Democracy and Capitalism

Status
Not open for further replies.

arcangel

New member
Aug 3, 2005
15
0
0
I live in NY, I was born and raised in DR. I am 24 years old and a civil engineering student in City College. Although not versed in Economics I have worked as an operations manager in a very large chain store. I took Microeconomics and Macroeconomics in school trying to understand better the capitalist world view and the concept of globalization. Globalization was sold to me back when I was still in DR as an imperfect system, full of flaws, but that if free market were to rule in the entire world the jobs will go to the most productive, knowledgeable individuals, regardless of color, culture, religion, or political view.

It sounded like it could work so here I am thousand of days later in a land estrange to mine, but that nevertheless I have learned to respect and cherish for what it is: the land of opportunity, not the land of the free, not the capital of the world. Opportunity: A favorable or advantageous circumstance or combination of circumstances. I saw a possibility of ?free? health care, of a ?better? education, the understanding of a ?broader perspective.

So today after what I have seen, read and heard, I have come to an inevitable conclusion Democracy and Capitalism can not work together at least not in worldwide scale. I am sure that most will disagree, but it seems that although the Capitalist system is only as good as its players, one can? not argue that more and more multinationals conglomerates are taking over the entire recourses of the world. Here is a scary fact 50 multinational corporations and 50 developed countries have more money than the rest of the world today. I am not interested in whose fault it is, I already know that EVERYBODY?S. My concern is what do we do to fix this system that evidently has not worked for more than a century but more likely it will never work.

Democracy rests on the education of the citizens to make decisions and to elect leaders to represent and protect their interest. This of course the short version and thorough the history of my DR, I can see how educating the majority of the population Democracy works. Ex. How by increasing the civic education, citizens are more likely to get involved in the political process, therefore less likely to sell their vote for a demagogue speech.
Capitalism as an economic system argues that government intervention in the economy should be restricted and that a free market, based on supply and demand, will ultimately maximize consumer welfare. This is also true. But like its predecessor Mercantilism, it fails to address that the economic power resides in the hand of the few changing hands from time to time depending on certain technological revolutions, ex. The industrial revolutions, the internet boom, etc.

People educated in Economics understand that ones income should be spent in local or partners businesses. Since is very unlikely that foreigners investors will come in to your town open business and spend the profits in the same town. Japanese, Chinisse, Arabs, Indians, European Jews, White Supremacist, and others have gone that way even when it made more economic sense to spend their money on the cheaper store. Why does a Dominican rather go to a non Dominican business even if it makes no economic sense?
Can all poor blacks, poor Latinos and progressives in the US unite economically with the underdeveloped countries and start putting our money where our mouths are?:rambo:

I could be dreaming or is this possible?, if not, it seems that the richest corporations and countries will keep the underdeveloped countries at bay. Some of you probably have argued this before, but on the light of the near end of this oil age, it seems important to explore the different options we have. I for one will rather get rid of Capitalism than Democracy
:cry:
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,370
3,150
113
chuckuindy said:
I am not so sure that you can have one with out the other.

Chuckuindy
IMO,

you can have capitalism without democracy (this was the case with Fascim, hardly democracy but was based on capitalistic economies, also modern China is a great example), but you can't have democracy without capitalism.

However, growth of capitalism and wealth has a tendency of making non-democratic places more democratic. This is evident everywhere, but for a more obvious example look at China. The areas that have prospered are now the areas demanding more democratic principles and freedoms from the communist government.

The best way of toppling a non-democratic regime is by introducing Capitalism and increasing the wealth of its people. Even dictator Franco of Spain knew this, when he predicted that when Spain's GDP per capita reached US$2,000 he would probably lose his grip. By the time he did lost his grip, Spain was hoovering around that income level.

Similar occurences occured in Chile where Pinochet lost support and eventually was desposed once Chile's per capita income increased substancially.

-NAL
 
Last edited:

mondongo

Bronze
Jan 1, 2002
1,533
6
38
arcangel, capitalism has major flaws, but no-one has come up with a better alternative.

very well written post, btw, especially for a young person. very good thought process.
 

Don Juan

Living Brain Donor
Dec 5, 2003
856
0
0
The best of both worlds.

Don't know for sure, but it seems that capitalism and socialism when combined, produces a system that best benefits the most people. In essence: a welfare state.
One major drawback though, is the high income taxes placed on the rest of the population, albeit this works well in the Scandinavian countries.
In DR, monies to cover this welfare system would have to come from taxes levied on something other than individuals residents, i,e, a 2% tax on remittances from expat Dominicans.
Democracy may not nessessarily be best for every nation, but when healthy and educated people are in command, they find ways come up with novel (beneficial) ways to govern themselves.
At present, capitalism is better for DR than any other known alternatives.
 

