brands making the same product but of far lesser quality. So I say it's Capitalism that is the defender of mediocrity in this.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']The trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe and saw!
(I think the only people who would really prosper here would be the lawyers!)
All I can say is I thank God your Distributist utopia is only a fantasy![/quote]

Nowadays. You do realize this exact form has been in existence in many eras? The middle ages, the initial western push in America towards farming, basically just about most places before the Industrial Revolution. It is no fantasy. It just is not in practice today.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']I'm sorry, my bad. I was forgetting that in our imaginary Distributivist Big Rock Candy Mountain utopia, everything would be perfect and wonderful and there would be no problems or defects with anything! [/quote]
There is no system that is perfect. Never has been, never will be. We're talking about what is better, not what is perfect. But if you want to continue talking down to me fine. I figured I could expect a more decent charitable discussion with some one like you, but I guess not.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM'] True. Think up.
Seems the consumers would be the real criminals here, because they, after all, are the one's choosing to do business with Benito, and thus harm poor Tony's business. Darned consumer choice!
Who defines whose domain is whose? Is it a matter of first come-first served? Whoever happens to have the first business in place is to have his business protected from competition by the law, no matter how lousy his business may be?
Seems a fine way to perpetuate mediocrity and imcompetance! [/quote]
Again. If you can show me that the guild system of Medieval times developed mediocre products then you will have a point. But you can't seem to break away from hypotheticals. Distributism has existed before. Therefore you have something to compare your statements to. Back them up by something from a distributist model that has existed.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']Perhaps Tony is not cut out to be chef, and should seek employment in some other area to which he is more suited.

And are all deliveries of any goods from one "domain to another be outlawed??

And let us keep in mind that some commerce will be necessary, as not all all local "communities" will be able to supply all their own goods. Import and export of things such as crops, oil, etc. is required for most places.

Sounds like the Distributist-Land police would have their hands full! They'd need quite a force to go about keeping down all this competition - hope they don't have to deal with too many real crimes like robberies or murders!
Our peaceful Distributist utopia is starting to look more and more like a distopian totalitarian police-state.
Well, we've seen how it would hurt businesses deemed to competitive, and the customers would suffer without being able to choose the best deals from competing businesses.

[i]Initially[/i] massive government interference would be involved . . . What makes you think this governement would grow smaller or less intrusive with time. Experience shows that once government gains powers, it is loathe to give them up, and usually seeks more. And your whole system seems to assume that those in government would be totally benevolent and wise and just, ,and concerned only for the common good. How naive!
Unfortunately, the text in the book is not available electronically as far as I'm aware. I would highly recommend it though. Woods answers all your "distributist" arguments and more, and a lot better and more thoroughly than myself.

In brief, government price-fixing is harmful, because supply and demand fluctuate.
Providing a product costs a business money. The actual cost of providing a good or service can vary with supply and other issues.
Government price-fixing, even at its best, cannot account for these fluctuations and variations.

To use the pizza example, let's say a blight or drought hurts dairy cattle production one year. The price of coagulated milk rises drastically as a result. Tony is forced to raise the price of pizza to keep his business profitable due to the high price of coagulated milk. But the government has fixed the price of pizza to a now-unprofitable level, and Tony is forced to either sell his pizza shop, or have his family starve.


All an economy does is provide for the material good of people. If a system works in raising people's material well-being it should not be replaced by one which does a poor job of this simply because the latter claims to be based on some noble ideal of equality or whatever.

And how is the government fixing prices more ethical than fair prices being reached the natural way, by agreement of buyer and seller?
And I'd be interested in data showing where government price-fixing has actually benefitted the economy.
[/quote]


I was going to respond to this but it is clear from your pointing out my stupidity and your condescending tones that you have no wish to have a real discussion. I have been making a concerted effort to not be involved in such discussions as they do nothing for anybody involved except lower the standards of such discussions. If you were honestly concerned I think you would be more conscientious of how you conduct this. But it seems to me you are just here to make me sound stupid. Heaven knows I do a good enough job of that on my own.

All I can say at this point is if you actually are interested in convincing me, which I'm totally open to, then take your accusations and apply them to a past distributist model. There are plenty enough of them to choose from. Pick one and go with it.

Edited September 30, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1080067' date='Sep 30 2006, 12:56 AM']
Basically. At least I'm being honest and have been this whole time. You two's almost obsessive need to point out my obvious stupidity, which I agree with, is really getting overboard. I have no problem positing theories of things I try to think through. If they are wrong then it's wrong. Once I'm shown that it's wrong and I can accept it as wrong, then I move on. Until then I wait to see which theory holds up to scrutiny.[/quote]
I'm sorry you found my tone offensive. I am trying to get you to think. Too many Catholics (and schismatics too, I suppose) are too quick to jump on the "distributivist" bandwagon without thinking through how such a system would work in practice.

