73 replies to this topic

[lowellite]

Haha, you're not rambling at all Cody. Your posts make perfect sense. (I wonder what you're like when you haven't taken sleeping pills!) I'm almost tempted to join the discussion in the "Do you believe in god?" thread, but I really don't have time to read through all 47 pages of it, and the people who are still left all pretty much agree with each other already...

About the flat tax, it has several problems. A common argument against it is that the marginal value of money declines with the amount of income (an extra $100 means a lot more to a family earning $20k a year than to a family earning $200k). As a result, a true flat tax would be detrimental to the poor, as a family living on $20k-40k a year will have a hard time if they must pay 20% (or whatever the rate is decided to be) of their income in taxes. Due to this glaring problem, proponents of the flat tax usually never support a true flat tax and tend to favor some kind of deduction. However, even with a deduction, a flat tax removes tax burden from the rich and decreases tax revenue, which may not be desirable given the US's propensity towards deficit spending.

Another issue is that a flat tax doesn't make the tax system much simpler, unless corporate taxes, dividend taxes, estate tax, etc. are also removed. However, removing those taxes will make the overall tax system regressive and the very rich (such as CEOs) can avoid most taxes by taking stock options as their payment. The resulting income and wealth equality might become unimaginably high.

Regarding capitalism, few people would be willing to accept a purely capitalist society (not that it's possible in the first place). If you think about it, free markets and perfect competition do not exist. Most industries are monopolies (utilities), oligopolies (communications, automobiles, health insurance), or monopolistic (clothing, restaurants). As a result, the "free market" is actually not as responsive/cheap/efficiet as it is portrayed to be. In fact, markets tend toward conglomeration or horizontal integration. Why else would there be so much "trust-busting" during the Roosevelt/Taft era?

Furthermore, free markets cannot work unless buyers are informed and can make informed decisions about a product. For various reasons, complete knowledge on the part of buyers has never been possible. As a result, regulatory agencies such as the FDA are needed to prevent exploitation of the buyers. For a not-exactly-unbiased, but exciting, account of what happened before regulatory agencies, why not take a look at The Jungle by Upton Sinclair?

Nevertheless, most people agree capitalism is a good system, as long as regulations and social programs are in place. Your friend is a bit in the minority.

Edited by lowellite, 25 August 2010 - 08:01 AM.

[Mr. Hobo]

don't see it as fair that the rich should pay a higher % of income. 20% to someone who makes a million $ anually is 200,000 while someone making 40k annually would pay 8k. The rich person is still paying a proportionally larger amount. It just doesn't seem right to charge someone double the % in tax when they already pay more in $ as it is because they are successful.

But their success depends on the exploitation of their underlings. Even with a higher % they are still making far more money and have a vastly superior quality of life. Variable tax just evens the playing field a bit

[Mr. Hobo]

. You can't have tax cheats that way. The rich who buy items more than necessities will pay the tax on all of it. Someone who is barely making ends meet will actually see an increase in revenue (because they aren't losing money off the top) and won't pay taxes on anything that isn't required to live. That's a fair tax to me. ;p

What about imports?

Also, Wealthy does not always mean they gain success through exploitation. It should be earned through innovation instead. I think it's unfair to say that everyone who is very aucessful is so because they are exploitive.

'Innovation' seems to be a word really popular with capitalist. 'Capitalism encourages innovation, what better incentive is there than money'.
But I say when you have 10 companies all competing to cure cancer, progress is made much slower than if they were working together in unison, pooling their research together. Or when you have oil companies surpessing gas effecient cars to increase the demand for their product, innovation goes out the window. It seems in the latter situation cash incentive has the opposite effect on innovation

'Efficiency' is another popular word. 'Capitalism encourages efficiency since waste comes out of your own pocket'
But I say when you have 5 farmers and each one of them owns a tractor so that they can use it for 2 hours a day, it makes far more sense for them to own it in common and reduce costs by 1/5th

[lowellite]

Which tax policy is the most "fair" really depends on one's definition of "fairness," which is highly subjective. Therefore, I can understand both views. It's just that I personally prefer a more progressive tax rate so that everyone can at least have a somewhat equal start. Social mobility is still not very high in any society, for obvious reasons. After all, children from poor families will never get the same opportunities, resources, and care as children from better off families, placing poor children at a disadvantage. A progressive tax policy is one way of somewhat leveling the playing ground, because the money can't just pop up from nowhere. Of course, how the money should be used to help the poor is another question altogether.

