Economic Systems

[Dream]

Oh, no I'm a Spaniard. I can't vote, though I have thought I may request a dual citizenship.

No, its ok, I have no problem with the question. I could say who I would have voted for if I had the opportunity. I'm an independent, yet most likely I would have voted for Bush. I'm currently trying to find a party that may stand for the convictions of the Church, however I'm at the "good luck" stage LOL.

I believe as Chesterton did, that Hudge (socialists) and Gudge (capitalists) have no intention on serious reform and one destroys society while the other does nothing to clean up the mess.

There is an interesting party in the U.K. called "Third Way" that's pretty interesting, though like all things, they promote somethings I don't agree with.

I believe the State should reflect the eternal law, and am quite suspicious of a separation of Church/State and find that very flawed .Not that the State should be headed by Bishops, but I believe it must be accountable to the Church and her wisdom/laws. I realise this isn't very popular amongst "democratics" who view any official authority as either unrealistic (that it will never happen) or unfair (political pluralists), but I remain convicted that any State which does not hold to an absolute (at the very least the eternal law) is bound to be relativist and have the consequences we have today (both in Europe and America). The question often haunting me is 'where do I prefer to be in, a Catholic state with errors or this?' when I think of most first world nations.

This isn't a very popular view, especially in societies that view peace as the most important aspect of society over error and the slow decomposition of the law in exchange for the "spirit of the law" that is eating away at our very fabric.

Sometimes Catholics don't realise the hypocrisy in attacking Protestants for not adhering to the full truth, yet maintain the very universalism in the political world. No, we can't force people to be Catholic, nor can we have cops enter people's houses to make sure they are not masterbating, but that doesn't mean the law must be one of concensus or that which the State claims it can not "touch" (abortion, defining marriage as eternal law, or cloning as illegal).

I am in agreement with a lot of what you said.

It would sure be great to have a Catholic Party in the United States, but it would be extremely tough to have.

The problem with the US political scene, is that there is no party that is in the middle. Republicans are too far right on many issues and Democrats are too far left on many issues. It becomes a balancing act to see which party holds more Catholic ideals. Historically, Catholics have always been aligned with the liberals in the US, but now with the Democrat Party taking the opposite stance on many key issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, ect, many Catholics are now starting to switch over to the Republican side.

It's even worse when you look at the third parties and see how extreme they are. The Constitution Party holds many Catholic ideals, but they are just ultra-conservatives on absolutely everything, which would no doubt lead to disasters. The Green Party is quite the opposite. I'd personally would rather not have this nation run by a group of hippies. The Libertarian Party feels that there should never be government intervention; ever. Then of course, there are the single issue parties, such as the pot-party (their only agenda is legalizing marijuana).

There are no middle ground third parties, because most people realize they don't have a shot at winning. So the only groups they appeal to are the far corners.

I know I'm just kind of rambling on here, I've got to get to sleep. Maybe I'll be able to better organize my thoughts tomorrow.

 

[PeterPaul]

I always like this quote:

"A well-spent life is the only passport to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the power of making laws, from the training of youth, from domestic society, is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals."
-Pope Leo XIII (who should be a saint)

 

[Dream]

Thank you for sharing that quote. It did indeed show the wisdom of Pope Leo XIII.

 

[travisbaptist12]

It's so hard to be able to choose which economic system will morally be the best for a nation. Unfortunately, it's not black and white. No matter which system is chosen, it will likely lead to selfish behavior since people are always looking out for their own well-being, and not others. For example, let's just take a look at the extremes:

On the far left, we have communism. Since people will be guarenteed a job, they will not always have a good work ethic. The sin of sloth is encouraged, because those who slack off and never put in a full day of work will get the same pay as somebody who works their hardest in order to deserve the money they earn. It's just easier to sit back and let somebody else do your work.

On the far right, we have pure capitalism. Since there absolutely no guarentee of an income, people will often do unethical things to make sure that they always have food on the table. The sin of greed is encouraged, because there is no limit in sight. People are encouraged to make as much money as they can without the worry of how that money is obtained.

Of course, most economic systems fall in the middle of the spectrum, but will have varying degrees of communism and capitalism. It can be so difficult trying to find the system that leads to the most morallistic behavior, while still having an economy that provides for everyone.

