I have no interest in an economic debate formed by assertions largely formed by idiology, not solid academic style peer reviewed data. Too often people assert their views, whether right or wrong, by cherry picking data to make a point based on an idiology.
...
Drawing economic conclusions from the narrow experience of a few decades is not good science IMHO.
*Ideology ;-)
Two things on the science side of things:
1. I agree that drawing broad conclusions from a single scenario is fallacious logic
2. Economics is not a pure science because it is based on the decisions of individuals which cannot be accurately modeled or predicted to an exacting level of fidelity, so "good science" is a bit presumptive
This is not good thinking. Various economic systems of organization can create and distribute wealth. Rome, ancient china, communist china, the early egyptian monarchs, American capitalism and Ghengis Khan were all highly successful wealth creators. Wealth disparities are high in both poor and successful economies, and under many governance models. Some of the poorest countries on earth practice almost pure capitalism, with huge gaps between wealthy warlords and impoverished, starving displaced people.
This is where you're foregoing good science, or even actually looking at the factors involved when both looking at the relative benefits of capitalism or what it represents.
1. Ancient societies, while they may have created wealth (some more than others), did not provide opportunity for climbing the economic ladder the way capitalism has in the US. Many relied on extensive uses of slaves and permanently working class to build institutions from which they never benefited. The US, on the other hand, did not experience its significant economic growth until after the abolition of slavery, which never played a significant role in its industry (concentrated in the North) at all.
2. Capitalism is merely a system of economics, not of morality, ethics or politics. Saying that a country that is essentially anarchic in form is an example of what can go wrong with capitalism is a red herring. Capitalism works because it is the default method humans use for conducting transactions, to complain that it doesn't prevent tyranny in an inherently tyrannical country where there is little to no rule of law is erroneous in its implication. The beauty of capitalism is that it is a natural economic framework upon which law can be established.
3. Socialism or any system of government that is focused on the allocation of resources rather than, as the US was founded, on the protection of the rights of the individual (though it is straying from this today in favor of collectivism's failed ideals), inherently implements and asserts a moral code as part of its economic model which is in fact not moral at all. While the establishment of laws preventing gross exploitation, fraud, etc. under capitalism is legitimate and crucial to a just society, the theft and re-allocation of wealth is inherently immoral and degrades the productivity and overall health of a society. This has, indeed, been born out in the course of history. The focus on "the collective" results in disregard and dehumanization of each individual. Only with the elevation of the rights of the individual does the group as a whole inherently see more benefit and freedom. These individuals include the wealthy, regardless of wealth disparity.
"One with the law is a majority" -Calvin Coolidge