Riu

New member
Jun 11, 2004
202
0
0
arcangel said:
I saw a possibility of ?free? health care, of a ?better? education, the understanding of a ?broader perspective.

:cry:

I am sure by now you know, "better education" yes, free health care "NO".
Another quality of capitalism and democracy, action-reaction cause-effect, nothing is free in this system. If you receive a service you or someone else must pay for services rendered. Ex. U.S. social security is not free, helathcare is not free, even education in the U.S. is not free. These are services that citizen pay via taxes. It is a system where wealth allocation may not be fear across the board but at leas is spread out a little as opposed to other economic systems. You put it well when you say "LAND OF OPPORTUNITY".
 

observer keen

New member
Oct 4, 2005
99
0
0
capitalism as an economic mechanism is not evil!

due to the fact that imperialism and capitalism have been linked historically, people tend to demonize the latter for its association with the former; but that is a fallacy in itself for it is not capitalism that is evil but rather some human elements in the system. capitalism in its ideal state would reward anyone with marketable skills and talents and it is the only economic system that is in accordance with the kantian concept of justice.
with a good government in place not directing the economy, but rather enforcing the laws agaisnt economic abuses, capitalism works optimally when coupled with some socialistic ideas_ norway and sweden have succeeded in demonstrating just that. One often underappreciated advantage of capitalism is that it creates an atmosphere for explosive creativity_ an individual is more likely to work long hours in lonely lab to find a cure for cancer if he/she is going to be recognized through a nobel prize than if his/her government were to demand that he/she do so for the sake of the world! given the fact that the human tendency is to be self-interested rather than ultruistic, an economic system that rewards individual rather group efforts is more likely to make breaktroughs, and consequently advance humanity. college professors know that quite well_ this is the reason that they would assign few group projects even though the real world is based on team work. it is worth noting that i do not even consider the " laissez faire economy of the early twentieth-century america" to be capitalism for it wasn't talent and innovation that were the dynamics of such an economy but rather brute force and cunnigness.

democracy?
it is a problem because people tend to believe that it is a fit-all type of shoe.
democracy would not generally do well in a poor corrupted country. contrary to popular misconception, democracy did not create european development; in fact it is rather the reverse that is true. wealth aquisition trough mercantilism and colonialism allowed the emergence of an educated middle class in europe( known collectively as bourgeois), and with education had come "challenging the statusquo".
with a very corrupted and poor country, democracy may work to preserve the very same things that keep that had impoverished the country in the first place. a rich corrupted candidate can bribe elections officials, and the electorate. have not realized that many poor countries had overwhelmingly elected drug-trafiquers. certain cartels in columbia would occupy an entire town with the will of the locals. look at slavery, it was a democratic institution in the south. was it right? of course not. history has demonstrated that "public clamor" is readily corrupted by ignorance and coersion_ one does not to go further than middleval europe and comtemorary africa to realize the truthfullness of that statement.
i personally think that a "transitional paternalistic dictatorial institution" is a better alternative for a poor corrupted country than mere democracy. i would overemphasize "transitional", for when the people under the benevolent paternalism of their "local talented tenth" become significantly educated ans self-sufficient, the paternalistic dictatorial institution should disolve itself to allow the formation of representative government by the universal suffrage concept.
this is not politically correct, but many politically incorrect concepts are indeed true. democracy is not always the best alternative!:surprised
 

Don Juan

Living Brain Donor
Dec 5, 2003
856
0
0
Yes and no.

i personally think that a "transitional paternalistic dictatorial institution" is a better alternative for a poor corrupted country than mere democracy. <quote>(observer keen)

But mostly, no. Trujillo. Duvalier, Mao,Allende, Peron, etc. were all "paternalistic dictators".They kept their corresponding countries in relative prosperity, stability & peace but all this came at a price in blood, torture, oppression, repression etc..... Would you want to live in a gilded cage?
 
Last edited:

Chris

Gold
Oct 21, 2002
7,951
28
0
www.caribbetech.com
observer keen said:
.... i personally think that a "transitional paternalistic dictatorial institution" is a better alternative for a poor corrupted country than mere democracy. i would overemphasize "transitional", for when the people under the benevolent paternalism of their "local talented tenth" become significantly educated ans self-sufficient, the paternalistic dictatorial institution should disolve itself to allow the formation of representative government by the universal suffrage concept.
this is not politically correct, but many politically incorrect concepts are indeed true. democracy is not always the best alternative!:surprised

Interesting post overall. Specifically I have not heard anyone but myself say what you say in the quoted piece.. and I've stopped saying this, as it attracts just too much baggage and hipshooting. And benevolent dictatorial paternalism are the key words... Not dictatorial paternalism enriching the dictator... not 'dictatorship' as the term immediately brings a whole wealth of negative connotation with it... Benevolent dictatorial paternalism, i.e., leading, pushing, coercing unskilled and unable adults into a new order.
 

mondongo

Bronze
Jan 1, 2002
1,533
6
38
Chris said:
.....benevolent dictatorial paternalism are the key words... .....

