Socialism and Capitalism

[PLAYER57832]

... What would Tribles be then?

...

The first sign of the coming Tribbleations.

The "seething masses" .

[jonesthecurl]

And lo! Great Tribbles shall come unto them, and they shall say "Are these not cute?" For they know not the tribbleations to follow.

[thegreekdog]

These were all monarchy's in their hayday.

A King or Queen doesn't mean the country is feudal? I am using the term in the Marxist sense. These countries shook off feudalism in the 17th and 18th centuries (if not before).

They were totalitarian countries when they were like this, much like the United States is now, and is more becoming.

Totalitarian? Again this does not equal feudalist. These countries were most definitely capitalist. They invented capitalism an exported it across the globe.

Socialist regimes fail, there is no question.

Capitalism fails. Constantly and inevitably. This leads to war, famine, shortages and recession. Boom and bust. Always, increasingly worse and worse until the system will implode. Either back to feudalism or onward to communism. There can be no stability.

Your system is built on a pyramid of the oppressed. 2% of people own 50% of the wealth. 50% of the people own 1% of the wealth. This cannot go on. If your life seems so good then I suggest you look at how many millions of people you stand on to achieve it.

Question for you flashleg8: How much wealth did Fidel Castro have compared to the wealth of a factory worker in Cuba? Was it the same? I would assume that President Castro made more money, lived in a lavish home (or homes), had more lavish vehicles, security, and food than the vast majority of Cubans. I would also venture to say that President Castro's cabinet members, military leaders, and other "politicians" had a lot more wealth than most other Cubans. My point here is that Cuba was not socialist nation. If some people are making significantly more money than others, that's really not socialism. In the United States, assuming 2% of people own 50% of wealth, what were Cuba's percentages? 1% of people owning 90% of the wealth? I attempted to look up Cuba's wealth disparity, but such data is not readily available (to me anyway). If someone would like to help me with this, that'd be great. Preferably something not published by the Cuban government.

Perhaps if you had a better example of a socialist society succeeding, we'd have a better basis to compare market capitalism as it exists in the United States and other countries with a socialist government and economy.

[PLAYER57832]

Question for you flashleg8: How much wealth did Fidel Castro have compared to the wealth of a factory worker in Cuba? Was it the same? I would assume that President Castro made more money, lived in a lavish home (or homes), had more lavish vehicles, security, and food than the vast majority of Cubans. I would also venture to say that President Castro's cabinet members, military leaders, and other "politicians" had a lot more wealth than most other Cubans. My point here is that Cuba was not socialist nation. If some people are making significantly more money than others, that's really not socialism. In the United States, assuming 2% of people own 50% of wealth, what were Cuba's percentages? 1% of people owning 90% of the wealth? I attempted to look up Cuba's wealth disparity, but such data is not readily available (to me anyway). If someone would like to help me with this, that'd be great. Preferably something not published by the Cuban government.

Perhaps if you had a better example of a socialist society succeeding, we'd have a better basis to compare market capitalism as it exists in the United States and other countries with a socialist government and economy.

Except by this token, there is no true capitalism, either.

[GabonX]

Why is that?

[Joodoo]

Question for you flashleg8: How much wealth did Fidel Castro have compared to the wealth of a factory worker in Cuba? Was it the same? I would assume that President Castro made more money, lived in a lavish home (or homes), had more lavish vehicles, security, and food than the vast majority of Cubans. I would also venture to say that President Castro's cabinet members, military leaders, and other "politicians" had a lot more wealth than most other Cubans. My point here is that Cuba was not socialist nation. If some people are making significantly more money than others, that's really not socialism. In the United States, assuming 2% of people own 50% of wealth, what were Cuba's percentages? 1% of people owning 90% of the wealth? I attempted to look up Cuba's wealth disparity, but such data is not readily available (to me anyway). If someone would like to help me with this, that'd be great. Preferably something not published by the Cuban government.

Perhaps if you had a better example of a socialist society succeeding, we'd have a better basis to compare market capitalism as it exists in the United States and other countries with a socialist government and economy.