[quote]I don't expect countries to want to. Unless it is a fully Catholic nation in which the concept of a fair shot for everybody and less of an obsession with money. I'm positing how things should be. Not necessarily how they can happen in modern times.

In a Catholic nation there would be minimal need for government intervention, as this concept would be shared among the populace. [/quote]
Here you falsely assume that every Catholic is a Distributist. I know many devout orthodox Catholics who are strongly opposed to distributism. Thomas E. Woods Jr., the author of [i]The Church and the Market[/i] book I mentioned earlier is a strong critic of distributist theory, and is also a Traditionalist Catholic, who writes for a number of Catholic journals. Serious Catholics are quite split over the Distributism issue, and among those calling themselves "distributists," there is considerable disagreement about how distributism should be properly carried out in practice.

[quote]I've given my definition multiple times. Honestly I've been trying to stay patient, but one can only run a discussion in circles so many times. If you want to see my definition again either look through the last few posts of mine (in which it is contained) or ask me which one and I'll show you if you truly can't see it right there.
If it takes away another man's fair shot yes. Why is considering taking advantage of another man not seen as a bad thing around here?[/quote]
Well, my asking the question is in part rhetorical, to help you see the ambiguity inheritent in this charge. Where you might see "taking advantage of another man," another may see simply someone running a smart, high-quality business.
To use my old pizza-shop scenario, Benito did not have anything personal against Tony. He was simply more successful at his business, and Tony was unable to compete. Benito should not be punished for his success.
If Benito did something directly to harm Tony and his business, such as torching his pizza shop, or stealing from him, [i]then[/i] he has committed a crime and should be punished.
It is not the job of government to micro-manage to make sure everyone's situation is in every way equal and fair. That amounts to socialism.

[quote]I believe the opposite. In the system, as evidenced in things such as the guild system, people took pride in their creations and were generally exceptionally good at their craft. Today we have some good products, but for every decent brand there are multiple crappy brands making the same product but of far lesser quality. So I say it's Capitalism that is the defender of mediocrity in this.[/quote]
To be honest, I find this argument somewhat bizarre. You maintain that quality products are available, but complain that cheaper, lower quality products are also available. If you do not like the lower-quality products, you are not forced to buy them. You can choose to buy the higher-quality instead. That is the beauty of a free-market system. Yes, you may have to pay more for the higher-quality product, but high quality has never come cheap.
The fact is that there is a greater amount of products of all quality available at lower prices under the free market system than there were in pre-industrial times. Countless goods which Americans of all economic classes take for granted today, would have been available only to the very rich in earlier ages, if they were indeed available at all.
(And most modern mechanical and electronic devices are dependent upon industrial mass-production in order to exist in any quantity for an afordable price.)

Again, as Anomaly pointed out, it would be useful if you gave some concrete specific examples of what you are talking about, rather than talking in vague generalities.

[quote]Nowadays. You do realize this exact form has been in existence in many eras? The middle ages, the initial western push in America towards farming, basically just about most places before the Industrial Revolution. It is no fantasy. It just is not in practice today.[/quote]
Actually, in earlier ages, technological and logistical limitations prevented modern industrialization as we know it. Private commerce and business was not agressively limited by the government intrusion you propose. The free market "capitalist" economy in fact has its root in the middle ages, with the decline of feudalism and the rise of a merchant class.

Most people during this time lived at close to subsitence level. If crops were bad, people starved to death. Life expectancy was low. Luxuries could be afforded only by the rich.
I don't think most modern day "distributists" would be able to last one day as a medeival peasant (nor probably even as a medieval nobleman). They sit around in their air-conditioned offices, and munch donuts as they complain about how "capitalism" has oppressed them.

If people want to buy land in remote areas, and live off the land, growing their own food, and making their own goods, more power to them! Nothing prevents from doing this, other than their own aversion to the hardship involved.

However, the great majority do not take this route, but instead sit around and beesh about modern capitalism, and call for more government interference in private enterprise.

We need less government intrusion, not more.

[quote]There is no system that is perfect. Never has been, never will be. We're talking about what is better, not what is perfect. But if you want to continue talking down to me fine. I figured I could expect a more decent charitable discussion with some one like you, but I guess not.