I have a better chance at winning the Megabucks lottery tomorrow nite...actually, there is a better chance the whole DR population will hit the winning number at the same time.....:beard:
 

observer keen

New member
Oct 4, 2005
99
0
0
I Have Emphasized "institutional Dictatorship", Not Individual Dictatorship Of A Man With A Messianic Complex Such As Duvalier And Trujillo. FOR INSTANCE, IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE United States, THEY WERE GOVERNED BY An Instutional Dictatorship EMbodied By The Likes Of Adams, Madison And Jefferson. In Fact, The Concept Of "electoral College" Is An Offshoot Of The Institutional Dictatorship.
 
Last edited:

observer keen

New member
Oct 4, 2005
99
0
0
Cris, I Would Not Use The Word " Unable To Describe The Masses" But Rather Misguided. The Masses Are Not Incapable, But Rather Have Been Conditioned By A Culture Of Poverty To Remain Self-resigned Fatalists, But Nevertheless They Are Full-fleshed Human Beings With The Potential Of Reaching The Pinnacle Of Humanhood. I Have Faith In My Species, Do You?
 

mondongo

Bronze
Jan 1, 2002
1,533
6
38
from science and engineering, we know that stable systems must contain more negative than positive feedback. a dictatorship does not normally contain any negative feedback. systems with postive feedback are normally latched in extreme and undesirable states. dictatorships mainly contain positive feedback. forgeddabouddit.
 

Chris

Gold
Oct 21, 2002
7,951
28
0
www.caribbetech.com
An institutional benevolent and transitionery dictatorship may be the one phase in the development of Nations that we overlook, in our relentless seeking for democracy and capitalism, and the supposed freedoms that these systems bring. I would say that if this phase is present as a natural developmental stepping stone for an impoverished nation, the transition to an enfranchised society, may be easier to attain. For me, it is very simple. Who will teach those that do not know about enfranchisement?. Who will lead those that have never experienced it, about having a free say in the matters around them?.

Let me summarise for those who read 'dictator' and immediately stop reading ;) Catch a hold of your knees for one moment and consider... I suggest that perhaps a good development path for an impoverished and corrupt nation/state is through a phase (stepping stone) of benevolent and transitionary dictatorship. I suggest that if this phase is present and successful in the development cycle of a nation, the nation is better prepared to move from, say an agrarian economy, to a democratic system of leadership and into the world as a trading partner, as the people are prepared to deal with the freedoms, the rights, as well as the realities of being an enfranchised group. A benevolent dictatorship would indicate education? Yes?

It is clear that the dictatorship in the DR was neither benevolent, and I question if it was transitionary. But institutional? Yes! In general, people still live as if the "government" either owes them a living, or as if they have no power to change anything. This is not an enfranchised people as they do not really understand that they have the power to change things. And if this was understood, they may not have the ability to institute changes in a realistic manner. And as such, the ship drifts on.

But, these are simply my thoughts and I will not go to the stake for them. I cannot think of an example in Latin America but there used to be excellent examples in Africa, (before the IMF became the dictator).

It has been a while, but observer keen's posts made me rethink these things. And yes, I have faith in my species, just not in their leaders.
 

observer keen

New member
Oct 4, 2005
99
0
0
Mondongo, Also In Differential Analysis, There Is An Equilibrium Point That Does Not Resist Change, It Is Called " A Source ".
In Other Words, The "dictatorial Institution" Can Be Interpreted As A One-bounded Source, Resisting All Negative Changes While Facilitating All Positive Changes.
 

Don Juan

Living Brain Donor
Dec 5, 2003
856
0
0
No such thing as a " benevolent dictator"

It may appear to be so especially if the nation in question is showing an economic upswing.
Everyone loves prosperity & stability.... given a choice between a trujillo-like regime or a Hippo-like democracy, I'd choose Hippo every time.
 

