NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there anything that actually stands out or makes it exceptionally superior to socialism or any other economic system?

EDIT: I know this may be surprising coming from me.

Is there anything that actually stands out or makes it exceptionally superior to socialism or any other economic system?
Compitition is inherently good. With compitition, products will do one of two things: get increasingly better, or increasingly cheaper. And it's backed with the incentive of personal profit, which makes the compitition stiffer.

The public gets ends up with the most efficiently made products.

well... so far it worked :p

Compitition is inherently good. With compitition, products will do one of two things: get increasingly better, or increasingly cheaper. And it's backed with the incentive of personal profit, which makes the compitition stiffer.

The public gets ends up with the most efficiently made products.
Competition is not inherently good.
There's always someone who wins and someone who loses.
It's depends on your point of view.
This also applies to larger groups and extends to nations and even entire areas. If you're on the winner's side, say you live in the center of what Wallerstein called the 'World System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Systems_Theory) then you're probably enjoying the benefits of the system.
If however, you live in a periphery, then you might view it differently.

well... so far it worked :p

The west didn't give communism a chance. Besides I like mercantilism/imperialism better. Communism always before capitalism.

Capitalism is the worst form of an econmomic system, due to the exploitation of the working people, by the rich nonworking people.

Competition is not inherently good.
There's always someone who wins and someone who loses.
It's depends on your point of view.
This also applies to larger groups and extends to nations and even entire areas. If you're on the winner's side, say you live in the center of what Wallerstein called the 'World System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Systems_Theory) then you're probably enjoying the benefits of the system.
If however, you live in a periphery, then you might view it differently.
The original poster asked, essentially, for the advantages of capitalism. Not what's broken about it.

Practically every economic system has a degree of brokenness...

Capitalism rewards people based upon the amount of effort they put in, and generally allows people greater economic opportunity, higher income, and the opportunity for higher living standards than socialism. (Sweden is an exception).

There is no reason why I should have to pay a huge amount of taxes to pay for someone else to do nothing and live off unemployment or welfare. Socialism simply hands people money without any accountability and doesn't encourage them to improve themselves.

Mo' money?

I don't know. I still prefer social market economy to free market economy. If it's only about making money and leaving people out of the equasion, something definitely is amiss...

Competition is not inherently good.
There's always someone who wins and someone who loses.
It's depends on your point of view.

Competition is good unless competitors are shooting each other.
Capitalism is not a zero-sum system. It hasn't been since the Gold Standard and Mercantilism went the Dodo's way.
If your point of view is one of wishing poverty and injustice for all, then Capitalism is bad.

Capitalism is good because it not only encourages, but rewards personal enterprise and achievement. Capitalism is good because it offers the oppurtunity for people to choose their own vocation and to choose the rewards from it (Ie you can buy books, or you can buy DVDs, or you can buy a few of both, etc. etc.).

The west didn't give communism a chance. Besides I like mercantilism/imperialism better. Communism always before capitalism.

Capitalism is the worst form of an econmomic system, due to the exploitation of the working people, by the rich nonworking people.
The East gave Communism a chance (well... socialism), and it didn't work for them. I'll admit a big part of it might have been economical problems, but that's the way it stands now.

Capitalism is the worst form of an econmomic system, due to the exploitation of the working people, by the rich nonworking people.

While this would be a disadvantage in a democratic political system, capitalism is not one, so these really aren't disadvantages.

Competition is good unless competitors are shooting each other.
Capitalism is not a zero-sum system. It hasn't been since the Gold Standard and Mercantilism went the Dodo's way.
If your point of view is one of wishing poverty and injustice for all, then Capitalism is bad.
No, I don't wish poverty and injustice for all, but you're basically saying that with capitalism these inequalities can be eliminated, which is just not true.

'Kay, lemme try:

(takes a minute think to about it)

It makes it easier for hoarders and misers to gain social acceptance?

It's the best I've got.

The East gave Communism a chance (well... socialism), and it didn't work for them. I'll admit a big part of it might have been economical problems, but that's the way it stands now.

Actually, it's the fact that those Eastern regimes were totalitarian... They were (and some still are) very Stalinist rather than truly Communist.

No, I don't wish poverty and injustice for all, but you're basically saying that with capitalism these inequalities can be eliminated, which is just not true.

I don't see too many people starving to death in Europe and the US. You'll remember the Famine in Soviet Russia which killed millions. Mao's famine killed fifty million. I'll take the system which serves a few people incredibly well, most people reasonably well, and a few people fairly badly before a system which serves a few people incredibly well and everyone else incredibly poorly.

