COLLECTIVE VALUES
A pointless argument, capitalism is superior and won out long ago. I'm shocked a business show would even waste their time with this. What are they, an online discussion board?
Superior to what? You are comparing eggs and apples. Capitalism evolved from barter, the reason being that with sufficient trade the concept of "investment" arrived - and capital provided the means. It still does, after all the centuries since.
But that is no reason whatsoever to think it is the best system to assure a fair and equitable society - because, as it stands, in the US (and most of the world) it isn't. Even in the EU, which is a
Social Democracy.
The difference, and it is a major one, is that whilst a Social Democracy realizes the necessity of capital for investment purposes, it accepts that said Capital is private. Whereas Socialism did not since it held that all investment was public in nature. (Ie, governmental.) That change in definition was key to understanding the difference between "Capitalism" (as we know it today) and Socialism (as it was once known since there are damn few countries who still practice it).
Which does not mean that that world can be content with Capitalism
per se, because it has had the tragic consequence of excluding everybody but a highly select class from enjoying its "fruits" (ie., profits in terms of Net Wealth).
... the democrats are not moving towards socialism. They were far more liberal decades ago and weren't socialist then either.In action, Bernie was a New Deal Coalition kind of guy, which was good but sadly didn't convince enough people.
Well, they are, because they have to in order to exist. They are has-been party if they do not, given the Income Disparity that exists in America. It is bound to explode into violence sooner or later,
and it will be sooner were Trump to win the upcoming election.
See here, "Piketty's History Top 10Percent Pre-Tax Income Share – Europe and US:
Unless, of course, you think that in a country of hardworking people, nearly half of all income the economy generates goes to just 10% of the its citizens, and the other 90% must scramble after the other half.
MY POINT?
Any one who does think that above heinous split in income-sharing is "fair because they
earned it" is bereft of any sense of
collective values of merit. In fact, they are some of the most selfish people on earth.
They forgot that without the 90Percenters, [COLOR="#80000"]they'd be very, very poor people[/COLOR].
Bernie was a welcome klaxon warning of the harm coming, and what needs to be done to avoid the cataclysm (a revolt of the poor against the rich, where the forces of order will not know which side to take).
It's nothing new - it happened twice before, once in Paris (1789) and again in Moscow (1905).
Why not the US, pray tell -
because the very same historical conditions exist ... ?
____________________