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
In this entire thread, I have not seen a single----

Reference as to what the term "democracy" represents to any of the individuals who have posted.
It seems that all assume that it is "the rule of the people"! That, my friends, is not democracy, but is anarchism.
Democracy, in the form that is represented in most countries, is really "republicanism" under a disguise. People elect someone to represent them and vote according to electoral mandate in a legislative body.
Under a true democracy, this intermediary is eliminated and thepeople vote directly for whatever legislation in before them at the moment.
Now we all know this, but we seem to forget our ancient history when it comes to discussing current concepts. let's call a spade a spade--neither a bloody shovel nor a spoon..
Modified democratic conventions of electing a representative to vote in yor stead on legislative matters is only one way; and I might add that it makes good sense to legislate in this manner if the elected representatives vote the way their constituency originally mandated them to do.
Whatever government emerges from the minds of the founders does so through the most powerful of the paticipants. Then, and only then, does economic theory come into play. And only insofar as it is allowed to function realistically.
"Democracy and Capitalism" can, and do, form a good partnership for the society in which they dwell. not necessarily outside of that milleau, however.
China, for instance, has a "modified" Commnist economy in that there is allowed, by the government, a rule by committee, to do certain business negotiations within the country and internationally. But, those that do so are rigidly controlled.
Under "pure" Capitalism" a person in work will seek the level in which he is most productive to society according to his level of education, intelligence and efforts.
In other words, if he is a poor engineer, he will probably end up as a superb ditch digger. That is the meat of "Capitalism". However, all this is still governed by the central government as to what they will, through legal manipulation, allow.
A dictatorship , by any name, is still a dictatorship. ALL thepolitical power is vested in a single person, and he does whatever he darn well pleases. it doesn't matter what the system of economics is that is practiced. The factors of production and their distributive shares are rigidly controlled by one person.
Didn't intend to write a book, but so much was left out ofthe previous discussions. I just thought I'd refresh some memories. And I could be wrong in a lot of it. But, that's what I learned in my studies of both economics and government through the years.

Texas Bill
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,370
3,150
113
Don Juan said:
It may appear to be so especially if the nation in question is showing an economic upswing.
Everyone loves prosperity & stability.... given a choice between a trujillo-like regime or a Hippo-like democracy, I'd choose Hippo every time.
Well, we are comparing green apples to red apples! (notice, same category but different appearance).

Of course anyone would prefer a Hippo-like democracy over a trujillo-like regime.

But its also true that anyone would prefer a trujillo-like democracy (assuming elections, but general iron fist attitude is maintained) over a Hippo-like regime (assuming not iron fist, but a fast deteriorating economy and head of states talking like chopos galore).

For goodness sakes, everytime Hippo open his mouth he either made people laugh or make them feel insulted. Not once did he spoke to people who took him seriously, except for those in his circle.

Trujillo ruled for 30 years and the economy of the country simply grew and grew, of course it had quite a price with censorship and the sort, but people got to eat every night.

Can you imagine 30 years of Hippo style ruling? Will there even be a country left?

-NAL
 
Last edited:

mondongo

Bronze
Jan 1, 2002
1,533
6
38
O.K...these things i know very well

observer keen said:
Mondongo, Also In Differential Analysis, There Is An Equilibrium Point That Does Not Resist Change, It Is Called " A Source ".
In Other Words, The "dictatorial Institution" Can Be Interpreted As A One-bounded Source, Resisting All Negative Changes While Facilitating All Positive Changes.

an equillibrium point is, by definition, where a system is stable, has lowest relative potential energy and where it is most likely to handle disturbances. in control systems, this is modeled as a high gain system with net negative feedback, not positive feedback.

as you say , it can be modeled as a "source"...a voltage source in electrical engineering, for example.

what i am trying to say is that any stable system must have negative feedback. dictatorships are not associated with negative feedback.
 
Last edited:

observer keen

New member
Oct 4, 2005
99
0
0
not a dictator, but a dictarial institution!

i have never said a dictator, but emphatically said " dictatorial institution".
texas bill, there is something in linguistics called " contextual and semantic evolution"_ a term may have had a totally different meaning from what it contextually has today. look at the term gay. it used to mean happy and content, but now generally describes " a homosexual person".
you are also wrong on anarchy_ anarchy means the absence of an enforcing government.
you are calling people liberals as if the term were derogatory. contrary to popular misconception, caused perhaps by selective amnesia, the industrial revolution in britain was created by liberals. do you remember ricardo? he is considered one of the fathers of capitalism. remember all the progressist british philosophers, they were the original liberals_ remember bertrand russel, mills, jeremy bentham, and berkley.
texas bill,you have called me an "uneducated mind"_ without bragging, i have a certified 171 iq, fluent in 4 languages. i am a logical puzzle-maker for a small newsletter on line. i have never taken notes in advanced calculus and i have missed many classes, but i still manage to have a perfect score for midterm.
mondongo, if you are competent in physics, we can interchange ideas, i have some crazy ideas in physics. for instance, i have come up with a tentative theory based on what i call " alternating concentric bubbled universes" in an attempt to explain the photonic phenomenon described by the "coppenhaggen interpretation"( interference patterns, both constructive and destructive, observed even after the experimenter shoots one single photon at a time)
there also is a cool problem that i have solved from russia about universal gravitation that is very interesting. i can send it to you if you do not mind.
have a good night!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.