I think capitalism with restraints on it, is probally the best way to go. It encourages hard work, but with the right restraints, also helps those less fortunate then some.

 

[Lifesaver]

It is wrong to think everyone has to own their business to be successful. It is in fact a prejudiced view of affairs, for it belittles the importance and value of professional work.

Neither my father or mother own businesses, nor do I plan to, and I don't think their or my potential is not being fulfilled.

As for the evils of outsourcing and free trade, they are largely overplayed by politicians. Western countries are only getting better, socially speaking. And consumers are not being destroyed; they are consuming ever more.
The replacement of workers with machines is a good thing; we don't want to pay people to do unnecessary jobs; we want people working in useful things. Plus, new machines generate new and better jobs, where creativity, good sense and intelligence are required, and replace those mechanical tasks.
If people want to pay an extra money to hired men to open doors or to insert pieces in assembly lines, they are free to do so. What is unjust is that the government forbids machines so as to force the population to pay for outdated jobs we don't even need, and thus raise the costs for everyone so that some can keep unnecessary jobs.

So far, it seems to me distributists have the idea that it is a functional system to force businesses to stay small and encourage new ones, and that everyone will be happy and consuming higher quality goods at affordable prices. But such is not the case. It is impossible for small businesses to provide society with a big quantity of goods (much less higher quality ones, which take extra time, effort and money); and therefore there wouldn't be enough for everyone, prices would rise, many people would be left without.

Big corporations have an important role today, and it is thank to big enterprises that we have affordable, standardized and reliable goods. What small businesses can do is use their creativity and extra care in the production of each product and thus attract richer or more picky consumers, who are willing to pay more for a better good. The majority of the population prefers to pay less for a less personalized product; and here small businesses just can't compete.

If people were more creative, inventive and entrepeneurial, they would find many small businesses opportunities; the thing is that most just aren't cut out for it; and forcing them to would be unneffective.

 

[Lifesaver]

The problem with the US political scene, is that there is no party that is in the middle. Republicans are too far right on many issues and Democrats are too far left on many issues. It becomes a balancing act to see which party holds more Catholic ideals. Historically, Catholics have always been aligned with the liberals in the US, but now with the Democrat Party taking the opposite stance on many key issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, ect, many Catholics are now starting to switch over to the Republican side.

It is a fact that Catholics (and not just Catholics, but basically everyone) usually prefer the economic policies the Democrat party defends: higher State intervetion, higher minimum wage, less free trade, stronger unions, etc. But these measures, more often than not, are harmful to the population, as they increase unemployment and raise prices.
We don't realize how much more we spend on things we could get for a lot cheaper, if only there were more free trade among nations.

Plus, if we look at countries which had governments which broke with outdated labour laws and protection, such as USA and UK, we see that they have a much lower unemployment rate and are growing more than France and Germany, which still cling to old "Welfare State" notions.

Chile went through similar things under Pinochet, and is today fairing better than Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, etc.

Left-leaning economic policies are much more in line with people's common sense; but in this case, the common sense is very wrong, and a basic study of economics is enough to dispel most myths.

 

[Lifesaver]

Competition is excellent insofar it is healthy. When it denigerates to who can outperform the other, then it fails morally.

What do you mean by competition?

Competition is a reflection of the realities of man and the uniqueness of the individual. When I seek to provide an apologia different than say Geocajun's, it is great and provides a service to society. When I choose to squash him, and make myself king of the mountain, then I have not only sinned against him, I have provided a disservice to the community.

When you defend a position opposite to that of the adversary, you seek to prove that yours is true and his is false; you seek to squash him insofar as he is the defender of a position that you think is false (not personally, in his job, in his quality of life, etc).
That is exactly how a medieval disputation was: two opponents holding diametrically opposed answers to a question trying to prove the other was wrong and they were right. Out of this, society benefits: the truth is reached.

Two competing businesses seek to attract consumers. Insofar as they are competing, this means taking consumers from their opponent and bringing them in (that is, offering a better service, a service that satisfies consumers more).
If each competitor finds their niche, they cease to be competitors.
But if they are, then the benefit of one is the harm of the opponent; and the result is that better services and goods (that is, services and goods more in line with what the consumers want) are offered.
Competition becomes immoral if a company uses illegal tactics (dumping, not paying taxes, etc), or if they change from competting in business to harming their competitors (threatening, killing, sabotaging, etc).
But competition, that is, the will to outperform the adversary, is what makes it so that new, better and more affordable goods and services become available.