Actually, it's the fact that those Eastern regimes were totalitarian... They were (and some still are) very Stalinist rather than truly Communist.

In the style of The Party, and those wonderful slogans of Airstrip One, I say thus;

Stalinism Is Communism.

I also say No True Scotsman.

Consumer whores like myself would have nothing to do if we lived in a socialist nation.

(Not that I'm really a consumer whore, 'cause I'm a socialist.....erm.....nevermind)

I don't see too many people starving to death in Europe and the US. You'll remember the Famine in Soviet Russia which killed millions. Mao's famine killed fifty million. I'll take the system which serves a few people incredibly well, most people reasonably well, and a few people fairly badly before a system which serves a few people incredibly well and everyone else incredibly poorly.

Simply put, you wouldn't know what to think about Communism, as its true form has never been put into practice in the modern world on a large scale.

Actually, it's the fact that those Eastern regimes were totalitarian... They were (and some still are) very Stalinist rather than truly Communist.
Russia had a totalitarian regime, but most other Eastern European countries didn't really (or to varying degrees). None of them were Communist, but rather Socialist (as a preparatory stage for Communism).

Simply put, you wouldn't know what to think about Communism, as its true form has never been put into practice in the modern world on a large scale.
On a large scale, it's impractical. On numerous small scales spread across the globe...that might work. But on a large scale, it's simply impractical.

Simply put, you wouldn't know what to think about Communism, as its true form has never been put into practice in the modern world on a large scale.

I know exactly what to think about Communism, because I don't just have arguments against the practicalities of it, I've got philosophical issues as well. But let's not hijack this thread any further, make another if you want to discuss Communism.

And again, NTS.

I don't see too many people starving to death in Europe and the US. You'll remember the Famine in Soviet Russia which killed millions. Mao's famine killed fifty million. I'll take the system which serves a few people incredibly well, most people reasonably well, and a few people fairly badly before a system which serves a few people incredibly well and everyone else incredibly poorly.

I'm quite sure I've heard of famines in other non-socialist parts of the world liiiike...say... Africa?

I'm quite sure I've heard of famines in other non-socialist parts of the world liiiike...say... Africa?
Africa has got its own issues liiiiike...say...incredibily high tariffs that prevent farmers from making ANY profit?

I'm quite sure I've heard of famines in other non-socialist parts of the world liiiike...say... Africa?

Yes, but the aformentioned famines were due directly to collectivization, while the African problem is due to mismanagement by corrupt government and poor weather, not capitalism.

Africa has got its own issues liiiiike...say...incredibily high tariffs that prevent farmers from making ANY profit?
Yes. I was just trying to show that famines are not necessarily a product of socialism.

I'm quite sure I've heard of famines in other non-socialist parts of the world liiiike...say... Africa?

Might be they aren't socialist because socialism conclusively failed in Africa.

poor weather
ROFFLE.

Africa isn't "poor weather;" Africa is "poor climate."

Yes, but the aformentioned famines were due directly to collectivization, while the African problem is due to mismanagement by corrupt government and poor weather, not capitalism.
Alright, I'm giving in, but just because it's late and I'm tired and I'm going to bed. :p

ROFFLE.

Africa isn't "poor weather;" Africa is "poor climate."

More or less, but a lot have famines have occured due to dry weather rather than climate. Of course, ranching on the Sahel hasn't helped the desertification of Mali and Niger.

Alright, I'm giving in, but just because it's late and I'm tired and I'm going to bed.

Well, good night then. :cool:

Maybe socialism wasn't such a bad idea. Also, to the NationStates Classic Liberals Party, I hereby resign as administrator of the party forums.

The ability to use your body and the products thereof in a way that you see fit.

pure capitalism kinda sucks. it concentrates too much power in the hands of the captains of industry (so the great part would be if you were a captain of industry)

controlled capitalism like we have in the US now severely limits the powers of the capitalist overlords. this allows for the protection of workers and for everyone to benefit from innovations and the expansion of the general economy.

pure capitalism kinda sucks. it concentrates too much power in the hands of the captains of industry (so the great part would be if you were a captain of industry)

controlled capitalism like we have in the US now severely limits the powers of the capitalist overlords. this allows for the protection of workers and for everyone to benefit from innovations and the expansion of the general economy.

It's called liberal socialism or regulated capitalism.