Except by this token, there is no true capitalism, either.

wouldn't true capitalism eventually evolve into anarchy?

[thegreekdog]

Question for you flashleg8: How much wealth did Fidel Castro have compared to the wealth of a factory worker in Cuba? Was it the same? I would assume that President Castro made more money, lived in a lavish home (or homes), had more lavish vehicles, security, and food than the vast majority of Cubans. I would also venture to say that President Castro's cabinet members, military leaders, and other "politicians" had a lot more wealth than most other Cubans. My point here is that Cuba was not socialist nation. If some people are making significantly more money than others, that's really not socialism. In the United States, assuming 2% of people own 50% of wealth, what were Cuba's percentages? 1% of people owning 90% of the wealth? I attempted to look up Cuba's wealth disparity, but such data is not readily available (to me anyway). If someone would like to help me with this, that'd be great. Preferably something not published by the Cuban government.

Perhaps if you had a better example of a socialist society succeeding, we'd have a better basis to compare market capitalism as it exists in the United States and other countries with a socialist government and economy.

Except by this token, there is no true capitalism, either.

Agreed. But, I believe flashleg8 was espousing the ideals of socialist Cuba as compared to the capitalist United States; specifically, he was complaining about the concentration of wealth in the US. I was asking him how the concentration of wealth is in Cuba. Is it better than the US? Additionally, looking at the concentration of wealth is not the be-all end-all of good quality of life. I would rather be "poor" in the United States than "poor" in Cuba (but maybe I'm just an ignorant American). In other words, my question/post was not whether socialism in its truest form existed; rather, my question/post was regarding the concentration of wealth in Cuba versus the concentration of wealth in the US. Apparently, concentration of wealth is a big issue for flashleg8 and I wanted his opinion of the concentration of wealth in Cuba.

[PLAYER57832]

The basic problem is that while what you say is true in raw percentages, I don't believe there has been that much wealth in Cuba ... and that is part of the problem, but maybe I am wrong. I do know that Castro had a higher standard of living than the rest, but from what I have heard, the situation before Castro was even worse. Castro apparently really did make improvements. It is just that Cuba made only minor progress while the rest of the world moved by leaps and bounds, so now we see them as extremely deprived. But again, I don't know that much about Cuba, so maybe my picture is distorted.

[thegreekdog]

The basic problem is that while what you say is true in raw percentages, I don't believe there has been that much wealth in Cuba ... and that is part of the problem, but maybe I am wrong. I do know that Castro had a higher standard of living than the rest, but from what I have heard, the situation before Castro was even worse. Castro apparently really did make improvements. It is just that Cuba made only minor progress while the rest of the world moved by leaps and bounds, so now we see them as extremely deprived. But again, I don't know that much about Cuba, so maybe my picture is distorted.

Was pre-Castro Cuba capitalist? To be honest, I do not know the answer. There are many varieties of "capitalism" and "socialism" in any event. So, while it may have been better under Castro, maybe it wasn't a good version of capitalism in the pre-Castro regime. As I said, I have no idea.

[got tonkaed]

Was pre-Castro Cuba capitalist? To be honest, I do not know the answer. There are many varieties of "capitalism" and "socialism" in any event. So, while it may have been better under Castro, maybe it wasn't a good version of capitalism in the pre-Castro regime. As I said, I have no idea.[/quote]

Factoids related to your query:

http://cuba.blogspot.com/2009/01/socio-economic-conditions-in-pre-castro.html

[thegreekdog]

Was pre-Castro Cuba capitalist? To be honest, I do not know the answer. There are many varieties of "capitalism" and "socialism" in any event. So, while it may have been better under Castro, maybe it wasn't a good version of capitalism in the pre-Castro regime. As I said, I have no idea.

Factoids related to your query:

http://cuba.blogspot.com/2009/01/socio-economic-conditions-in-pre-castro.html[/quote]

I skimmed it. Very comprehensive.

[PLAYER57832]

Thanks Get Tonaked!