When a small business gets closed down, it doesn't mean anything immoral took place; it is just that the population preferred the competitor, for its price, commodity, any reason. And that is the result of the competitor offering the people something they wanted and were not getting in the original small company.
You don't think it is fair for the government to force people to buy in a small store just so that its owner and its workers may keep their work, do you? If the people preferred it, they would buy there on their own.
So, we must also be against the government giving monetary incentives to it, for that is just another way of doing the same thing: the population is forced to pay for the upkeep of a company they do not like to buy from; and worse, they don't even get anything back for this payment.

 

[PeterPaul]

It is wrong to think everyone has to own their business to be successful. It is in fact a prejudiced view of affairs, for it belittles the importance and value of professional work.

Actually, it highlights it. What belittles professional work is the restraint of someone else imposing

A. Their own value system which my not be reflective of Catholic ethics.

B. By the very definition of working for someone else, their restraints on your creativity.

Neither my father or mother own businesses, nor do I plan to, and I don't think their or my potential is not being fulfilled.

I never said employment was unfulfilling, we are talking about self-employment as best, not only.

As for the evils of outsourcing and free trade, they are largely overplayed by politicians. Western countries are only getting better, socially speaking. And consumers are not being destroyed; they are consuming ever more.
The replacement of workers with machines is a good thing; we don't want to pay people to do unnecessary jobs; we want people working in useful things. Plus, new machines generate new and better jobs, where creativity, good sense and intelligence are required, and replace those mechanical tasks.
If people want to pay an extra money to hired men to open doors or to insert pieces in assembly lines, they are free to do so. What is unjust is that the government forbids machines so as to force the population to pay for outdated jobs we don't even need, and thus raise the costs for everyone so that some can keep unnecessary jobs.

And one wonders when everything will be "outdated", what will man have left to do? Computers can handle more and more the complexities, not just the simplist work.

Actually, this proves my point. When you work for another, his concern is the most efficiency at the least cost, not the welfare of his employees. If say, he paid me $40,000 a year to book travel, he will not think twice before getting rid of me in exchange for a $20,000 machine that will save him in the long run. Why? Because the owner is concerned with running his business primarily, and making it as cost effective as possible, not with my well being.

I don't know how the state of affairs is in Brazil, but in the US, outsourcing is a reality, not a political ploy. Not just in the travel industry, but in IT as well.

You say there are "jobs we don't even need" but that is the employer talking. I'm sure the employees need them. In Spain, there are contracts that protect the employee from the termination at whim of the employer, but this doesn't stop them from keeping them and waiting for them to die, while the machines are introduced. However, in the US contracts are for few, and most companies are allowed to terminate services at will.

See, the problem is, we see today in society the right for the employer to see man as a tool. I need him today, and if I don't tomorrow, goodbye. Contracts, as you know, must be quid pro quo. Again, I can't speak for what the entire world does, only for those I have lived in.

So far, it seems to me distributists have the idea that it is a functional system to force businesses to stay small and encourage new ones, and that everyone will be happy and consuming higher quality goods at affordable prices. But such is not the case. It is impossible for small businesses to provide society with a big quantity of goods (much less higher quality ones, which take extra time, effort and money); and therefore there wouldn't be enough for everyone, prices would rise, many people would be left without.

Actually, what would they be left without? Are we saying that small business could not compete with the consumerism today? Absolutely, it couldn't. And why would we want it to? Does present society edify with its products?

As far as quality, what person doesn't prefer the quality of an antique store over an IKEA? And so yes, quantities would fall, and quality would rise, however because standards of living would fall, so would the prices necessitate that they be reflective of the new standard of living. In addition, the return of community businesses and competition would return, so no longer would the Mexican have to run across the border to enjoy goods and services as well as a standard of living.

Big corporations have an important role today, and it is thank to big enterprises that we have affordable, standardized and reliable goods. What small businesses can do is use their creativity and extra care in the production of each product and thus attract richer or more picky consumers, who are willing to pay more for a better good. The majority of the population prefers to pay less for a less personalized product; and here small businesses just can't compete.