It's called liberal socialism or regulated capitalism.
well i guess in the US it must be called regulated capitalism we'd rather go bankrupt than be called socialist.

pure capitalism kinda sucks. it concentrates too much power in the hands of the captains of industry (so the great part would be if you were a captain of industry)

controlled capitalism like we have in the US now severely limits the powers of the capitalist overlords. this allows for the protection of workers and for everyone to benefit from innovations and the expansion of the general economy.
Except that, after the implementation of the Great Society, average GDP growth rate went DOWN (except for the miracle of the late 90s where everyone saw growth)
In addition, the US government spent $416 billion in the red last year. With a Marginal Propensity to Consumer of 98.1%, we should see a National Income(variant of GDP) increase of about $22 trillion. On paper, the US doesn't even HAVE the much.
Our entire economy became debt-driven after implementing the Great Society and Supply Subsidies of Reagan.





There is no problem with free market capitalism. There is no loser; if you are going to lose in a trade, why in the world would you trade to begin with?
Furthermore, it "purifies" society of unproductive people, so the rest of us have better standards of living.
And the market demand and supply curves naturally balance so consumers actually get what you want.
IN ADDITION, there is no such thing as an entrenched ruling class in the free market system, as everyone must EARN their wealth. Sure, the sons and daughters of rich people have a natural advantage because they have a better education, but why is this bad? Better education=better productivity.
Mercantilism and Imperialism is what REALLY creates an entrenched ruling class. It means the government is using its guns, which should be used to preserve the rights of people, to force one group of people to surrender their wealth to another. And, over time, this creates a connection.
It's not hard to see why areas of the world that did not have access to easy money, like the United States, became more democratic than states that do have easy money, like Saudi Arabia. When people don't have to earn their wealth, they are more willing to oppress other people.

And there are COUNTLESS empirical examples of free market states working while government planned states and "Big Push to break the vicious cycle of poverty" states failed. Africa began with 70% GREATER GDP per capita than Asia ($1700 to $1000). It is obvious who the clear winners are, decades down the road; the people who embraced capitalism prospered, and people who accepted charity didn't.
And what African states embraced the market? Botswana, which is richer than the rest of Africa.

Or look at the US. The moment we began to renounce the free market in the 60s is the moment we began seeing LOWER GDP growth rates, and LESS incentive to learn and produce. The long-term social and economic consequences cannot be overstated. Once the beacon of education, the US now produces people so stupid that they continue to go into fields already overpopulated with workers, and fail to compete with Chinese or Indian workers.

Capitalism is good because:
Free Markets are very effective and efficient in resource usage. Resources are allocated so that those that can pay for them and want to can get them. That also makes intra- and inter-industrial movement of goods and services so much easier than if you would have to plan everything out.

Capitalism is bad because:
Free Markets are not perfect either - externalities, hysteresis, monopolies etc are all parts of normal free market activities, and not beneficial to anyone.
Although resource allocation is effective, it certainly isn't equal. There are people who do not have the money to take part in certain markets, although the utility to be gained there is huge.
Capitalism tends to concentrate wealth (and the utility to be gained from it) in the hands of the few, which decreases total utility to be had in the society.

So the solution:
Take the good parts of it, repair the bad parts, and you have a social market economy!

I'm sure you wouldn't be so happy if you were 'purified' out of society, especially if you had gone to school in a trade that is being outsourced to India or China. You can't compete with them because the cost of living there is much less than here, or they are willing to live in what we would call horrible conditions because they are better than what they had before.

Under the capitalist system (or whatever we have now, semantics aside) people are forced to rely on banks that honestly don't care what happens to them; if you fail to pay the bank back (much more than they originally lent you) they get to take your stuff and then you're even worse off then when you started. Imagine; you fail to pay up once and they take your stuff, making it impossible to live, then when you go back for another loan for new stuff, they can make it at a higher rate. Admittingly, there are plenty of successes where everyone is left happy, but the small amount of dismal failures can't be ignored and must be dealt with, by the government if necessary. I don't want to see anyone living off welfare but at the same time I can't bare to see no one step in to help. Individual charity would never cover enough to be as successful as an effective program based on the common pocket.

There is no loser; if you are going to lose in a trade, why in the world would you trade to begin with?
The Loser is the one who doesn't get to trade at all because he doesn't have the wealth to start off with.