I skimmed, too for now, but even so.. I can see I had a completely incorrect picture (assuming those facts are correct, of course).

[flashleg8]

Question for you flashleg8: How much wealth did Fidel Castro have compared to the wealth of a factory worker in Cuba? Was it the same? I would assume that President Castro made more money, lived in a lavish home (or homes), had more lavish vehicles, security, and food than the vast majority of Cubans.

You'd be wrong. Castro has publicly stated on television “If they can prove that I have one single dollar, I will resign from all my responsibilities and the duties I am carrying out; they won’t need any more plans or transitions.” and “All my wealth, Mr. Bush, fits in the pocket of your shirt” (In response to the propaganda that he had amassed a personal fortune). Castro actually lives a very austere life and most certainly does not travel about in lavish vehicles!
But you really have got the wrong end of the stick when you are talking about Cuban personal wealth. That is directly opposed to the ideals of the Revolution. In the own words of a senior Cuban representative “All of us Cubans are multi-millionaires since Fidel has taught us that people are not worth what they own, but what they are and what they are able to do.”

In the United States, assuming 2% of people own 50% of wealth, what were Cuba's percentages?

The figures I quoted were for the entire world. I was not looking at the US alone but the globalised capitalist system.

As for the other set of statistics, what a load of right-wing bollocks (notice it is posted on a Miami based dissident group's website!). Root around some not biased sources and you will see a vastly different picture.

According to estimates from the U.N.'s Economic Commission for Latin America, the decile ratio (share of total income going to the top 10 percent of income earners divided by the share going to the bottom 10 percent) in Latin America is approximately 45 to 1, while the decile ratio in Cuba is 3.9 to 1. (The Cuba estimate is for 1986, the Latin America estimate is for 1975 and includes Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela.) By this measurement the Cuban income distribution is over 10 times more equal than in the rest of Latin America. It is instructive to contrast Cuba's current decile ratio with that of 1953, when Havana consumed more Cadillacs per capita than any city in the world. In that year, Cuba's decile ratio was 64.7 to 1.

[thegreekdog]

Question for you flashleg8: How much wealth did Fidel Castro have compared to the wealth of a factory worker in Cuba? Was it the same? I would assume that President Castro made more money, lived in a lavish home (or homes), had more lavish vehicles, security, and food than the vast majority of Cubans.

You'd be wrong. Castro has publicly stated on television “If they can prove that I have one single dollar, I will resign from all my responsibilities and the duties I am carrying out; they won’t need any more plans or transitions.” and “All my wealth, Mr. Bush, fits in the pocket of your shirt” (In response to the propaganda that he had amassed a personal fortune). Castro actually lives a very austere life and most certainly does not travel about in lavish vehicles!
But you really have got the wrong end of the stick when you are talking about Cuban personal wealth. That is directly opposed to the ideals of the Revolution. In the own words of a senior Cuban representative “All of us Cubans are multi-millionaires since Fidel has taught us that people are not worth what they own, but what they are and what they are able to do.”

In the United States, assuming 2% of people own 50% of wealth, what were Cuba's percentages?

The figures I quoted were for the entire world. I was not looking at the US alone but the globalised capitalist system.

As for the other set of statistics, what a load of right-wing bollocks (notice it is posted on a Miami based dissident group's website!). Root around some not biased sources and you will see a vastly different picture.

According to estimates from the U.N.'s Economic Commission for Latin America, the decile ratio (share of total income going to the top 10 percent of income earners divided by the share going to the bottom 10 percent) in Latin America is approximately 45 to 1, while the decile ratio in Cuba is 3.9 to 1. (The Cuba estimate is for 1986, the Latin America estimate is for 1975 and includes Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela.) By this measurement the Cuban income distribution is over 10 times more equal than in the rest of Latin America. It is instructive to contrast Cuba's current decile ratio with that of 1953, when Havana consumed more Cadillacs per capita than any city in the world. In that year, Cuba's decile ratio was 64.7 to 1.