The majority of people wish to pay less, correct, however the small business caters to the more wealthy because the large corporations have forced them out of the lower price market due to heavy manufacturing and large, bulk stores that provide the service of nimrods and have no apprenticeship. Let's not forget that it wasn't too long ago, especially before the construction of the Mall that small businesses served the entire community. It wasn't only in medieval times.

If people were more creative, inventive and entrepeneurial, they would find many small businesses opportunities; the thing is that most just aren't cut out for it; and forcing them to would be unneffective.

Really? When was the last time you went for a small business loan?

Most would be ineffective? How long ago have large businesses existed for?

Why is Ebay so popular if most people have no desire for it? First they start by getting rid of their junk, then they like it and start looking for things to sell in flea markets and antique stores, and eventually some start buying directly from manufacturers and sell large quantities, keeping their inventories in their basements. They have packaging, weighing all in their own homes with no overhead.

Simply, if they could get the business loans that large corporations get, they would most likely start their own shops. What is the government doing? They are cracking down on unpaid taxes on sellers, even when some of their inventory was a re-selling.

 

[PeterPaul]

What do you mean by competition?


When you defend a position opposite to that of the adversary, you seek to prove that yours is true and his is false; you seek to squash him insofar as he is the defender of a position that you think is false (not personally, in his job, in his quality of life, etc).
That is exactly how a medieval disputation was: two opponents holding diametrically opposed answers to a question trying to prove the other was wrong and they were right. Out of this, society benefits: the truth is reached.

Two competing businesses seek to attract consumers. Insofar as they are competing, this means taking consumers from their opponent and bringing them in (that is, offering a better service, a service that satisfies consumers more).
If each competitor finds their niche, they cease to be competitors.
But if they are, then the benefit of one is the harm of the opponent; and the result is that better services and goods (that is, services and goods more in line with what the consumers want) are offered.
Competition becomes immoral if a company uses illegal tactics (dumping, not paying taxes, etc), or if they change from competting in business to harming their competitors (threatening, killing, sabotaging, etc).
But competition, that is, the will to outperform the adversary, is what makes it so that new, better and more affordable goods and services become available.

When a small business gets closed down, it doesn't mean anything immoral took place; it is just that the population preferred the competitor, for its price, commodity, any reason. And that is the result of the competitor offering the people something they wanted and were not getting in the original small company.
You don't think it is fair for the government to force people to buy in a small store just so that its owner and its workers may keep their work, do you? If the people preferred it, they would buy there on their own.
So, we must also be against the government giving monetary incentives to it, for that is just another way of doing the same thing: the population is forced to pay for the upkeep of a company they do not like to buy from; and worse, they don't even get anything back for this payment.

We must have a differing view on competition. Competition is best when it is not adverserial but seen as diverse. When it becomes the swallowing of the other it becomes immoral, because it seeks have what the other does and more (a Commandment). However, when man, in his reality, seeks to provide products and services reflective of his individuality, then customers may be attracted to either business for their respective strengths and weaknesses.

A large conglomerate arriving in a neighbourhood with bulk pricing is not seeking healthy competition, but rather, the destruction of that smaller business. It doesn't seek to complement that other business, but to destroy it. We can say that was not its intention (just as socialists say socialism was never applied) but considering that the same outcome is replayed in communities across the first world, I don't know, I find it a dubious response.

Competition then, is a reflection of the realities and uniqueness of each individual to provide services and products that differ in method. It's amazing how many pizzerias and delicatessens are not closing left and right, not attempting to smash each other while possibly facing each other on the same road. Why is that? Yet, amazingly, a Home Depot arrives and somehow unknowingly destroys its "rival". "Oops" they say? They had every intention of that result as they have statistics that have proven it across the country.

When I open a store in the same related industry as another in my community, it is not truth I seek, as that person may be already retailing truth, but rather my unique and creative spin on that same truth. It is not that they are false, but rather what I can bring to that truth. For example, Karl Keating isn't attempting to swallow Scott Hahn, nor put his apologetics business out of commission, nor saying Scott Hahn is false. There isn't an attempt to on the part of the theological community to destroy each other because there can be only one. On the contrary, they find their own niche within the community, even sometimes "competing" in the same niche, but not with hostility (verbal, nonthreatening) but with the reality that man is diverse and has his own personality within that same field. People may appreciate your crossiants and love my buns (no joking on that one).