Sure, the sons and daughters of rich people have a natural advantage because they have a better education, but why is this bad? Better education=better productivity.
Your point being? I assume you come from a rich family because apparently you don't mind being damned to poverty because your parents couldn't afford a trust fund.

When people don't have to earn their wealth, they are more willing to oppress other people.
Well that's just silly.

And what African states embraced the market? Botswana, which is richer than the rest of Africa.
Botswana has maintained one of the world's highest growth rates since independence in 1966. Through fiscal discipline and sound management, Botswana has transformed itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to a middle-income country with a per capita GDP of $9,200 in 2004. Two major investment services rank Botswana as the best credit risk in Africa. Diamond mining has fueled much of the expansion and currently accounts for more than one-third of GDP and for nine-tenths of export earnings. Tourism, subsistence farming, and cattle raising are other key sectors. On the downside, the government must deal with high rates of unemployment and poverty. Unemployment officially is 21%, but unofficial estimates place it closer to 40%. HIV/AIDS infection rates are the highest in the world and threaten Botswana's impressive economic gains. An expected leveling off in diamond mining production overshadow long-term prospects.

The moment we began to renounce the free market in the 60s is the moment we began seeing LOWER GDP growth rates, and LESS incentive to learn and produce.
And you don't think that had anything to do with the global economic situation as a whole? Or the end of the economic boom after the war?
And even if social security programs could hurt an economy, they certainly wouldn't do it immediately.

You don't have to come from a rich family to appreciate capitalism and the right of inheritance. I come from a middle class family and probably won't inherit a damn thing, and my parents came from quite poor families, and all of us appreciate and desire these things. It's the price you pay for freedom.

I'm sure you wouldn't be so happy if you were 'purified' out of society, especially if you had gone to school in a trade that is being outsourced to India or China. You can't compete with them because the cost of living there is much less than here, or they are willing to live in what we would call horrible conditions because they are better than what they had before.
Of course not, but I intend on improving myself so that I can do something that the Chinese and Indians cannot.

The Loser is the one who doesn't get to trade at all because he doesn't have the wealth to start off with.
That's why we have public school and orphanages. And social security for the truly and hopelessly disabled.

Your point being? I assume you come from a rich family because apparently you don't mind being damned to poverty because your parents couldn't afford a trust fund.
I'm not rich. I'm middle class, at best. And the private sector does donate and establish libraries, which people can go to.
Not to mention that public education again.

Well that's just silly.
I don't know. Seems to have happened all throughout history. Like the Southern US during the slave era, or modern Equitorial Guinea.

I also do not see the issue with Botswana, other than the AIDS crisis. After all, it is hard to be great when your neighbor is Robert Mugabe.

And you don't think that had anything to do with the global economic situation as a whole? Or the end of the economic boom after the war?
The 1940s and 50s saw economic gains that could be viewed as possibly war driven. The 1960s were quite a long time off from that geopolitical event, and only the latter years saw serious Nam spending.
And, yes, part of our current LOWER GDP rates is because of the global trading enviorment; a bit of demand increase here sees production gains elsewhere.

And even if social security programs could hurt an economy, they certainly wouldn't do it immediately.
Okay, the moment we condemned ourselves to eventually seeing lower GDP rates. :p You're right, it doesn't start immediatley, they reduce long-term viability.

-snip-
What does freedom have to do with anything?
Do you not think it is unfair if you cannot go to university and achieve your potential because some other kid has rich parents that pay for the spot you just lost?
And every single poor kid that doesn't get to go to university although he/she might be smart enough is a wasted resource - another inefficiency in a totally free market capitalism.

I also do not see the issue with Botswana, other than the AIDS crisis. After all, it is hard to be great when your neighbor is Robert Mugabe.
It's moreso about the ridiculous unemployment, subsistence farminge being a large industry and the strong performance more or less entirely based on Diamond exports. So not really down to free market capitalism as such.

And if you don't mind social security, then that's good.

But I don't see just yet that social security (ie the preservation of people/resources for future use) can bring down an economy.

As for the 60s, my point was mainly that correlation does not imply causation.

Freedom has to do with the right to spend your money in whatever way you see fit.

What always gets me about saying that the rich don't deserve their money is this: they have to get it from somewhere, and most often it's from the consumers that buy their products. That's where the balance in a free market economy comes from is the power of the consumer over the market. That's also another reason I don't support a totally free market economy though, because without controls against monopolies consumers lose that power.