Impressive statistics. Can you please provide a link so I can look up some comparable nations?

I'm not really impressed by quotes from President Castro. I find that propaganda works both ways. Why are we trusting President Castro if we're not trusting pictures taken by various people of President Castro's government building, vehicles, cigars, and personal security?

Let's assume that I agree that the decile ratio in Cuba (i.e. that total share of income going to the top 10% of income earners divided by the share going to the bottom 10% of income earners) is better than the decile ratio in other nations, including the United States. Once I have the decile ratio in the United States, I'd also like to get the total income of the United States and the total income of Cubans. Thereafter, we can somewhat accurately determine the amount of income earned by the bottom 10% of income earners in the United States compared to the bottom 10% of income earners in Cuba. If the bottom 10% of income earners in Cuba earn more than the bottom 10% of income earners in the United States, I would venture to say that you have won the argument that it is better to be poor in Cuba than poor in the United States.

[PLAYER57832]

When talking about Castro, indeed many leaders, there is a bit of prevarication. Technically, Castro does own "nothing". Obama does not own the white house, either. However, both get to live in pretty nice dwellings, have a lot of priviliages not afforded the average person. In Castro's case I don't think his priviliages really compare to most wealthy people in the west.

[thegreekdog]

Let me posit another hypothetical scenario:

In Country X, the richest people own 99.9% of the wealth. However, the poorest person in Country X has income of $500,000.

In Country Y, the richest people own 10% of the wealth. However, the richest person in Country Y has income of $500,000.

Which country would you rather live in? It's an extreme example, but indicative of why I think wealth disparity is not necessarily an indication of a country's relative quality of life.

[PLAYER57832]

Let me posit another hypothetical scenario:

In Country X, the richest people own 99.9% of the wealth. However, the poorest person in Country X has income of $500,000.

In Country Y, the richest people own 10% of the wealth. However, the richest person in Country Y has income of $500,000.

Which country would you rather live in? It's an extreme example, but indicative of why I think wealth disparity is not necessarily an indication of a country's relative quality of life.

Very true!

However, I think most of the conversation has centered upon the real wealth along with the disparity, not just the disparity.

If you only live on $1000 a year and all your neighbors have just $1000 a year ... you tend to be a lot happier than if you are making $1000 a year, but you can see those folks across the hill make $1,000,000. When those making $1,000,000 turn around and say the reason the others don't have a million, too, is just because they are a lazy bums, that their kids just don't deserve education, health care, etc. because their parents cannot work hard enough to provide.. folks get ANGRY. And, rightfully so!

[Nobunaga]

... Polling data from Rasmussen on the topic:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _socialism

...

[Snorri1234]

Let's assume that I agree that the decile ratio in Cuba (i.e. that total share of income going to the top 10% of income earners divided by the share going to the bottom 10% of income earners) is better than the decile ratio in other nations, including the United States. Once I have the decile ratio in the United States, I'd also like to get the total income of the United States and the total income of Cubans. Thereafter, we can somewhat accurately determine the amount of income earned by the bottom 10% of income earners in the United States compared to the bottom 10% of income earners in Cuba. If the bottom 10% of income earners in Cuba earn more than the bottom 10% of income earners in the United States, I would venture to say that you have won the argument that it is better to be poor in Cuba than poor in the United States.

I don't think you can really make such an argument on income earned alone. As player already brought up, happiness is also pretty relative to the rest of the people you live with. If everyone but you has a car, you tend to feel pretty bummed when you don't have a car. There is also the fact that income is not purely an indication of what you have. Cubans all have acces to healthcare, and while it is not as super-awesome-to-the-max as that of the US, the bottom 10% in the US don't have acces to any kind of healthcare. (More even.) Some things are cheaper in Cuba, and luxuries are sometimes more expensive.


I would say that it is indeed better to be poor in Cuba than poor in the United States. But Cuba does have problems of it's own and it's not the Glorious Communist Paradise as some people seem to think, allthough it is perhaps the best example of a communist state working somewhat.