 

[PeterPaul]

I just want to make sure I thanked you Lifesaver, for the discussion. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you on the PM, because I've been busy helping a friend remove wallpaper, and I've been busy with a few debates and with my blog.

My apologies.

I also want to say a word on consumerism and employment.

True, a distributist society would not be able to produce what today's factories and major corporations can. Progression would still exist, but slowly and organically (the best way is the tried and true way to test products). So, the next format after the DVD may take 100 years. I doubt the Heavens are crying over that. Drugs would be tested instead of rushed (I also doubt consumers would complain about that).

On employment, I would say what I have always, that employment is not best (as Pope Leo XIII said self ownership was), but that does not mean it should be nonexistant or that it is not worthy of man. That would be false. However I stipulate that a quid pro quo must exist (currently, in most blue collar and some white it does not). Families have to depend on two incomes, and if there was a quid pro quo they would not.

For example, my boss just realised he is 20% over budget on payroll. He is thinking about firing across the board. What he hasn't said is that the company went overbudget on payroll but made a large profit overall. So two things, one he should held accountable if he fires, because he got someone pregnant and now has a responsibilty to that child he created (if you know what I mean). Now, what he also fails to acknowledge is that the payroll overbudget just means a smaller increase on his own paycheck, but not a disadvantage, just not an advantage. Firing to suit his own salary is nefarious.

Secondly, that employment should be viewed primarily as apprenticeship, something long departed (in the first world) except in familial businesses, where a family member is involved. The owner, depending on the business, may need employees and may offer them employment that is reflective of the economical realities of the market in a distributist society, and knows that his role is also of teacher. This enables the apprentice to start his own business upon completion of his apprenticeship anywhere he sees fit.

The lack of apprenticeship in today's society has created a lack of incentive (like Socialism does) in major conglomerates across the nation because these unaccountable businesses have ceased to view their role as teacher (Best Buy, Barnes n' Noble, etc) and thus have created lazy, incompetent workers who have no knowledge of the product or service they are selling.

 

[Lifesaver]

And one wonders when everything will be "outdated", what will man have left to do? Computers can handle more and more the complexities, not just the simplist work.

Yes, and this mean people are gradually moving on to more creative works and less automative ones.
If you want to pay more so that one guy can do what a machine can do for a lower price, go ahead, hire him.
But the population clearly wants lower prices.

Actually, this proves my point. When you work for another, his concern is the most efficiency at the least cost, not the welfare of his employees. If say, he paid me $40,000 a year to book travel, he will not think twice before getting rid of me in exchange for a $20,000 machine that will save him in the long run. Why? Because the owner is concerned with running his business primarily, and making it as cost effective as possible, not with my well being.

Of course he will replace you with a machine which is cheaper. That means the final product will also be cheaper for the consumer.
What you advocate is forcing companies not to use technology; and thus have a scientific slowdown.
By your very logic, automatic doors are a bad thing because they take the jobs away from doormen. And the wheel is also very harmful, for it makes many carriers jobless.

To pay extra just to keep someone in an unnecessary job is absurd.

I don't know how the state of affairs is in Brazil, but in the US, outsourcing is a reality, not a political ploy. Not just in the travel industry, but in IT as well.

It is a good thing, PeterPaul.
It provides better and cheaper services. If the population thinks that outsources services are worse, they will buy from firms which do not outsource, and so there will be no outsourcing.
If outsourcing is growing, is because society as a whole approves the result of outsourcing: the cheaper/better services and products.

You say there are "jobs we don't even need" but that is the employer talking. I'm sure the employees need them.

It is the whole society talking.
The employees need to have the means to support their lives. It is great if they can earn their means through work; but if they can't, it is better to have them in charity than to keep in them in an useless job which only makes the cost of living higher.

In Spain, there are contracts that protect the employee from the termination at whim of the employer, but this doesn't stop them from keeping them and waiting for them to die, while the machines are introduced. However, in the US contracts are for few, and most companies are allowed to terminate services at will.