Capitalism works as long as the profit motive is aligned with the public interest. In some cases, such as health insurance (the company profits by denying care) and some portions of the pharmaceutical/medical industry (the company favors the development of treatments that require chronic consumption, instead of any one-time cures), the profit motive is in the opposite direction. In this case, it may be better for society to have some government intervention.

Capitalism encourages efficiency and innovation...to a point. Since capitalism is purely profit driven, there is no incentive to become more efficient if the firm does not profit. To cite Mr. Hobo's example, there is no incentive for firms to cooperate on researching a cancer cure because discovering the cure together would result in less profit than if one firm discovered the cure to cancer for itself.

Often, capitalism is very shorted-sighted. Without regulation, firms will pollute every single river/lake/ocean, clear-cut every forest, etc. because it is profitable in the short-term.

And I'm not sure if I understand your last comment about scientific discovery. Can you clarify it a little?

[Mr. Hobo]

You still pay taxes on imported items currently... Why would that change?

Err...
I think I've payed (about a 30% customs fee) on 1 out of 20 shipments
I meant that rich people will just get around a federal sales tax by importing all their expensive purchases

Do you not think it's more efficient to have farmers working their land in the right order? Or doing certain work during the cooler parts of the day? What if the farmers disagree as to what time they each get their two hours at? Also, what if business is booming and there is a higher demand? Which farmer in your scenario gets the extra work? Also... It's clearly not as convenient for them each to share a tractor

Well it's as simple as making a schedule and following it. Business is booming? For farmers? Not anytime for the last century . The industrial revolution hasn't exactly been kind to our rural counterparts

Also, your example about car companies. If oil prices are high, the demand for fuel efficient cars rise. Companies are going to want to make the best product so that they will lead the competition.

Also, your example about car companies. If oil prices are high, the demand for fuel efficient cars rise. Companies are going to want to make the best product so that they will lead the competition. If all the car companies were one and worked together, what stops them from deciding they want 100k/car... And if you want the privilege to drive.. You have to pay the price. (it's for the better of the environment, not the money,,, really. ) also... Only one company... Why would a car company even bother with newer technology? In fact... Why wouldn't they make a shittier car so you have to replace it more frequently.. And because there is no alternative. You buy from them. Talk about true cash incentive.

Right, but had profit not been the sole motivating factor, the oil companies would not have supressed research into fuel effecient cars and the enviroment would be far better off and hostile arab aristrocracy wouldn't be rolling around in cash
What incentive would there to make a shittier car? It's not like they will follow the light bulb companies suit and make light bulbs with short lifespans to increase demands. I'm saying instead of doing it for pure profit, you'd have researchers doing it out of curiousity, a desire to contribute, a passion for their field etc.

I see too much abuse of the system and a lot of draws to broad social reform.

I think you just see the flaws in your federal government and assume (probably rightly so) that they will rub of on and ruin your social programs

[Mr. Hobo]

Well I think the policies can be gradually changed and embraced by the people. Look at Sweden, quickly went from a very unequal country to one of the most egaltarian countries in a very short span. The same can be done in America, just at a slower pace thanks to your republican party

Considering America's debt I think it's closer to collapse than Europe is.
While certain European countries that have been run poorly (Italy, Spain, Portugal and one other that I can't remember) do have some pretty serious economic troubles, I imagine it's relatively fixable (just follow Ireland's lead)

[Mr. Hobo]

Truthfully, we have the far left party and the left party

Dude, really? More like far right and slightly less right by the world's standards . From your perspective maybe both parties look left

Lol! Swedish people are equal... Equally fucking broke! All the money left the country to escape high tax rates in order to spread the wealth. The rich simply up and left to continue making money... Leaving the poor to spread the money around.

Cite your source please . I've heard nothing of the mass exodus you speak of
I don't know how you can say Swedes are broke when you compared the average Swede's quality of life to that of the average American's.
And the fact that the US has a far higher % of debt (in terms of GDP)

[Mr. Hobo]

Yes, compare Sweden when its at its worst to America during one of it's better times. That's a fair comparison

Right wing politics does not equal more freedom . I'd say Bush is pretty right wing and look at the patriot act

[EzioAuditore]

I'm kinda glad I brought this topic back alive. Not so much to post, but to read all of this.

