Posted on 04/25/2009 4:05:41 AM PDT by Engineer_Soldier
I would change the word “champion” to “hallmark” in the last sentence, second paragraph.
disagree or agree
I am not a liberal biased prof...so I give it an B+ just to keep you pushing forward.
Nice job
I don’t get it.
Yes I agree - you did tend to focus mainly on economics rather than the socio - economics and it is in the social and education areas that socialism really has the upper hand both in the US and in my country Australia. We are now producing a lot of students who have been indoctrinated into this New Socialism that doesn’t speak it’s own name but yet has a lot to do with decisions made by politicians to appease the poltically ignorant.
Mel
Oh, by the way Mel, you Aussies kicked some major @$$ the other day in Afghanistan. I’m proud to serve with y’all!
You are a prof? And you give it ‘an’ B+?
dear punctuality cop.....it was going to be “an A” but changed it to a B+ but neglected to change the modifier....
If you check you will find i dont give a rats ass about grammer or punctuality and spelling
“English 121” looks like a freshman level English class. Given that, I would give you an “A.” This would be solid work for an upper-level economics class....
hh
I just skimmed it, but saw no mention of Adam Smith’s hidden hand, or Hayek’s (sp?)”Road to Serfdom.” These are key.
Selfishness is a part of the human psyche. Smith and others argue that Capitalism recognizes this characteristic inherently, and channels it to common good. Socialism ignores a basic aspect of human nature, and presumes to repress it. It believes man is malleable. It ignores the irrationality of man, which is irrational.
Libs attack Capitalism because it results in inequality. They cite oppression monopoly and unfair advantages of accumulated wealth. They compare this to an ideal of society, of which there has never been a single real world instance. Point this out—socialistic countries are repressive.
As to unfairness and inequality, the counter argument is that capitalism is better for all, that, as Reagan said, a rising tide raises all boats.” The accumulation of wealth allows those lucky enough to have this to concentrate on scientific and cultural pursuits. These languish when succeeding generations must concentrate anew on winning their subsistence. The result is greater, not less poverty.
Argue that acceptance of economic inequality is far better than repression for society as a whole. Say that confiscation of property is a serious disincentive to creative and productive effort—which raises the standard orf living. Men will work far less if unrewarded. Ask: is it fair to take what a parent has stored away for the benefit of their children? Point out that, fair or not, societies that regognize property rights are wealthier than autocracies.
Libs say “property is theft,” and try to mitigate this through theft. It’s a moral contradiction.
From an academic-rigor standpoint, I would say the paper is somewhat lacking. I realize it may primarily be because of length constraints, but, two main points:
1. You seem to confuse economic and political systems, and use them interchangeably. It’s possible to have a “fairly capitalist” system in which the government still strongly controls personal freedom but permits fairly open markets. China is increasingly an example of this, where they now allow private property ownership and private (and foreign) businesses, but have wound down a significant number of their state-owned enterprises (SEOs), while they continue to maintain tight political control of the country and tightly curtail personal freedom. Compare that with many countries in Western Europe that allow free press, voting, private property, etc., but also prop up a large number of SEOs. “Completely Planned-economies” have been shown to fail almost universally in practice, so that’s a valid assertion, but the degree of economic autonomy does not necessarily imply the degree of political/personal autonomy in a country.
2. You don’t do a very thorough job of handling the nuance of the way modern countries are run, and where they fall on the economic “spectrum” between “socialism” and “capitalism.” The former USSR was one of the only examples of an economy dominated by SEOs, but essentially all countries have always had SEOs to one degree or another. Even in the free-wheeling days of the 1800’s in the US, the government owned canals, roads, bridges, dams, etc., along with running public services like water, waste management/disposal, and to some degree education (and universities). Modern europe has countries at just about every point on the spectrum (in terms of domination of their economy by SEOs).
3. You make the assertion that lower taxes *always* equate to higher government income through increased economy activity. This is true over a range of taxation levels (and types of taxes), but from an academic standpoint, is not strictly true. Dropping taxes from the current ~30% to 1% would decrease revenue, dropping them further to .1% of .01% would decrease revenue further. For your assertion to be true, in the 30%-to-1% case for instance, the GDP would have to increase from the current ~$13 Trillion to $390 Trillion, which would obviously not be the case. This might be the case if you drop it from ~30%.
4. Additionally, your assertion that strictly lowering taxes would lead to a resurgence in manufacturing in the US ignores that taxes is only a single component of doing business in the US. As long as you’re not allowed to dump toxic chemicals in public waterways, for instance, that will always pose an additional cost on doing business here compared to, say, Mexico, China, or many parts of Africa or South America. Additionally, you don’t mention the extremely large differential in the cost of labor in the US vs. foreign manufacturing hubs (especially in a “full employment” situation which drives up wages extremely quickly). Say it costs a factory $40k to employ a worker in the US, and 25% of that cost is taxes (10K). In a zero-tax scenario, it still costs that company $30k to employ a worker at a reasonable standard of living in the US. Now if it costs them $10k to employ a worker in China, the cost of transportation of the final goods would have to cost $20k+ for the output of the worker to make up that price. Unless oil prices go to $200/barrel (and countries like China stop subsidizing oil), the cost of transportation will continue to be dominated by the cost-of-labor differential due to our different standards of living.
But hey, it’s a college paper, revise revise revise!
I agree... nice essay
This is an english essay. What is the purpose of this from the english standpoint? If it is formal essay writing, you engage in FAR tom many colloquialisms for my taste. You often write from the first person persopective, and to boot utilize contractions. (I'll vs. I will.) If you are writing to show off your ability, this should be avioided. 'In your intro, for example, you say "aren't" make that are not to avoid being sloppy.
Your introduction is wordy, hard to follow, and full of run-on sentences. It should be cleaned up. In your intro for example, you say "Socialism and capitalism aren't..." make that are not. The next sentence is atrocious:
When compared in economies and societies that allow each to work to their fullest potential; capitalism has proven itself to be the most reliable economic and political system of the two; socialism is great on paper and in intention, but is a failure when it is compared, side-by-side, to capitalism.
This sentence is pretty atrocious. The first clause (When compared...fullest potential;) is an appositive, not an independent clause. Thereafter ought to be a comma. The second semicolon in a sentence, proper or not, tells you to use a period. This is a complete run on. I could live with it if you were tryinhg to use a semicolon for the great writing purpose that all great papers ought ot have one in it, but you butchered it pretty badly.
Were I grading this paper, I would give it a C, not on content, but on the fact that the writing generally hinders the expression of your ideas. If, however, the professor has encouraged this kind of writing style, or this is an opinion paper that is permitted to be more informal, I could see a "B" grade.
Best of luck.
I would imagine it’s something along the lines of “write a persuasive essay.” To be fair, this is for a freshman english class at what appears to be an online community college (http://www.ccconline.org/courses/programs/English/) (and honestly, the grammar and mechanics were probably just as bad in my junior engineering writing class - why the heck can’t engineers write?!), so we shouldn’t be too hard on him.
Sorry about that, but I thought you were saying that you are a professor.
no problemo....cant even spell it
I don't see the connection between "grammer", spelling and being on time.
Do tell mate! We tend to only hear about it when someone dies! Yep lefty media here too only a bit more subtle than your media.
Blessings
Mel
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.