If workers are allowed to form associations freely, they'll have a bargaining power with firms; and thus they will be able to offer workers more secure contracts.
But if these associations grow too greedy, people who are willing to work for less will go directly to the firms, and thus the people in the association will have less jobs. Naturally, both firms and workers' associations are encouraged to find a mean between company and employees relations. And in this way both workers and firms stand to win the most.

See, the problem is, we see today in society the right for the employer to see man as a tool. I need him today, and if I don't tomorrow, goodbye. Contracts, as you know, must be quid pro quo. Again, I can't speak for what the entire world does, only for those I have lived in.

Suppose the employee is hired and in the next day decides he wants to leave the firm for something better and leave all his obligations with the firm pending. Does he not have the right to do it?
Likewise, the firm has the right to fire an employee, unless they have signed a contract which guarantees a notice in advance, a minimum of years, etc.

As far as quality, what person doesn't prefer the quality of an antique store over an IKEA?

Many don't. For many, the lower prices speak louder than the higher quality.

so no longer would the Mexican have to run across the border to enjoy goods and services as well as a standard of living.

Mexico has, in the past years, started to open its economy and make it less restrained. It is already bigger than Brazil, and quality of life has improved steadily.

The majority of people wish to pay less, correct, however the small business caters to the more wealthy because the large corporations have forced them out of the lower price market due to heavy manufacturing and large, bulk stores that provide the service of nimrods and have no apprenticeship.

PeterPaul, the reason why big businesses have prevailed is because they can provide lower prices.

Really? When was the last time you went for a small business loan?

If the small business has a good chance to be profitable, and if the bank has reason to believe the person is honest, they will get a loan.
Afterall, the lenders are interested in making money, not with favouring big business oevr small ones. If small businesses are more profitable, that's where loans will go to.

Why is Ebay so popular if most people have no desire for it? First they start by getting rid of their junk, then they like it and start looking for things to sell in flea markets and antique stores, and eventually some start buying directly from manufacturers and sell large quantities, keeping their inventories in their basements. They have packaging, weighing all in their own homes with no overhead.

This is great, and a good example of an area small businesses have a bright future ahead. No need to control big corporations for this one.

Simply, if they could get the business loans that large corporations get, they would most likely start their own shops. What is the government doing? They are cracking down on unpaid taxes on sellers, even when some of their inventory was a re-selling.

We agree that th government taxes excessively and unreasonably.

 

[PeterPaul]

Yes, and this mean people are gradually moving on to more creative works and less automative ones.
If you want to pay more so that one guy can do what a machine can do for a lower price, go ahead, hire him.
But the population clearly wants lower prices.

See you seem to think that we are talking about someone pushing a button, but the reality is we are becoming more and more automated to replace even the highest complexities of life. Soon we won't even need traffic cops. Machine is meant to serve man, not replace him.

Of course he will replace you with a machine which is cheaper. That means the final product will also be cheaper for the consumer.
What you advocate is forcing companies not to use technology; and thus have a scientific slowdown.
By your very logic, automatic doors are a bad thing because they take the jobs away from doormen. And the wheel is also very harmful, for it makes many carriers jobless.

To pay extra just to keep someone in an unnecessary job is absurd.

First, where I disagree is that anyone's boss should replace man with a machine for the sake of cost, without thinking of the moral implications of my life, as if life was not more important than money. The consumer is important, but what most can not understand is that the worker is the consumer.

Yes, a scientific slowdown. I admit it. I doubt it would be so bad if it took 50 years to manufacture a sex toy, versus thousands of products flashed before the public's eye that do not edify and have created consumer obsession. The purpose of business is more than just trade, but it is bound by the moral law.

I think you are taking the extremity of what I said and out of context. There is quite a big difference between a doorman (they still exist by the way), and the replacement of the entire service line of an airline at the airport. And, in this case, the fares are already low, so there is no argument that prices must come down. When you go to LaGuardia airport on a domestic flight, you have 1/3 of the staff of yesterday (and all this automation was predicted by Chesterton, so it was clear that capitalism was meant to turn to man as tool from its inception). We are not talking anymore about a doorbell replacing the doorman, but rather, that soon there will be no work for man.