Freedom has to do with the right to spend your money in whatever way you see fit.
In which case you would have to oppose all taxation as infringement on your freedom. But I'll let that one slip, I'm not gonna persecute you for it. :D

Yes, I figured you'd mention that and I thought about expanding that statement but I don't like to drag out my posts. I don't mind taxes, I mind the ways in which taxes are spent. Tax money should go to programs that are clearly good for the whole of tax-paying society (such as roads, police and an army).

...Tax money should go to programs that are clearly good for the whole of tax-paying society...
And free education, or health care doesn't benefit the whole of tax-paying society?
Or even Social Security and Wealth Redistribution for that matter?

the fact that i can be born poor, but im smart so i become a billionaire says capitalism is good.

competition makes people work harder, and cut costs and all that... which helps people... (but we've got to bust up all the trusts and stuff like that)... i mean, sure, some people will lose. but that's part of life. maybe socialists can accept that people lose sometimes.

although, i am dissapointed when all the rich guys in the world horde it all. what are they gonna do with so much money... if i was rich i'd get a nice house, pimp it out, keep a good amount of money for the kids and for me, and give the majority of the rest to people who need help.

I never said they didn't. I wouldn't want some of them implemented through the government because of the simple fact that I don't trust a government as large as the one I live under (United States) not to squander most of the money they come into contact with, but I'm not necessarily opposed to free education and health services. Health is sort of a tricky one because then you get into the sticky issue of to what extent you pay a person's medical bills. Do you pay for cosmetic surgeries? Certainly not, but there are more controversial issues: do you pay for a surgery that will only increase a person's chance of survival by 1 or 2 percent, and how long do we attempt to keep people alive? Once you give the government reign over the health system then you put the decision into their hands: at what age do we decide that a person has had enough of life? When do we cut them off from assistance? Should we be trying to put an end to death? (leave the impossibility of that one aside while you think about it ;) )

Social Security I can almost go along with but again it goes to the lunchroom example I used in the other thread in which we're debating: I don't particularly want my government telling me that I have to help someone who's found themself down on their luck.

And that just got me thinking about the tax system: I personally feel that a flat income tax of a certain percent of someone's income is the way to do it, that way everyone is providing proportionally to what they are able to provide.

-snip-
But there are marginal returns to income in terms of utility. If everyone is to be treated "equally", then the rich would have to be taxed more than the poor.

And why do you trust a Business, an inherently dictatorial organisation, moreso than your own democratically elected government. Because as was pointed out, competition is not the natural steady state of a totally free market, but merely the path towards corporatism.

Distributism is much better than capitalism. That is where every man works for himself. People frequently say this is just capitalism, but this name distinguishes it from the corporate version.

It's moreso about the ridiculous unemployment, subsistence farminge being a large industry and the strong performance more or less entirely based on Diamond exports. So not really down to free market capitalism as such.
20-40% Unemployment doesn't overly concern me when there is a 33% rate of HIV. The only thing Botswana could've done better is to spend more money on education, which would have helped stymie the AIDS crisis and put a lid on such high unemployment. But, when your neighbor is Robert Mugabe, you need a big army to open a can of whoop ***.
And free market capitalism DID fix it; oil income REDUCED average income in Nigeria. Just having a big export sector doesn't mean your nation has wealth.


But I don't see just yet that social security (ie the preservation of people/resources for future use) can bring down an economy.

As for the 60s, my point was mainly that correlation does not imply causation.
When you redistribute income, you are taking money from the productive and giving it to the unproductive. That's why an economy cannot prosper with it. The correlation simply proves it.

20-40% Unemployment doesn't overly concern me when there is a 33% rate of HIV. The only thing Botswana could've done better is to spend more money on education, which would have helped stymie the AIDS crisis and put a lid on such high unemployment. But, when your neighbor is Robert Mugabe, you need a big army to open a can of whoop ***.
And free market capitalism DID fix it; oil income REDUCED average income in Nigeria. Just having a big export sector doesn't mean your nation has wealth.
It should. Unemployment is the number one thing right-wing economists have against Socialist systems. If you discount it you run out of arguments quickly.
And I'm not sure on Mugabe's history militarily, but I'm not aware he ever actually attacked another country just yet. And is Botswana run by White people? Because that's really what a pan-Africanist like Mugabe would've problems with...
Of course it doesn't. And I'm not saying that Capitalism didn't help. I just offered a few stats that show there's a downside as well.
And currently, Botswana's economy does depend to a huge extent on the market prices for diamonds. Maybe too much so.

