Capitalism is better than Socialism

The long dialogue of American history is whether prosperity is best achieved in a contest with winners and losers or prosperity is our great work; a monument of culture upon which each generation must labor and expand. The tension between these arguments seems essential to our national propulsion. Although we admire the model of collective achievement, we recognize that competition motivates Americans above any other public incentive and must not be dismissed. Con argues that Capitalism, once a tool used by democracies to incentivize prosperity, emerged from the Cold War as religious gospel, an article of faith. When the Cold War ended, new wealth was available for cultural expansion: new exploration, science, education, technology. But these works were now defined as big government redistribution and therefore blasphemy. The free market is today seen as the only American engine, with little argument made for a nation bound by purpose or vision. The methodology of Capitalism were defined during the Age of Discovery, a time when the availability of resources was only limited by the boldness of empires. This was an age of conquest, enslavement, and exploitation. In such an age, Capitalism was undeniable.Unfortunately, Capitalism by itself places no value on freedom. Capitalism does not know how to compute the value of security, or good health, or quality of life. Capitalism places little value on environmental preservation and sustainability. Capitalism knows nothing about the pursuit of happiness. In the places where quality of life blossoms brightest, Capitalism is tempered with democracy: the fecund, unmarketable fun of freedom. And in a modern economy, that democratic impulse is expressed via the economic tool of Socialism. Every modern economy from Singapore to Norway is a mix of the free market and the aspirations of the people. Although the proper degree of balance is the subject of constant debate among economists, few argue that Capitalism alone allows democracy to thrive or that Socialism alone permits prosperity. In terms of dollars invested, the United States possesses both the largest free market economy and the largest socialist economy in the world. [1][2]. The notion that Capitalism is better than Socialism supposes that the one can thrive in the absence of the other. History has proved this notion false. In truth, the limitations of the free market will likely face their gravest challenge in the near-term as technological progress decimates the demand for labor. The Age of Digitalization and Robotization are upon us and the need for workers is dropping dramatically. As Jamie Lanier points out:"Kodak employed more than 140,000 people and was worth $28 billion. They even invented the first digital camera. But today Kodak is bankrupt, and the new face of digital photography has become Instagram. When Instagram was sold to Facebook for a billion dollars in 2012, it employed only 13 people." [3]Yes, it is an oversimplification to suggest that Instagram neatly replaced Kodak, but there's no question the Kodak jobs are gone and today's new industries simply don't require the large numbers of workers that might absorb those losses. We are on the threshold of the autonomous car. Google expects driverless cars on the road by 2017, more conservative estimates expect 2025. [4] Either way, the obvious benefits of tireless, accident-free drivers spells doom for a number of labor markets: truck drivers, taxis, delivery services. On the supply side, increased demand for new vehicles is not likely to provide new jobs as factories become increasingly robotic. Think of all the map makers, and book sellers, letter carriers and translators, paper boys and transcriptionists already put out of business by the digital age. How then, will Capitalism offer prosperity to the majority when the demand for labor evaporates? The answer is it can't. Capitalism does not mind if unemployment is at 40% or 80%, the value of labor is simply reduced. When the value of labor approaches slave wages or the number of humans is reduced to meet demand, then human effort may again compete with robots. But until that time Capitalism recommends starvation for the masses. It is clear that a new balance is required, in favor of programs like shorter work weeks to increase job sharing. More generous welfare programs are probable, if only to keep the electorate alive.The value of Capitalism, therefore, is probably on the wane, at least in the short term. Nevertheless, Con remembers that the free market is essentially indestructible. If control of production dials too far over to Socialism, black markets and piracy will re-assert the Capitalist impulse. Capitalism is not better than Socialism, they are two forces pushing against the center. Where balance is achieved, prosperity through freedom thrives. [1]http://en.m.wikipedia.org...[2]http://warincontext.org...[3]http://www.salon.com...[4]http://www.whiteboardmag.com...