Again, what jobs are going to be left with so much automation? You say automation increases creativity, yet because of bulk products, amazingly neither commercial nor private property, food or clothing have dropped, yet they have risen. So, in twenty years, I won't care if I can buy soap at .05 cents if I don't have money to pay rent or buy property (already this is a reality in Long Island, NY.

Some have argued that the result of capitalism will be socialism. Because in the end, we will all be poor (except the heads of State and old money of course).

It is a good thing, PeterPaul.
It provides better and cheaper services. If the population thinks that outsources services are worse, they will buy from firms which do not outsource, and so there will be no outsourcing.
If outsourcing is growing, is because society as a whole approves the result of outsourcing: the cheaper/better services and products.

First you deny its existance as propaganda, and now you say the population is in accord with it. You do realise that "Made in the USA" is nonexistant right? And that most of the products are made in China at cheap labour and unfair wages?You suggest these jobs are outdated, and that people want lower prices, I insist it is based on profit. Again, I'll refer to Chesterton on this:

The capitalist system, good or bad, right or wrong, rests upon two ideas: that the rich will always be rich enough to hire the poor; and the poor will always be poor enough to want to be hired.

When most men are wage earners, it is more and more difficult for most men to be customers. For the capitalist is always trying to cut down what his servant demands, and in doing so is cutting down what his customer can spend.

Society did not approve outsourcing. Big Business did. And the State is not doing anything about it. As I've said all along, so much for democracy.

It is the whole society talking.
The employees need to have the means to support their lives. It is great if they can earn their means through work; but if they can't, it is better to have them in charity than to keep in them in an useless job which only makes the cost of living higher.

One word for that. Welfare. And who is going to support them, when those means are not based on the realities of a just wage, they are bound to fail. For most, they are not (amazingly, the Euro has increased the "wealth" of Europe, though salaries have not changed accordingly, while products have.)

This is where we differ again. Business is not a mechanism, but rather, like all things, a means to an end, and that is survival and existance on the road to salvation. It isn't something neutral, we are discussing people and their lives. To suggest we can just "chuck" the few for the majority is, IMO, inhuman.

But my contention is not only this, but that, and something we don't see I suppose, though English writers did (in the early 20th c.) is what we have today as well as what we will have tomorrow.

If workers are allowed to form associations freely, they'll have a bargaining power with firms; and thus they will be able to offer workers more secure contracts.
But if these associations grow too greedy, people who are willing to work for less will go directly to the firms, and thus the people in the association will have less jobs. Naturally, both firms and workers' associations are encouraged to find a mean between company and employees relations. And in this way both workers and firms stand to win the most.

I agree. And those associations, just as most secular States, because they affirm relativist thought, will always fail due to interpretation and a lack of true authority. The best guild, is the Catholic guild.

Suppose the employee is hired and in the next day decides he wants to leave the firm for something better and leave all his obligations with the firm pending. Does he not have the right to do it?
Likewise, the firm has the right to fire an employee, unless they have signed a contract which guarantees a notice in advance, a minimum of years, etc.

And this has resulted in abuse, by both camps. There is a covenantal relationship between employee and employer. This is what has been forgotten, but has resulted in more abuses by employers than the other way around.

Many don't. For many, the lower prices speak louder than the higher quality.

No, because again, the lower prices have been taken out of the small business' hands. People don't have the option.

Mexico has, in the past years, started to open its economy and make it less restrained. It is already bigger than Brazil, and quality of life has improved steadily.

Two things. Firstly, you wouldn't know that by the quantities of LatinAmericans who live here.

Secondly, any remedy will result in optimist results initially. I could argue that communism would have great results in its first ten years, just as in Spain, capitalism had great results initially. Let's look at the nation in 40 years, when people are more obsessed with buying the next Nintendo over going to Mass, and then we will talk.

I don't want poorer people (like the results of both economic theories), but more people with the means of production in their hands, not in the Big State, or in Big Business.

PeterPaul, the reason why big businesses have prevailed is because they can provide lower prices.

Yes, again because they can afford to buy more items, and like a steamtrain, drive through communities and destroy small business.

If the small business has a good chance to be profitable, and if the bank has reason to believe the person is honest, they will get a loan.
Afterall, the lenders are interested in making money, not with favouring big business oevr small ones. If small businesses are more profitable, that's where loans will go to.

You are correct. They are interested in making money. Most of it usurious.