[TheWord]

Quote by: nerdvincent It wouldn't have been impossible to do the same with socialism, only with a few difference. The raise of "efficiency of production" could have been put more direclty to the advantage of the common good. Explanation: The capitalists are the one [directly] taking profit out of efficiency. We could have a global decreasing of working hours for the same amount of money, yet here is what happened instead: http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-...WideDivide.gif Here is where the increasing of GPD is gone.

I think what your missing here is that the 'efficiency' of production you would put to good use (read: increase in worker's wages / benefits) in inversely related to the profit of the company itself. Essentially, in redistributing the efficiencies of production, you lose the efficiency itself due to rises in the cost of both labor and factors of production.

Also I am somewhat skeptical of your claim that we could decrease the working hours of labor (read decrease in supply of labor) and still maintain stable aggregate price levels. If the supply of a factor of production goes down, the price of the remaining labor will increase. In order to cope with this rise in F.O.P. price, buisnesses will raise prices - creating Cost-Push Inflation which would cripple the international economy and harm workers more than it would help them (read unemployment).

Quote by: nerdvincent What makes the average living standard increase is massive investments in new technologies, which can be done in both systems.

You are correct that massive investment is possible in both systems, I did not dispute that fact. I simply stated that investment has been more efficient under Capitalism than through the pseudo-Socialism of the 1950's. And in having investment become more efficient in terms of technological growth, Capitalism allowed for a more rapid growth in living standards.

Quote by: nerdvincent But here you said something important: American family. What's so special with the American family? The fact that they can buy cheap goods produced in Third World, while earning big wages. Globalisation, not capitalism, contributed the most to the increasing of the living standards in the Western World.

You are correct that there is nothing special about the American family. It is simply where I happen to live. It was a term of convenience more than anything else. But you assertion that Globalization, and not Capitalism, was responsible for the rise in living standards is misleading. Globalization is essentially the expansion of capitalist (read private) corporations across international boundaries. It was the only logical consequence we could have reached when our ability to supply products far outpaced domestic consumption.

Quote by: nerdvincent What did capitalism cause in Africa, Asia and South America? Although mild capitalist exploitation is common inside the US, globalization made it become the norm on a much greater scale everywhere else. If the American living stadards are so high today, that's because they became the "bourgeoisie state" of this world, while Bangladesh and Africa became the "proletarian states". "Class struggle" have meaning only on an international basis today, it is much less present than inside the state. "

Capitalists exploit people only in the sense that they take advantage of undeveloped supplies of labor. In all honesty, we should pay people more, but doing so as I've indicated in my other posts, must be done in conjunction with a sense of pragmatism. Businesses must remain economically profitable otherwise the result is a virtual economy subject to collapse should the upward pressure of inflation cause systemic failures.

Quote by: nerdvincent If the money is only redistributed, not created, and if the money expresses the availability of commodities produced and their equivalence in work, it's only a back-to-basics redefinition of money in which your argument cannot ake place.

The 'money' you are talking about redistributing is still subject to monetary influences by the very nature of its existence. Regardless of who receives the money, when large amounts of currency are transferred, it effects the exchange rate in an upward direction. This in turn creates inflation which stifles growth.

Quote by: nerdvincent Well today workers don't have wage decrease but massive layoff if the compagny is having trouble, so I the Ratchet Effect is a cheap illusion of security. Easily replacable workers are meatshields used to protect "higher worker's" (engineer,...) wage and capitalist's margins: here is your ratchet. Workers are under the risk of speculation and capitalism like "poor little investors" when things are getting hot, yet they are mostly left aside when there is profit.

That is my point. If you prevent businesses from laying off people when profits decrease, the businesses will fail instead because they have become inherently unprofitable.

And I'm sorry for the delay in responses. Work seems to have caught up with me.