Are Democracy and economic equality fundamentally incompatible?

[sc94597]

Michael-5 said:

sc94597 said:

Michael-5 said:

I agree with you there, but Capitalism is also flawed because of the excess accumulation of wealth too.

Just so you know, my opinion on Capitalism is the same as Churchills view on Democracy. It's not perfect, but until a better system comes up, this is the best we have.

Also, in all honesty, I think anyone can make themselves into something. Anyone can become a doctor if they are willing it sacrifice 10 years of their lives in school. Anyway can go to university and get a loan (In Canada our school fees are also much much cheaper). So in comparision to socialism, yea It's unlikely I'll become a multi-millionaire, but if I work half decently and spend my money intelligently, I can be fairly well off.

I mean people are richer then they think, so many people spend 20% off credit card interest, why? That's money just being thrown away. A lot of people have children at a young age, why? You can't afford it..... Same with spending, people buy big houses with big morgages.... I in large think people born in NA/EU who grow up poor, do it largely because of either how they were raised (with money meaning very little) or their value as people (meaning poor people are largely less educated and less capable of working in higher income fields).

How is the " accumulation of wealth" a problem and who determines when it is "excess"? In fact, I view it as a good thing. People are more affluent (all people, the rich and the poor) than they were 100 years ago, and people 100 years ago were more affluent than people 200 years ago. Poverty has decreased from 80% of the world's population to only 20% of the world's population, almost entirely erased in first world countries. These are all good things, and they are all because greater efficiency in production caused by free-markets. Things that were scarce 200 years ago, are nowhere near scarce today. That is the only way egalitarianism can happen, if scarcity is reduced, and the only way scarcity can be reduced is from production, and it just so happens that production is most efficienty (naturally) performed through a system that is not equal, but that's rightly so because there is even scarcity in people who can perform certain functions that are necessary to production. An egalitarian distribution means a less productive society, and consequently an overall worse off society. I'd rather have income inequality if it means that the poor live better than in a society much more equal, with a worse off poor. 

The United States might be the most inequal first-world country, but poor still live just as good lives as the poor of other more equal countries, if not better. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/

How is the accumulation of wealth a problem? Ever heard the saying the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer? This is the problem, why is wealth being limited to the families of those who were wealthy 50-300 years ago? When companies use the lowest bidder to make their products, this creates a separation between the rich, middle class, and poor. This is a problem because this mean to be rich, you only need to be born into a rich family, which is an issue because it means that hard working people don't get their due rewards. Wealth without work is after all one of the 7 deadly sins according to Gandi (Greed is another according to the Bible).

Who determines when it's excess? Politicians. Corporate taxes are designed to keep excessive wealth down, putting money earned by big comapnies into roads and education. Problem is, Politicians tend to be well off, Mitt Romney for instance makes millions of dollars off oil companies, and he was running for president. Do you think people are going to pass taxes which cut away at their income?

So many flaws with the Capitalistic system.

Everything else you described can be thanked to technology, not to capitalism. Less people are poor now because the cost of luxuries has reduced. Owning a Mustang in the 70's meant buying a new car every 3 years (due to poor reliability), where as now a similarly priced mustang (with prices mathced with inflation) last 10-15 years, and has considerably more power. A/C prices have dropped to the point everyone can afford an A/C. Computers have dropped in price to the point that everyone can have one too, etc, etc.

Also BTW using that graph, Russia is for more Capitalist then USA....and it's near the bottom. Kinda helps my arguement more then yours....

But the poor aren't getting poorer, they're also getting richer. Just not as quickly as the rich are. How would you have technology without a market that pushes for it? Why did the cost of luxuries reduce? Because of greater production, why was there greater production? Because of free-markets and prices based on supply and demand. There is a reason why socialist countries like China and Russia had to open "special economic zones" in order to sustain production. Russia ranks 139 on the economic index.

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/russia

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

It's not more capitalist than most of the world, let alone the U.S (which is at 10.) But your point was that greater inequality leads to the poor being worst off, which isn't true. That was my point.