I mean, Cuba may be lacking in modern stuff but is that actually important? Does everyone having phones make people happier? Maybe we should ask ourselves whether the race towards new techology and bigger, more expensive stuff is worth it in the end.

[thegreekdog]

Let's assume that I agree that the decile ratio in Cuba (i.e. that total share of income going to the top 10% of income earners divided by the share going to the bottom 10% of income earners) is better than the decile ratio in other nations, including the United States. Once I have the decile ratio in the United States, I'd also like to get the total income of the United States and the total income of Cubans. Thereafter, we can somewhat accurately determine the amount of income earned by the bottom 10% of income earners in the United States compared to the bottom 10% of income earners in Cuba. If the bottom 10% of income earners in Cuba earn more than the bottom 10% of income earners in the United States, I would venture to say that you have won the argument that it is better to be poor in Cuba than poor in the United States.

I don't think you can really make such an argument on income earned alone. As player already brought up, happiness is also pretty relative to the rest of the people you live with. If everyone but you has a car, you tend to feel pretty bummed when you don't have a car. There is also the fact that income is not purely an indication of what you have. Cubans all have acces to healthcare, and while it is not as super-awesome-to-the-max as that of the US, the bottom 10% in the US don't have acces to any kind of healthcare. (More even.) Some things are cheaper in Cuba, and luxuries are sometimes more expensive.


I would say that it is indeed better to be poor in Cuba than poor in the United States. But Cuba does have problems of it's own and it's not the Glorious Communist Paradise as some people seem to think, allthough it is perhaps the best example of a communist state working somewhat.



I mean, Cuba may be lacking in modern stuff but is that actually important? Does everyone having phones make people happier? Maybe we should ask ourselves whether the race towards new techology and bigger, more expensive stuff is worth it in the end.

I just wanted to address a couple of things you indicated:

(1) You believe that living poor in Cuba is better than living poor in the United States? I guess, logically, it makes sense if Cubans have access to better social programs than Cubans.
(2) You believe that the poor in the United States have no access to healthcare? I think your statement should be refined a bit. The poor in the United States do have access to and receive healthcare (at no cost to them). The issue is more with the receipt of preventative healthcare (which many poor in the United States do not receive unless they have health insurance). In other words, we're not letting people die of heart disease, we're letting people get heart disease.
(3) A bit more on topic... say everyone around you has a car and you don't. What are your options? I would say you have a few: (a) save money or make enough money or sell your other stuff to buy a car of your own, (b) steal a car from one of your neighbors, (c) have your neighbors sell their cars so no one has cars. I think options (a) and (b) exhibit a more capitalist (or anarchist) attitude. Option (c) is a more socialist attitude.

[thegreekdog]

Let me posit another hypothetical scenario:

In Country X, the richest people own 99.9% of the wealth. However, the poorest person in Country X has income of $500,000.

In Country Y, the richest people own 10% of the wealth. However, the richest person in Country Y has income of $500,000.

Which country would you rather live in? It's an extreme example, but indicative of why I think wealth disparity is not necessarily an indication of a country's relative quality of life.

Very true!

However, I think most of the conversation has centered upon the real wealth along with the disparity, not just the disparity.

If you only live on $1000 a year and all your neighbors have just $1000 a year ... you tend to be a lot happier than if you are making $1000 a year, but you can see those folks across the hill make $1,000,000. When those making $1,000,000 turn around and say the reason the others don't have a million, too, is just because they are a lazy bums, that their kids just don't deserve education, health care, etc. because their parents cannot work hard enough to provide.. folks get ANGRY. And, rightfully so!

Let me back up a couple of steps on your scenario. Say you are making $1000 a year; you attended high school, but not college (because you didn't want to take out loans) and not law school (because you didn't want to take out loans and you didn't attend college). You work between 40 and 50 hours a week, but not weekends. You don't have a car. The person living next to you makes $100,000 a year; she attended high school, she attended college (and took out loans), and law school (and took out loans). She works between 70 and 80 hours a week, including weekends. She has a car. The person living next to you is unwilling to buy you a car. Do you think she owes you a car?