[lowellite]

I think the real problem is that humans are innately selfish (some say it's an inevitable and unchangeable result of evolution). This is why pure socialism will never work, because the average person will simply take advantage of the system and stop working. In the command economy of a purely socialist country, it is also impossible for government to efficiently allocate the correct amount of resources to each aspect of the economy. Capitalism is superior in getting people to work and in the allocation of resources. However, when taken to the extreme, the most powerful will exploit the masses for their own gain. So the key is to find a balance, since neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism will work.

Most scholars don't seem to consider fascism to be of the far left. Instead of thinking of the political spectrum as only two directions (right and left), why not take a look at a multi-axis model such as: http://en.wikipedia....in_of_the_terms
http://en.wikipedia....Pournelle_chart

I have to agree with you that Republicans and Democrats are pretty much the same. Even though a few outliers (for instance, Nancy Pelosi for Dems, Ron Paul for Reps) can sometimes make the two parties seem different, the overall actions of the two parties are not inherently different. Yes, there are still some token differences, but not much.

"the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800, compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households." - Swedish Institute of Trade

Also see http://www.worldsala...rg/sweden.shtml they list several sources with links to them.

Also... Yes... America is still on the right in the fact that we still have our freedom and aren't solely reliant upon the federal government. But the two political parties are both aiming to the left.

The statistics you posted about Sweden's median household income is interesting. The Swiss sure make a decent amount, given that they take mandated 5-week vacations. Compared to the US, I'm sure that there are also less dual-income households in Sweden, but I haven't looked this up yet.

To answer your earlier question, Cody, I'm a college student. You probably haven't seen me before because I just joined this summer (and probably also because I'm not exactly a prolific poster). Are you in school as well?

So why am I still playing Neopets at my age? Welllll, hehehehe...

Edited by lowellite, 25 August 2010 - 08:27 PM.

[Mr. Hobo]

Did you miss my post about true right vs. The right wing being right only in comparison to the left wing. True right on a political scale is limited government. Bush was part of the amercan right wing... Which is still left because the powers of the federal government grew while decreasing citizens rights.

Also, sorry. Didn't check the date on that study. I'll try to find a more recent one... But I've read several articles indicating Sweden isn't doing so hot economically currently.

Ya, I'm sorry. I forget that you consider left wing as authorian and right wing liberal by nature (you'd like Hayek. And you'd have a hard time placing libertarian socialism in your spectrum ).

According to the CIA World Fact book 2009

Average income per capita

USA $46,400
Sweden $36,800

That is gross income.

The average Swedish persons quality of life is much higher than that of your average American. Money by itself is meaningless. Cost of living is just one imporant factor in many. Danes have a higher income than Americans but their cost of livings much higher so at the end of the day they have less money to spend

P.s. hobo, sorry if I seemed antagonistic earlier. Hearing more ignorant people demanding that Muslims leave America and go "home" sent me into a bit of a rage. I tried to keep it off the board, but sorry if my tone leaked through a bit.

Also Hobo, the first study posted cites the time as "the late 1990's". The end of the 90's was the largest part of the recession. Although it may have referred to the good period before then... So the 2009 statistic should put it to rest.

Its hard not to come off as antagonistic when 2 people are discussing conflicting idealogies. I think we both respect each other enough/are mature enough for no hard feelings to come from this debate (which I'm clearly winning )

[Warriors]

I actually don't mind these Tea Baggers that much...Maybe its just the news and media in which the stupidest of the people talk and espouse their views but I doubt the tea party, or at least some members are that bad..But the company they keep does speak volumes as to how the organization is ran. Mostly, their policies are just a bunch of shit. No political value whatsoever, its all moral crap that they are trying to get pushed..

Hopefully, in November this Tea Party/Republican will split the votes and the Democrats can capitialize on it. Once this is done, maybe just maybe Obama can start doing some shit and not bow down to political pressures.

[Lallard]

Also Warrior, you are correct. The majority of the tea party isn't like they are portrayed. But what kind of media story is the truth...? Not that I wish the GOP any hard luck... But I would also like to see our president do something for the country that isn't based solely on his "obligations" to his party/political pressure. Although I feel the far left has also screwed him many times by imposing their will upon him. And throughout all of this balancing act, I think it's made him look incredibly weak and incompetent. (which I don't necessarily think he is.) He may wanna take a note from JFK (paraphrased) "No matter what you do, 20% of people will hate you for it." essentially, he needs to man up and act like the president and not a puppet working for whoever pulls his strings with the most power.

