TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.

Assuming socialism is right, the rich should give the poor their money. Why does it not also follow that the poor must also then share in the risks/debts/expenses/hard work/smart work/saving money which the wealthy use to create economic wealth?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 15 2013: It seems to me that we are having lot of confusion in the terminology of the word "socialism". Some of us say it is similar to communism, because the first use of the word socialism was by the Socialist Republic of Russia. some say it isn't, and communism is usually connected with dictatorship and corruption. However, corruption existed almost everywhere, especially those who hold power over other people. So the "exploitation of the workers by the capitalists" , strictly speaking, are also kind of corruption. Modern days, it is quite difficult to which country is in which political system. for example, China is ruled by the Communist Party, yet excluding the huge government operated businesses such as banks and stock exchanges and industries like the oil and mining companies, most other medium and small businesses are within the system of free-market capitalism. In fact they have a huge number of filthy rich too. And in addition, they also have quite many riches from corruption.
    It is true that that big businesses got away with low pay to their workers. Sometimes it could be very bad. But there are certain situation which is resulted from international competition. If Walmart pays low wage and benefits to its workers, because it can also open for business in Mexico and China, where the wage and benefits could be even lower than that in the U. S. That's why all those large companies , including Walmart, all outsourcing jobs to overseas, whether they are manufacturing or services business. And as long as the economy here in the U. S. or Europe are not recovering, the pay scales in the U. S. & EU are going to go down, as the wage level has been down or stagnant at best thru the past 5-6 years.
    In my opinion, the few successful examples of relatively even distribution in wealth to most people, rich or poor, such as Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland, are due to 3 characteristics in order of importance: good work ethics, democracy and good taxation and welfare system.
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2013: You had me until you got to the point about even distribution of wealth. That is my my definition of Socialism.
      Where some "agency" distributes the society's wealth to the benefit of all. In theory it sounds so beneficial, so democratic, so... righteous. BUT, in practice, and we have so many examples of this practice; the agency, the distributors, if you will, who makes those decisions, some times arbitrarily, usually have the force of law or dictatorially to make those decisions.
      The enigma is in all these " agencies ", is that you are hard pressed to find a senior member who is not living the best life of the society that he is distributing the wealth...
      So, unless you can get Mother Teresa to do the wealth distribution, I am skeptical.
      • Apr 15 2013: Sorry, but where did he mention any agency "distributing" wealth. He simple mentioned that he thought those three countries had a healthy wealth distribution. There's a mountain of difference between saying that X is a healthy distribution of wealth, and saying that an agency has to create laws to forcefully redistribute wealth so that it looks like X.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.