I'm no communist. I'm just saying that capitalism is not more viable than communism if you want an economic system that gives anyone, no matter where they were born in, an equal chance to succeed.
Here's why
Let's start with an easy example everyone probably have already heard.
Do you think that an American person would have the same buying power as a Chinese one?
Ok that was an easy one, so I'm gonna take a more relatable example.
Consider an occidental city. New York, Paris, Barcelona,... it doesn't matter which one. This city will most likely be divided into different portions, with different degrees of wealth for each. Do you really believe that a little Chinese chef from China Town, NY, would have the same opportunities as a rich businessman from downtown?
Still an easy example and (sadly) this has become socially normal: a hardworking Chinese chef should earn less than a businessman with many contacts. Or is it normal that a soccer player earns more in 90 minutes of gaming than someone who found a cure to HIV by hardworking day and night in a month?
Ok here's a final example, a hard one with only one difference between the 2 guys compared : one (let's call him George) has 2 living parents during his childhood, the other (Daniel) lost his dad (he left, died, whatever, he's not here since Daniel is 4) and only has his mother left.
George has 2 loving parents, Daniel is loved by his mother. However, nobody's perfect. Both have issues in math during secondary school. George's parents aren't rich, but aren't poor either. They earn a flat 4k per month. The reimbursment of their house costs them 1.5k/month, and they pay 1k/month for the rest (food, electricity, gaz, web provider,...). That leaves them 1.5k/month in their pocket for diverse expenses. They got no problem paying George an tutor for math.
Daniel's mom earns a flat 2k/month (she then has a similar job as George's mom or dad). She couldn't borrow money to buy a house since she's the only working hand at home, so she has to pay 800/month for her rent. She spends an additional 700/month for charges (food and so on). That leaves 500/month in her pocket, with which she pays scholar fees for her son, debt from a borrow when she got temporarily unemployed (while when George's mom had this issue, his dad could pay, and the other way around), vacations to avoid a burnout, and the reparation of the heater that fell out of service. Well, you get the point: she can't afford paying a tutor to help Daniel in math.
Eventually, Georges ends school with 87/100 in math, and a good understanding of how it works, while Daniel, only a sharp 56/100 and barely understanding who where Pythagore.
George's parents pay him a good high school, and George has nothing to worry about regarding money. High school is expensive. Daniel's mom cannot afford that. But Daniel has a strong will. He borrows money to pay inscription fees for the same scientific school, and start a job during weekends to pay back.
George has the time to study during weekend and already has a consistent knowledge in math. He succeeds high school hands held high. Daniel, cannot study during weekend, he's got a bank to pay, and this is a full-time job. He's got trouble in math again, with the inconsistent base he's got. Georges ends his license with distinction, while Daniel has to retake a year and only ends with a standard grading.
They both take the same master studies with an internship. It goes well for both of them. They get invited at barbecues, lunches,... a lot. George goes to them, Daniel can't, he's got money to pay and a mother getting old to help at home.
The internship ends, and George, having new friends in there can easily get a nice position right after his graduation. Daniel, who was not much social, achieves to get a job in there as well, but in a much lower ranking, with a much lower payout.
Conclusion: Georges succeeds more than Daniel, only based on the home income.
Now imagine with larger differences: the big ones get bigger, the small ones get smaller.
THAT is the issue of capitalism.
Let's not speak of the fact banks don't even own 10% of what they pretend to have, because that could go far.
So, not communism... but not capitalism... Then what?
I've thought of another kind of system. This would use money as currency, but a kind of a score. Let's call it "units" (the name doesn't matter). So with units, you can buy goods and services, just like money does.
But there is a big big difference: you create and earn units by working, and you erase them by expanding them. It means that your boss doesn't have to sacrifice units to pay your job, and a shopkeeper doesn't have to be successful to get units as well. The other big difference is this one: everybody earns 1 unit per hour of work, not matter what work it is. The only exception is graduated: you earn a bonus percent of unit for each successful year of high school you made (notice that school is then free, since teachers get units from nothing, so students don't have to spend units on school). This is to motivate people doing superior studies. For instance, if you get 10% bonus per year, with 5 years, you would get 1.5 units per hour of work. Also, you can get bonus for risk taking (house building, mine sweeping,...)
The consequences would as follow:
- No discrimination from birth: you can get as rich as you want to
- You can get richer only by working more, or work less if you don't want that much units
- Government won't have to fall into debt: if the State employees work for unit, government doesn't have to pay for the maintaining of its well-being
- A soccer player will earn as much as a laundry woman
- You cannot make profit by spending units, no more investments
- You don't have to own a high value in units to hire people as employees: it's free, and they still get units for working for you
- You don't have to start big to get bigger
- You still have to work if you want to live, because food, electricity, buildings,... aren't free
What do you guys think of this? Please let me know with your vote or in the comments! :)