There has been, and always will be a shift of power between the two main parties in gov't, so there really isn't anything we could do about that; there's barely any President in our history that's known to be a moderate -- on the contrary the notable Presidents we had are the ones who are either too "liberal" or "conservative". Although we would like to find a good balance between the so-called "left and right", the next best thing that this country can achieve on doing is the constant shifting of power for every 4-6 years.

[Mr. Hobo]

think that saying the swedes have a better quality of life needs to be quantified with some harder data. From what I can gather, we appear pretty equivalent to them.

http://www.vexen.co....tries/best.html
http://www.forbes.co...llup-table.html
http://www.financial...iest-countries/
http://en.wikipedia....velopment_Index
http://www.mapsofwor...f-life-map.html
http://www.nowpublic...ies-2009-un-hdi
http://skeptically.o...omics/id21.html


Scandinavian countries usually tend to outrank America by a good 5 to 10 ranks.

When certain loving conditions are ensured by the government, unscrupulous people can decide "well... I'm not going to work". Why should they if they get all the benefits of working their asses off for merely being a citizen?

What's funny is Swedens unemployment is far lower than yours at at one point it was at like 2-3% and it was too low so the government took steps to raise it (it was somehow resulting in high levels of inflation)

I mean... Essentially it all comes back to the basic fact that in our current culture... If a system can be abused, it will. A capitalist market allows for much more abuse without a severe impact on the entire society than an (all be it extreme example) communism/fascism. It only takes the greed of one person/few people in a dictatorship/oligarchy with no alternatives.

Personally I'd take the occasional slacker over the millionaire capitalist who pays children 10 cents an hour to work in factories and damages the enivorement to make money

Oh yeah! Hobo, as much as I think you're a great guy... Your judgement must be skewed if you think you are winning this debate. (clearly in jest... No one can win in debates over politics or religion. I consider it more of an open discussion... No one wins or loses... But everyone with an open mind can walk away with a new perspective. )

Ya I was kidding . We're both too stubborn to concede defeat!

[Warriors]

Yea, Sweden has everything over America..Europe in general, with regards to work and social life...Americans work all the time and are really grouchy...Especially with taxes =D

Cody - Yea, true...I would also like Obama to do his thing but yet its almost impossible. He needs Congress and its legislative body, otherwise the President can't do shit. I think mainly, he is bending all which ways due to both parties, without one or the other he can't get shit through. That being said, in Obama's first year as President, while handling a financial crisis from his predecessors, he has done quite well in, although the polls may say opposite, in building his presidency and it's legacy.

But as a political science grad, I can say that there are underlying themes as to Obama's presidency that must be viewed in context. I really think that after November, if Obama get's his way then we will really see a different President than now. HE still is a Moderate, but I think that Republicans will be pissed off in about a year or two more into Obama's presidency.

[Mr. Hobo]

Yes, our unemployment rate is high right now... But I attribute that to people living outside of their means. A market place based solely upon credit was a disaster waiting to happen. Not to mention that the current taxation that small businesses are facing is causing them to not be able to hire as many workers because they have to balance a budget.

I'd say that companies like Walmart do more damage than high tax rates (though I do agree with tax cuts for small business. I'm guessing you're for a flat tax for business too?)

Also, in America, we don't have citizens working at 10 cents/hour. Does it happen with illegals (yes.. 10 cents is an extreme example, but we will run with it) but the illegal aliens working for a lower price is another topic entirely. Especially because if we had a socialist governing style, these aliens will be unable to get things like healthcare because they aren't paying taxes and aren't in the system. And as much as I think that illegals need to use the front door... I also can't see someone being denied medical services when needed. So your socialist society really doesn't touch the rich feeding off poor idea. But currently, Lazy people are living off these social welfare programs without a second thought. Blahblahblah.

I was talking about overseas jobs
And left wing people tend to be more pro-immigration so illegal immigrants wouldn't really be an issue

Also warrior - Europe may have all kinds of social reforms over the U.S. And they may be happier on average. But at what price? Massive taxes? Dependence upon the federal government forever? What happens when corruption hits their governments and the entire populace is subject to their corruption?

