Lee,

Is a lack of ethics a direct product of capitalism or is it symptomatic of other ills in society? Such as, are the watchdogs are so fat and tame the rewards of bad behaviour outweigh the risks? Has the shift toward thinking about people as parts of groups rather than as individuals led to a diffusion of responsibility, much as we see with crowds that passively watching something horrible occur because the individuals in the crowd expect someone else to step forward?

I'd assert that large corporations -- regardless of whether they are public or private sector, profit or non-profit -- far removed from localities and well detached from their customers and clients act less responsibly and less responsively than smaller, leaner local concerns that can be held directly accountable.

When we hear the defense an entity is "too big to fail" our first thought should not be "rescue" but "this is a prime candidate for anti-trust".

And seeing that socialism, fascism and communism have all failed as economic systems in large part because of their disastrous effects on the human spirit, what would you prefer to put in place of capitalism?

And seeing that socialism, fascism and communism have all failed as economic systems in large part because of their disastrous effects on the human spirit, what would you prefer to put in place of capitalism?

Actually the world has never seen a communist system and has never seen a fully industrialized country turn to socialism. I'd prefer to see a socialist United States. Like I said though, it won't happen in my lifetime.

"And seeing that socialism, fascism and communism have all failed as economic systems in large part because of their disastrous effects on the human spirit, what would you prefer to put in place of capitalism?"

I'm sorry? Communism and Fascism have both certainly failed as systems, but where do you get the idea that socialism has failed?

The social democratic mixed economies are doing no worse than capitalism. Indeed, Norway is doing quite well. You might attribute that to the oil, but seriously, if it weren't for the "socialist" policy (though the policy was actually a conservative one at first, based on discontent with danish and swedish control of our resources during our unions with their respective countries)  of having the government own, control and profit from the natural resources (including the oil)  instead of handing them off practically for free to foreign investors in the name of "private enterprise", we'd be flat broke and gnawing on bark to keep the hunger at bay.

Socialism has proven that it does work and is beneficial, though only so far in countries with highly developed democratic institutions and sensibilities, with mixed economies and a concerted effort to maintain as small as possible a cultural gap between rich and poor. Like Scandinavia. In the form of social democracy.

You might say that there are a lot of qualifiers in there, but it is a practical, pragmatic sort of socialism and it works for us.  And when we look at the major choices Norway has made throughout the last 2 centuries, we see that other countries in similar situations who have made other choices at such points have had cause to regret them.

When you use socialism to mean something other than communism, I must assume that you mean the broader context of socialism which includes social democratic forms of government, and I don't see how you can conclude that it's failed.

Canada, ostensibly a socialist nation, has a stronger economy than the U.S.

Well actually Canada is not socialist. The overwhelming majority of businesses are privately owned. Under a socialist system there would be no privately owned businesses, they would be collectivized.

"Under a socialist system there would be no privately owned businesses, they would be collectivized."

Under a communist system, that may be true. Socialism, however, has co-existed amicably with private business for a century.  Socialism split in half a long time ago and moderates embraced  democracy, a mixed economy and the idea that collectivization is often the wrong way to go. 

Ironically, these days conservatives often produce more legislation and taxation that is unfavorable to small businesses than the socialists. We used to run a (very) small business, until the "pro-business conservatives" got into office, removed our sales tax deduction by doubling the threshold and made it unprofitable.  

That was the same year that the Christian Democrats proved how much they cared for the poor and the sick by increasing the annual deductible on medicine for the chronically ill by close to 50 percent. (still only about 300 a year, but it's a principle).

Don, you may have hit a nail on the head there.

   I see no magical wand solution to the crisises that are piling up right now.  Human nature has asserted itself, and it doesn't matter whether or not you're an American conservative, a "Red-Diaper Baby" leftist, a big business tycoon or some poor schub office grunt who gets paid to stack up paperwork.  Too many of us are still thinking "What's in it for ME?"

   I'm one of those gents who'd be glad to be paid roughly 1/2 over minimum wage with only basic benefits (health and life insurance) for a 40 (plus occasional OT) workweek, provided the work is steady and the bosses are willing to teach me a thing or two that I need to get the job done.  The current workplace is more like the Depression that my great-aunt often speaks of.  No one is happy now.

   Strange how we've drifted off the topic of a political point being made in a comicbook to a general tit-for-tat about whether the Left or Right picks their boogers, isn't it?

The key is that it's all a balance between the group and the individual. You need to take care of the group in order to have security and stability and a continuity of culture (i.e. civilization). But you also need to take care of each member of the group's needs as an individual, in order to maintain internal stability, yes, but also to encourage new thoughts and ideas that in turn benefit the group as a whole and are continued to the new generation.

The extremes of communism or capitalism is about letting one of these win out over the other.  But that's not how it works. 

Without the group, we'd each of us have to try and invent language and tools all over again and we'd be no more than hairless monkeys. After all, we've had our current physiology (including our brains) for about 200 thousand years and language for over 50 thousand of them but we've had actual civilization for less than 10 thousand years. 

Imagine how far each of us hairless monkeys could have gotten on our own, born in isolation (mysteriously fed, of course)  raised in isolation. 

And without the ability of individuals to express their new ideas, their new inventions and their talents in a way that encourages and rewards such creativity and endeavour, we'd be in much the same predicament.

It isn't a war between group needs and individual needs, the way it's sometimes portrayed, but a symbiosis. A partnership.

But a lot of people forget that and try to make it about other people serving their needs instead of us all working to secure a common basic level of security and comfort , from which more talent can emerge to transform and improve society further.