On the education issue, everyone is entitled to education at public school in the United States (I went to public school, for example). If one passes certain tests and gets certain grades, one can attend university or college or community college and get some more education. In terms of not being able to afford university or college or community college, there is the ability to take out loans (which I did) and/or work (which I did).

Healthcare is a more complex issue. I would argue that there should be universal healthcare, I just don't want it to be run by the government.

[Snorri1234]

(1) You believe that living poor in Cuba is better than living poor in the United States? I guess, logically, it makes sense if Cubans have access to better social programs than Cubans.

They do, at least in the sense that acces is granted without them having to pay. The poor have acces to better social programs in Cuba because the poor actually have acces to social programs.

(2) You believe that the poor in the United States have no access to healthcare? I think your statement should be refined a bit. The poor in the United States do have access to and receive healthcare (at no cost to them). The issue is more with the receipt of preventative healthcare (which many poor in the United States do not receive unless they have health insurance). In other words, we're not letting people die of heart disease, we're letting people get heart disease.

Which strikes every reasonable being as retarded. No acces to preventative healthcare is the same as no acces to healthcare, because the most important care is preventative. Go you for letting people get seriously sick before helping them.

Also, you're a dirty pinko commie for not letting people die of heart disease.

(3) A bit more on topic... say everyone around you has a car and you don't. What are your options? I would say you have a few: (a) save money or make enough money or sell your other stuff to buy a car of your own, (b) steal a car from one of your neighbors, (c) have your neighbors sell their cars so no one has cars. I think options (a) and (b) exhibit a more capitalist (or anarchist) attitude. Option (c) is a more socialist attitude.

Except that option A often isn't an option because you do not have the time or the stuff to get more money. You could ofcourse start saving for a car, but if you spend basically all your money on stuff you need you don't have the time to save any of it.
Option B is just plain retarded since robbing lands you in jail.

Option C is indeed socialist, but it misses the point of the example. Those people have cars because they have more money than you. So they would still have more money than you if they sold their cars. People get unhappy when confronted with people who have more than them, so if everyone on your block has a private plane you would want one too and be bummed you can't afford it.

That's why I said that happiness is relative to surroundings. Because people are stupid and get envious of their environment. Cubans are not inherently unhappier than Americans, so judging by wealth alone is silly.

[thegreekdog]

(1) You believe that living poor in Cuba is better than living poor in the United States? I guess, logically, it makes sense if Cubans have access to better social programs than Cubans.

They do, at least in the sense that acces is granted without them having to pay. The poor have acces to better social programs in Cuba because the poor actually have acces to social programs.

(2) You believe that the poor in the United States have no access to healthcare? I think your statement should be refined a bit. The poor in the United States do have access to and receive healthcare (at no cost to them). The issue is more with the receipt of preventative healthcare (which many poor in the United States do not receive unless they have health insurance). In other words, we're not letting people die of heart disease, we're letting people get heart disease.

Which strikes every reasonable being as retarded. No acces to preventative healthcare is the same as no acces to healthcare, because the most important care is preventative. Go you for letting people get seriously sick before helping them.

Also, you're a dirty pinko commie for not letting people die of heart disease.

(3) A bit more on topic... say everyone around you has a car and you don't. What are your options? I would say you have a few: (a) save money or make enough money or sell your other stuff to buy a car of your own, (b) steal a car from one of your neighbors, (c) have your neighbors sell their cars so no one has cars. I think options (a) and (b) exhibit a more capitalist (or anarchist) attitude. Option (c) is a more socialist attitude.

Except that option A often isn't an option because you do not have the time or the stuff to get more money. You could ofcourse start saving for a car, but if you spend basically all your money on stuff you need you don't have the time to save any of it.
Option B is just plain retarded since robbing lands you in jail.

Option C is indeed socialist, but it misses the point of the example. Those people have cars because they have more money than you. So they would still have more money than you if they sold their cars. People get unhappy when confronted with people who have more than them, so if everyone on your block has a private plane you would want one too and be bummed you can't afford it.