The thing is, with the exception of a few countries, European governments are much less corrupt. Have far more transparency. Have a population that actually votes (America is like >60%, Sweden is like 80%) and are more educated.
Corruption is easily preventable (not so easy to reverse however)

Basically I understand what you're saying, you want your own freedom to make your own choices and not have to worry about the government trying to control you. And I'm sure you're part of the small percentage of Americans who can handle that responsiblity

As is however, your privatized healthcare should have resulted in a generation of heatlh conscious Americans who exercise daily and eat well because they have to worry about healthcare costs but instead you have a generation of fatties
Your lack of social programs should have resulted in a generation of people who are knowledgable about personal finance and spend their money wisely. Instead you have a generation of people in debt


I could list about half a dozen other things that should have happened because of free market policies but didn't. At the end of the day the current system is broken and I think that by pursuing a system more akin to that of the Scandinavian countries, there will be a huge leap in quality of life, corporate responsibility and overall goodness at the cost of a few minor liberties and marginaly productivity

[Warriors]

You do understand that Fed govt is necessary..You realize that Capitalism is a failed paradigm. Throughout its history, it always goes through cycles. It always has periods of great economic growth and periods of great decay. This cannot be changed no matter what, it will always happen. All the Federal Government is doing is stifiling the blow...

As for America..I guess its all down to the individual. With those taxes, we receive services. I mean our educational systems among many other things are subsidized...Granted, there are problems with Wellfare, Social Security, Section 8, Food Stamps, but just because there are complications doesn't mean these programs are unnecessary.

As for a federal government, libertarians and everyone else want to turn back time and disregard social contract theory. I mean honestly its never going to happen...In order to maintain privacy/well-being/whatever else, the contract, requires a federal government. State government won't work..Look at the Civil War.

You do understand that Fed govt is necessary..You realize that Capitalism is a failed paradigm. Throughout its history, it always goes through cycles. It always has periods of great economic growth and periods of great decay. This cannot be changed no matter what, it will always happen. All the Federal Government is doing is stifiling the blow...

As for America..I guess its all down to the individual. With those taxes, we receive services. I mean our educational systems among many other things are subsidized...Granted, there are problems with Wellfare, Social Security, Section 8, Food Stamps, but just because there are complications doesn't mean these programs are unnecessary.

As for a federal government, libertarians and everyone else want to turn back time and disregard social contract theory. I mean honestly its never going to happen...In order to maintain privacy/well-being/whatever else, the contract, requires a federal government. State government won't work..Look at the Civil War.

[Mr. Hobo]

Why do you suggest that in a socialist society we won't still be buying from third world countries with poor wages?

No profit means there's no reason to exploit them

The problem doesn't lie in the system like you are portraying it. We have a generation of fatties because fat food is cheaper to make and generally tastes better. But most importantly, because we are constantly on the run fast food is what we turn to.

Well what I'm saying is the most cited perk of all this freedom is that the responsibility it entails has a positive influence on society and I'm saying that it's not true

And these minor liberties that have to be sacrficied... Are far from minor. When your livelihood is being taken from you and distributed as the government sees fit, you no longer are capable of doing things for yourself. All your funding and thinking is done for you. And most importantly, this country was founded in freedom. The government shouldn't need to restrict the rights and freedoms granted to us because some don't know how to take of things. Instead we should work on educating and demonstrating proper behavior.

Yes, that is also a viable option. But decade after decade of that failing to happen I think it's time to accept the alternative

I don't understand why you feel capitalism is a failed paradigm. Because it goes through cycles...? Doesn't everything in life cycle? It cycles for a reason. The point is that you should leave it alone and let the cycles ride the kinks out.

I'm not trying to marginalize the accomplishmentsof capitalism, I'm just saying that capitalism isn't really working as well as one of the alternatives out there and perhaps we should leave it in the 20th century

Anyways its 3am and I've run out of depressing Johnny Cash songs to listen to. Goodnight Mr. Cody/Warriors

[Warriors]

Good Night Hobo, Night Cody

Even in America, you can say it's capitalist, but there are many socialist and other forms of governance and policies. I think this combined relationship can benefit America better than Capitalism can alone. Capitalism requires a scarcity and a necessity..Resources are limited thus creating a harsh world of supply and demand. This has not boded well for America.

Well, let me say, not necessary capitalism but rather Lassiez-Faire Capitalism. It is not necessarily the cycles. As for riding it out, I doubt our society can maintain that for very long without leading to some sort of rebellion. Look at this system we have now, the financial private insitutions failed, and now they want a socialist method of bringing them back so they can make more money. Since this happens, Government should have a say and control this. Socializing private losses is absolutely horrible.

