EVERY system requires this to some extent. Capitalism in its uncorrupted form, something that doesn't exist today, and perhaps never did, is the best concept for achieving the smallest potential for variation, because at face value it doesn't have an elite class built into it, providing everyone the opportunity to change their own fortune. But disparity does have to be there to at least a small degree.
Why? Because the very fabric of reality requires it. There must be winners and losers. Otherwise, life has no point or purpose, and everyone would just die and evaporate into the ether. It's like thermodynamics; energy can't be destroyed or spawned from nothing, it can only be exchanged, i.e. something must lose in order for something else to gain. This holds true even at a quantum level.
There's absolutely no way for everything to be equal of outcome. Only equal starting opportunity is possible in any economic system. The best solution to minimize disparity, even if it can't be completely dispelled, is to stop mucking around with the system (whatever that system may be), and regulate only the elements that allow for unmitigated greed at the expense of the less fortunate.
Unfortunately, the elites in power will never let that happen because their power is already so established, and they are in fact the benefactors of the exact "unmitigated greed" that would need to be curtailed. It would probably require the complete destruction and rebuilding of civilization to truly accomplish this. However, I think human nature would always get in the way.
The Nordic model works well enough for their specific smaller populations, but it requires the highest taxes in the world. It also has its own downsides, and doesn't scale well. With the right tweaks, it could, perhaps, be possible to make something like that work in the U.S., and in fact certain elements are already here. It's a bit of a Ponzi scheme, however, and for the Nordic system the writing may be on the wall as the average age of the population creeps ever-upward. Some analysts say it it may not be sustainable, and could be heading for an eventual collapse. I suspect they might be able to adapt and adjust for this if it becomes necessary, but time will reveal all.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100714/nordic-model-pros-and-cons.asp
Bottom line: any economic and/or social system is only as good as the people within it, which is a much bigger factor than anything else in the system itself. Systems have rules, and if they're not followed, then the outcome isn't really a product of that system. In other words, I don't agree that capitalism at face value needs an underclass. But in reality, variable social dynamics render it an inevitability to at least some extent, regardless of the system. Additionally, when big companies in a capitalist system are propped up by the government because they're considered too big to fail, a lower class is all but guaranteed, because it is no longer capitalism in practice, only in name.
Reality requires winners and losers, predator and prey, destruction to make way for creation. It's the circle of life, built into the very fabric of the universe. Any system that doesn't organically allow for this and tries to fully control or prevent it is doomed to collapse in on itself eventually (nature will always win). But it is possible to redirect this natural process to help mitigate the full force of its impact.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
TrentnQuarantino (9443)
3 years ago
> EVERY system requires this to some extent.
Why is that?
reply
share
moviechatterer (16326)
3 years ago
people need to be motivated i guess.
people working 70 hrs a week need to be rewarded more than those that refuse to work.
just not to the extent that the one capitalist has 100 billion in the bank because he has 50,000 people working for him in a sweatshop not getting paid enough to eat.
reply
share
TrentnQuarantino (9443)
3 years ago
I think most people could agree with something like that ... its all in the framing and the phrasing that I was really curious about.
reply
share
Keelai (36151)
3 years ago
Who says the Nordic Model only works well in small populations and doesn't scale well and where is the evidence? I'm suspicious that idea originated from the rich who are trying to mislead and influence economic theory in order to maintain their wealth. Middle-class people receive more benefits when we pool our resources (taxes) rather than just give money to the rich to overpay for housing, healthcare, prescriptions, etc..
For example, there is no reason it should be illegal for the government to negotiate for lower Medicare drug prices. Average Americans would benefit although the rich would lose out. We're very close to the Nordic Economic Model now. We just need to reverse the damage which was done starting in the 1970s by the rich buying our politicians.
reply
share
ManToTrust (1663)
3 years ago
The Nordic Model is literally the basis of white supremacy, and what your racist ass is actually saying is that want less brown people to live close to you!
reply
share
Keelai (36151)
3 years ago
No, the Atlantic Slave Trade was the basis of white supremacy.
The Nordic Model could easily be applied to the U.S. like more worker rights and benefits.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1369)
3 years ago
In part because smaller populations that share a more homogeneous culture (not historical ethnicities or genetic backgrounds, necessarily, but who adopt common worldviews and goals) work better together instead of splitting off into numerous tribes. Plus, a shared historical culture creates a baseline environment that sets up a greater potential for success. Diversity of thought strengthens progress because a broader range of viewpoints and ideas can lead to faster realized, and more robust, solutions. But this only works as long as everyone strives toward the same future destination, and does so without exploiting fellow participants.
Therein lies the rub. They must all adopt a shared culture built around, or that can operate within the confines of, the system, despite any variation of history. This is much easier to achieve if the baseline is already shared like with Nordic culture.
The article I linked touches on this. The larger a population is, especially without a shared historical culture, the greater the probability is of participants rebuking the system in lieu of their own "wayward" or "errant" (from the perspective of that system) agenda. Again, it's not specifically about the system itself, although certain systems have exploitation built into them, making them easier to corrupt. It's about the players participating. A system that promotes the highest probability of shared interest despite diversity of thought has the best chance of success, but the biggest factor is generationally propagated culture and mindsets.
History Helps
What makes the Nordic model work? A combination of shared history and societal development is credited with much of its success. Unlike areas that developed around the formation of large corporate-owned farms, the history of Scandinavia is largely one of family-driven agriculture.
The result is a nation of small entrepreneurial enterprises directed by citizens facing the same set of challenges. Solutions that benefit one member of society are likely to benefit all members. This collective mentality results in a citizenry that trusts its government because the government is led by citizens seeking to create programs that benefit everyone.
Accordingly, the citizens willingly chose to pay higher taxes in exchange for benefits that they and their family members will get to enjoy. The result is publicly funded services, such as healthcare and education that are of such high quality that private enterprise has no reason to offer these services or room to improve them. This mindset remained intact as capitalist enterprises developed.
Some other commentary on the matter:
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/scandinavian-socialism/\
https://socialeurope.eu/nordic-model
https://www.quora.com/Why-wont-the-Nordic-Model-work-for-the-United-States
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-is-the-Scandinavian-model-of-capitalism-not-seen-as-the-inspiration-for-the-future-of-the-global-economy
Like I said in the previous post:
Bottom line: any economic and/or social system is only as good as the people within it, which is a much bigger factor than anything else in the system itself. Systems have rules, and if they're not followed, then the outcome isn't really a product of that system.
And the larger a population is, the greater chance there is of deviation by subsets that might start small, but will invariably expand, defying the intent of that system. The more these escalate, the more entropy and chaos are injected into the system.
Hopefully I explained my musings adequality. It’s a somewhat complex subject.
________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
Keelai (36151)
3 years ago
Careful. Some of those sources could have been funded by wealthy people. The Nordic Model is basically our model with more rights and benefits for common folks and more regulations for businesses. It's doable.
Canadians are diversified with different backgrounds and they have a much stronger democracy with better benefits for their citizens than the U.S..
The real problem is that we allow the rich to almost completely control our politicians.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1369)
3 years ago
The real problem is that we allow the rich to almost completely control our politicians.
That is definitely a big part of the problem. I don't see the system as the problem, though. I see culture as the problem. It could possibly be argued that the system is largely irrelevant, actually. But yeah, I agree, that's a problem, for sure.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share