Read this article. In my view, this is good and also inevitable. The world cannot continue to have widening gap in income levels - which is not sustainable. The free market capitalist model has, on balance, failed to produce a better future for the people of the world.
A social democracy is a new named coined to replace "democratic socialism". It is a society that is based on democracy and has social networks, such as unemployment, care for the elderly, health care, education and other activities that give security and a better life for the people.
Quote "The free market capitalist model has, on balance, failed to produce a better future for the people of the world." End Quote.
ReplyDeleteI believe there isn't a model that has existed long enough to prove itself; simply because man is innately "imperfect" or "corruptible". And because nature is never static, no model will ever stay relevant either in a climate of ever changing ideologies, values and culture. So lets not point fingers at any model or design, but look within humanity itself to find the obstructions to the next step in social evolution.
And because man is "innately imperfect", independent checks and balances must always be in place. Such is not the case for totalitarian states like China and Singapore.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that all members of mankind are absolutely equal, then capitalism is abhorrent. Unfortunately that is not the case as some members are destined to create and produce, whereas some are destined to rely and leech off others.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism is indeed the best method thus far of incentivising the former to continue to create and produce. However, we should not ignore that it is bad for everyone in society if those in the latter category were to wallow in poverty and misery. We therefore must seek to maintain minimum standards e.g. healthcare, food, and accommodation. If those are achieved we should further strive for equality of opportunity.
However, until a better incentive than wealth can be found we should not attempt to introduce equality of living standards. If one is not entitled to be "rich" and own private property, then why bother to generate wealth for the masses? There must be that somebody who will be creative and industrious, and who will have ideas and the drive to move society forward. If you chase them away or dis-incentivise them with too much socialist policies, I think it was Thatcher who said that soon you'll run out of other people's money to spend.
The Europeans has gotten it right - A free market found on capitalist model coupled with robust Socialistic measures to rein in excesses.
ReplyDeleteI think it is fair for the talented or the elite to earn more cause they are more "productive". However when the gap between the poor and the rich gets wider, society becomes unstable.
ReplyDelete