Who knows maybe no federal government..but a world order? XD I know that would creep you out..Maybe NGO's/MNC's will take over..

[Frizzle]

I'm sorry, did someone mention something in America being left wing? America's left wing is like the world's right wing extremists.

[Mr. Hobo]

What do you mean there won't be profit therefore there won't be exploitation? Any time money is involved, there is profit.

I meant since profit wouldn't be the sole motiviting factor there'd be no real incentive for those kids to be exploited

You don't see how it plays out on a personal basis. How can you A) claim that our system is a failure and/or B) give a damn what we the people do in our country?

A) I think it's fairly obvious from what I've seen that your system is messed up and hurting far more people then it helps and
B) It's not just confined to your country. Wars aside, negatively influencing other countries aside, exploiting other countries aside, destroying the enviroment aside I'm fairly certain when America goes down it'll be dragging Canada with it (more like we'd be riding on your coat-tails going downhill like we're on a sled )

[lowellite]

Sorry, double-posted by accident.

Edited by lowellite, 26 August 2010 - 11:07 AM.

[lowellite]

Haha! You know my nightmares!!!

The problem here isn't the system... It's abuse of the system and being short-sighted that is. I am not one of those who want social reform to bring back the private institutions that failed. The federal government has no place to interact with private companies. Let's look at GM for an example vs. Toyota. The government (and therefore the people) have a vested interest in GM now and therefore, also have a vested interested in seeing it beat it's competition. Let's look at all the safety recall scares that the media shoved down our throat making toyota look bad. Do you think perhaps that was blown out of proportion intentionally? Do you think the Feds are going to give
more incentives to their now rival? It creates a very unfair market and it's even more unfair to the citizens who are paying these companies (through federal money( to go out and buy a toyota. Why should they when their money is tied up in GM?

We are setting ourselves up for a meltdown. All this stimulus and bailouts are simply biding time before the inevitable... When businesses fail, they fail. It keeps the market competitive and ensures that only the strongest will survive. The federal governments intervention is hurting all te other businesses that managed to keep their neck above the water.

Just woke up. Sorry if it didn't make much sense.

Cody

It's easy to say "just let the banks/auto industry/etc. fail" but it's not really as simple as that. Doing nothing while the banks failed probably would have led to some kind of global economic depression (at least it's only a recession now ). Of course, I'm not saying the government did everything right. They obviously wasted massive amounts of money as well, but my point is that doing nothing was not a viable option.

I'm truly exhausted guys. I'll pick this up in the morning... But my real question is to those who lives in countries that aren't capitalistic... I'm genuinely trying not to be snarky here... But you aren't immersed in our culture and government. You don't see how it plays out on a personal basis. How can you A) claim that our system is a failure and/or B) give a damn what we the people do in our country? Isn't that the beauty of individual nations? We can use what we feel is best?

Capitalism rarely works as well as advertised. The conditions required (many sellers, perfectly informed buyers acting in their own self-interest, etc.) simply do not exist most of the time. That's why many Europeans countries have opted to supplement their capitalist systems with "socialist" welfare programs. That doesn't make them "socialist," since the US also has less comprehensive versions of these programs.

On a side note, I've been reading about finance, economics and the likes on Wikipedia and it's a very complicated field. Perhaps that's why Wall Street has Congress in its pocket, because the members of Congress can't understand this stuff either and have to rely on Wall Street lobbyists to write their legislation for them whenever it's time to make a law that involves finance/economics!

Edited by lowellite, 26 August 2010 - 11:06 AM.

[Lallard]

Too lazy to quote Cody's reply, but the problem in our government system is that the President doesn't really have that much power as portrayed by the general public. The country's practically being ran by Congress aka senile old white people whom half are probably former Klansmen (omit the last part, it just bothers me that it's likely to be true)

Capitalism rarely works as well as advertised. The conditions required (many sellers, perfectly informed buyers acting in their own self-interest, etc.) simply do not exist most of the time. That's why many Europeans countries have opted to supplement their capitalist systems with "socialist" welfare programs. That doesn't make them "socialist," since the US also has less comprehensive versions of these programs.

At the rate that the US economy is gradually declining I gotta agree with you on this one. At some point however we do see a shift from socialist to a capitalist-centered economy for most countries at least. Again it's really just a huge see-saw game just like as I mentioned with political parties at the moment.