Again. If you can show me that the guild system of Medieval times developed mediocre products then you will have a point. But you can't seem to break away from hypotheticals. Distributism has existed before. Therefore you have something to compare your statements to. Back them up by something from a distributist model that has existed.
I was going to respond to this but it is clear from your pointing out my stupidity and your condescending tones that you have no wish to have a real discussion. I have been making a concerted effort to not be involved in such discussions as they do nothing for anybody involved except lower the standards of such discussions. If you were honestly concerned I think you would be more conscientious of how you conduct this. But it seems to me you are just here to make me sound stupid. Heaven knows I do a good enough job of that on my own.

All I can say at this point is if you actually are interested in convincing me, which I'm totally open to, then take your accusations and apply them to a past distributist model. There are plenty enough of them to choose from. Pick one and go with it.[/quote]
Okay, show a past "distributist" model, and prove statistically that the majority of people were better off materially.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Lately I've been kicking around an idea I call Green Pseudo-anarcho-distributism. I'll call it Ecoantisubsidiarianism for short. hehe j/k

You fellows are having quite the debate! Cheers!

[Alycin]

I don't really understand the whole capitalism vs communism vs socialism vs everything else argument.

I don't appreciate people that say the word "communist" as if it were a swear word though. IF communism actually worked, it would be a good idea. It doesn't. It doesn't make everyone equal, and never will, because humans are not perfect and some people are going to want to be "on top" and some people are going to be lazy and not do their fair share of work while others would work really hard and they would both get the same pay.

(This is all to my understanding... I could be wrong because as I said before this is not my forte at all!)

IMO... I would rather things NOT change right now, except in the fact that welfare should be improved or completely re-done, and other systems should be put in place to help those who really need it. I don't think it's fair to say that EVERYONE on welfare plays the system, or to villianize the system because there are humans who make mistakes.

Anyway just my 2 cents, I don't know enough about this topic and probably shouldn't be talking about it.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Alycin

[Laudate_Dominum]

Thank you Alycin! I don't know enough about this topic either and probably shouldn't be talking about it but paradoxically it is precisely this fact that is compelling me to present and defend my theory of Green Pseudo-anarcho-distributism! Weeee!!

Nah.. I'll hold off because I don't want to get in the way of the goldenchild-socrates debate.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1449819' date='Jan 23 2008, 09:16 PM']I don't really understand the whole capitalism vs communism vs socialism vs everything else argument.

I don't appreciate people that say the word "communist" as if it were a swear word though. IF communism actually worked, it would be a good idea. It doesn't. It doesn't make everyone equal, and never will, because humans are not perfect and some people are going to want to be "on top" and some people are going to be lazy and not do their fair share of work while others would work really hard and they would both get the same pay.

(This is all to my understanding... I could be wrong because as I said before this is not my forte at all!)

IMO... I would rather things NOT change right now, except in the fact that welfare should be improved or completely re-done, and other systems should be put in place to help those who really need it. I don't think it's fair to say that EVERYONE on welfare plays the system, or to villianize the system because there are humans who make mistakes.

Anyway just my 2 cents, I don't know enough about this topic and probably shouldn't be talking about it.

[/quote]
Ah, the old Distributism/Capitalism debates - good times!

While you are correct in pointing out that Communism would never work in practice, Communism is also wrong and unjust at even the theoretical level, as it explicitly denies persons their intrinsic right to property, a right the Church has repeatedly affirmed. Communism makes all material goods the property of the state.

And when most people say "Communism," they are referring to Soviet-based Marxist-Leninist Communism, a thoroughly godless system which has been responsible for more murders and attrocities in its 90+ years of existence than any other system of government in the world.

Given the horrific history of Communism, "Communist" fully deserves to be at least as reviled a term as "Nazi."

Edited January 24, 2008 by Socrates

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is a tough thread.. I want to root for Socrates but I also want to root for goldenchild... I'll root for whoever is due for a post.

goldenchild: w0000t! I'm wooting for you dude! Post, post, post!

[Alycin]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1449862' date='Jan 23 2008, 10:28 PM']Ah, the old Distributism/Capitalism debates - good times!

While you are correct in pointing out that Communism would never work in practice, Communism is also wrong and unjust at even the theoretical level, as it explicitly denies persons their intrinsic right to property, a right the Church has repeatedly affirmed. Communism makes all material goods the property of the state.

And when most people say "Communism," they are referring to Soviet-based Marxist-Leninist Communism, a thoroughly godless system which has been responsible for more murders and attrocities in its 90+ years of existence than any other system of government in the world.

Given the horrific history of Communism, "Communist" fully deserves to be at least as reviled a term as "Nazi."[/quote]

But weren't a lot of people technically communists that had no choice in the matter?

(Curious... again, this isn't my topic so I'm always willing to learn.)