That's why I said that happiness is relative to surroundings. Because people are stupid and get envious of their environment. Cubans are not inherently unhappier than Americans, so judging by wealth alone is silly.

Just an aside, Cubans have access to government programs, but they certainly do pay for it. The term "free" is often bandied about as if people don't pay for roads, police, fire, and other government-provided services. People do pay for these, whether they are rich or poor, they pay (unless they do not have a job, and hence pay no income tax, or unless they do not buy anything, and hence pay no sales tax).

Anyway, you keep referring to happiness not being linked to wealth (for example, "judging by wealth alone is silly"), but you use the example of the neighbors having the car when the poor person doesn't. If wealth does not equal happiness, shouldn't the poor person not care if her neighbors have cars? In any event, I'm not saying wealth equals happiness, because it doesn't equal that in my life, but I'm arguing economics here and who is more comfortable, Cubans or Americans.

[Snorri1234]

Just an aside, Cubans have access to government programs, but they certainly do pay for it. The term "free" is often bandied about as if people don't pay for roads, police, fire, and other government-provided services. People do pay for these, whether they are rich or poor, they pay (unless they do not have a job, and hence pay no income tax, or unless they do not buy anything, and hence pay no sales tax).

Yes obviously, just as free education isn't actually free, free healthcare isn't free.

But you understand that they do not pay for them outside of taxes? They have the right to them because they have to pay taxes anyway.

Anyway, you keep referring to happiness not being linked to wealth (for example, "judging by wealth alone is silly"), but you use the example of the neighbors having the car when the poor person doesn't. If wealth does not equal happiness, shouldn't the poor person not care if her neighbors have cars? In any event, I'm not saying wealth equals happiness, because it doesn't equal that in my life, but I'm arguing economics here and who is more comfortable, Cubans or Americans.

Wealth does not equal happiness in the sense that everyone having more money doesn't make people happy. Money doesn't make you happy, we just think it does so we get envious when other people have more.

As to who is more comfortable? I'd say that the moderatly wealthy americans (nice house, two cars, family and dog) tend to be the most comfortable, but the Cubans as a whole are generally more content than the less well off americans. This because western society in general focuses too much on money, beauty, fame and stuff so that people are told from an early age that they're not as happy as they could be. This has less to do with capitalism vs communism than with how our societies are apart from that.

[thegreekdog]

Just an aside, Cubans have access to government programs, but they certainly do pay for it. The term "free" is often bandied about as if people don't pay for roads, police, fire, and other government-provided services. People do pay for these, whether they are rich or poor, they pay (unless they do not have a job, and hence pay no income tax, or unless they do not buy anything, and hence pay no sales tax).

Yes obviously, just as free education isn't actually free, free healthcare isn't free.

But you understand that they do not pay for them outside of taxes? They have the right to them because they have to pay taxes anyway.

Anyway, you keep referring to happiness not being linked to wealth (for example, "judging by wealth alone is silly"), but you use the example of the neighbors having the car when the poor person doesn't. If wealth does not equal happiness, shouldn't the poor person not care if her neighbors have cars? In any event, I'm not saying wealth equals happiness, because it doesn't equal that in my life, but I'm arguing economics here and who is more comfortable, Cubans or Americans.

Wealth does not equal happiness in the sense that everyone having more money doesn't make people happy. Money doesn't make you happy, we just think it does so we get envious when other people have more.

As to who is more comfortable? I'd say that the moderatly wealthy americans (nice house, two cars, family and dog) tend to be the most comfortable, but the Cubans as a whole are generally more content than the less well off americans. This because western society in general focuses too much on money, beauty, fame and stuff so that people are told from an early age that they're not as happy as they could be. This has less to do with capitalism vs communism than with how our societies are apart from that.

I actually agree that Americans are unhappy as a whole; mainly because many people focus too much on work. But I don't think that the unhappiness in America has anything to do with socialism vs. capitalism.