: The 'room at the top' is not finite but infinite.
I'm sorry but you have presented nothing to sustain that argument.
My continued citations on % of Americans educated (25), % of jobs requiring education (25), and % of income above high school level (at least twice) offer, on the other hand, compelling reason to conclude that the capitalist economy cannot possibly accomodate everyone.
If everyone was a capitalist, there would be no workers; capitalism could not exist under those conditions.
: Oh? That clearly explains the huge technological/scientific advancements in primarily capitalist countries compared to socialist countries.
I fail to see how that has anything to do with the argument here. I never denied that the capitalist minority, monopolizing science, does not make technological advances (how could they not?). If your point is to compare a 'prosperous' capitalism with a less than 'prosperous' socialism, please recall that I have never supported the Stalinist distortions of socialism that occured in peasant countries materially unable to support a socialism based on abundance.
: Using a sports anology and your logic you'd have to say that because there is only one baseball team that wins the pennant every year that can only mean that the game of baseball is evil...
I have never denied the usefulness of competition in socialist society (see this post and this post). You must have me confused with Red Deathy and his 'the right to be lazy' crap. Communism, as I see it, will allow EVERYONE the opportunity to get into the game and compete.
Or do you really think Dan Qualye 'just happemed' to be the best man for the job?
: Hey! I'm all for Defense spending!! Defense spending is not the same thing as social spending, at least the way I define social spending; AFDC, Head start, GI, etc.
Should the decision be made by a minority or should the decision be made by ALL the tax-payers?
: I don't know what gave you the idea that I in any way consider capitalist supermen of any sort.
You regularly defend capitalism by pointing out technological marvels. I know capitalists OWN technology---but that's not quite the same as CREATING it.
: [T]he theory that if X hadn't invented something then Y surely would have, is meaningless.
No sir, the theory means that the ownership of science is ARBITRARY.
And, as my attention to the supporting role of American tax-payers in the example of the internet suggests, only because a small class of people are freed from doing the basic work of society (food, shelter, etc.) is there any chance of such discoveries being made.
We must not forget who feeds and clothes and shelters the scientists SO they can BE scientists.
This 'contribution' comes from either the state or from private capital. But where does the state get its money? From the workers. And where does private capital get its money? From the workers.
Why shouldn't the workers just cut out the middlemen and get their 'investment' back DIRECTLY?
: Are the Pilipinos noted for being a creative and resouceful people?
I've been there, too, Frenchy---and we both know that the American military economy treats those people like shit and makes sure they will always 'deserve' our contempt. If the Phillipines does anything useful, it shows us how 100 years of democracy = poverty.
Is any poor person who receives no education because the capitalist apparatus needs him / her to sit at a sewing machine all day long going to be very resourceful or creative? (Recall Adam Smith's view on this...)
: The percentage of people who own wealth in this country doesn't concern me.
You're lucky you're retired then. It's a bit harsher these days on the workforce---and because of the unending centralization of capital, there's less choices of people to work FOR.