@DrewDad,
Don't you mean the "perceived" dangers of unrestrained capitalism?
Of course no system is perfect, and, irrespective of the ideological fervor of one or the other, in a democratic society, no system will run unchecked for very long.
It seems to me that, ultimately, these systems need to be judged by their sustainability.
If we start with a very basic presumption that without a healthy and growing economy, progress in all areas of human endeavor is not possible, then we need to ask ourselves which system offers the best promise for continued growth.
I actually have little doubt that, due in part to advanced technology, there will come a time when it is not the case, but until then, virtually every natural self-perpetuating system on earth is heavily involved in the concept that there are individual
winners and individual
losers.
We may find it a romantic or even religious notion that the lion might one day lie down with the lamb, but as long a lion remains a lion and a lamb remains a lamb, this event will not happen --- without the readily imagined bloody outcome.
Stars self-destruct by going Super Nova, and their remnants create new stars. If we believe that there are other planets in the universe that shelter life, then we can be pretty sure that at least one or two have been destroyed at the end time of their sun's life cycle.
The examples are endless.
There is nothing wrong with attempting to minimize the number of "losers," and how badly they "lose," but to the extent that the attempt eliminates winners, we are, for now, left with an unsustainable system.
Natural systems tend not to reward excessive "winning." Predators that can overwhelm their prey populations will, eventually, "win" themselves into the ultimate loss.
The same can be said of economics, and enlightened capitalist "winners" will care whether or not they are binging too heavily on the wealth they create.
If they do not, they will find themselves confronted with Unions, revolutions, and even the election of ultra-liberal politicians to the highest office in the land.
However, forced attempts to eliminate the creative tension of winners and losers will have more profound and much longer term implications.
Rendering foxes incapable of slaughtering rabbits will lead to the demise of the foxes - not their conversion to a vegetarian diet - and the rabbits will reproduce unchecked and eventually consume all of their available food resources; resulting in starvation and extinction. (Or, at least, the culling of their population by humans who will suffer the scorn and derision of Pam Anderson and her fellow PETA PITAs.)
Utterly free markets are self-organizing and highly sustainable, but the volatility of the correction process and the number of "losers" that result is just not acceptable to modern democratic societies.
OK - I get it. We need a bridle on Capitalism. I agree.
What we don't need, however, is to hobble Capitalism.
You can control a bridled horse, but you can't gallop a hobbled one.
Socialism, ultimately, hobbles capitalism.
Where has it succeeded?
You may throw out any number of Euro-socialist countries, but if you do, you are missing the fact that in such countries they are now facing the reality that they cannot preserve their cultural heritage and fuel their socialist economies. Their socialist economies have directly led to a reduced birth rate and with same, how can they manage to generate the wealth needed to take care of them all equally?
Immigration.
Bring in people from Third World countries who consider themselves (for a time) to be rich earning half of what a native might draw.
These are the folks who will pay for the aging population to enjoy the rewards of their socialist economy --- until they insist on joining equally in the game.
They have the leverage and they can impose their cultures on those of their new homelands.
At some point Europeans are going to have to choose between their pensions and their culture.
Beneath all of this is the simple fact that, at the very least, 50% of the "have-nots" don't have it because they don't care to do what it takes to get it.
Personally, I think this percentage is much higher, but let's be "conservative" and peg it at 50%. Let's also be conservative and consider the "haves" to be a mere 10% of the population. Can any economy be self-sustaining when 45% of its population is taking without giving?
OK, I'm a conservative bastard. The percentage of "have nots" who could be "haves" if they tried is only 30%.
How big a drag on an economy do you think it is to have a third of the population taking and not giving?