When you redistribute income, you are taking money from the productive and giving it to the unproductive. That's why an economy cannot prosper with it. The correlation simply proves it.
Germany is a country you people bring up all the time as a "Socialist" failure. Actually, from 1949 the system known as "the Social Market Economy" worked phenomenally well. Interestingly enough, now, with all the problems in Germany, it is more "capitalist" than most nations and has for example less business tax than the US.
Just goes to show that Correlation DOES NOT imply causation, and thus proves nothing. It's a logical fallacy, as old man Aristotle pointed out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation

It should. Unemployment is the number one thing right-wing economists have against Socialist systems. If you discount it you run out of arguments quickly.
And I'm not sure on Mugabe's history militarily, but I'm not aware he ever actually attacked another country just yet. And is Botswana run by White people? Because that's really what a pan-Africanist like Mugabe would've problems with...
Of course it doesn't. And I'm not saying that Capitalism didn't help. I just offered a few stats that show there's a downside as well.
And currently, Botswana's economy does depend to a huge extent on the market prices for diamonds. Maybe too much so.

Hell, simple numbers for unemployment don't concern me. There is no way to tell whether or not is natural, and it seems possible that the natural rate of unemployment for developing nations in a world with free trade and agricultural subsidies in the West would be higher than Western nations.
Mugabe hasn't attacked anyone...besides his own people. But that may be because Botswana has an army strong to take him out. Who knows? I'd also want a strong military to ward off any revolutionaries that may try to infilitrate my nation. Lots of US-Soviet games were played in Africa (though I don't know about Southern Africa)
Capitalism, IMO, only has a downside when nations become too dependent on export prices, like diamonds and Botswana, or when the nation in question does not have enough power or money to educate people or fend off possible attacks by the uber-rich or uber-commie.
Both of these above problems would be cured if no one expected the world to be handed to them, but, alas, some do.

Germany is a country you people bring up all the time as a "Socialist" failure. Actually, from 1949 the system known as "the Social Market Economy" worked phenomenally well. Interestingly enough, now, with all the problems in Germany, it is more "capitalist" than most nations and has for example less business tax than the US.
Germany is NOT capitalist. Just having a low tax rate does not mean you are capitalist. I wish I had that Paul Krugman article about Germany on me. Explained how Germany won't be able to compete in the new world because of expectations of permament jobs.

Just goes to show that Correlation DOES NOT imply causation, and thus proves nothing. It's a logical fallacy, as old man Aristotle pointed out.
Correlation ALONE doesn't prove anything. However, if you logically reason that increased water intake leads to less trips to the bathroom, and the opposite occurs, I'm going to drink less water. :p

Hell, simple numbers for unemployment don't concern me. There is no way to tell whether or not is natural, and it seems possible that the natural rate of unemployment for developing nations in a world with free trade and agricultural subsidies in the West would be higher than Western nations.
Believe me, no matter what system you propose, a 20%-40% Natural Unemployment rate is not what you are advocating.

Both of these above problems would be cured if no one expected the world to be handed to them, but, alas, some do.
Explain.


Germany is NOT capitalist. Just having a low tax rate does not mean you are capitalist. I wish I had that Paul Krugman article about Germany on me. Explained how Germany won't be able to compete in the new world because of expectations of permament jobs.
http://www.pkarchive.org/global/kompete.html
I know. Does it have to anything to do with this? Does Capitalism have something to do with culture?
The tax rate was just one example - what I meant was the huge number of "free market"-type reforms that have been done (Many after krugman's article was written). While I advocate most of those reforms, many didn't seem to work just yet...

Believe me, no matter what system you propose, a 20%-40% Natural Unemployment rate is not what you are advocating.

Why not?

Explain.
If everyone took an existential viewpoint (well, on economics anyways) no one would be ticked off enough, rich or poor, to overthrow the government. And there would be no crime.
And the fall of a business would be expected in time. People would come to realize that commodity prices are sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

I know. Does it have to anything to do with this? Does Capitalism have something to do with culture?
It does if the government's legal code is viewed as a living document that changes with the views of the people. The more a government respects property rights, the less it is subject to whims of culture.

The tax rate was just one example - what I meant was the huge number of "free market"-type reforms that have been done (Many after krugman's article was written). While I advocate most of those reforms, many didn't seem to work just yet...
No guarantee to work right away. Companies have to be weaned off the government teat.

Why not?
Because it goes contrary to everything an economic system is supposed to do. I tend to think that even supply-side nutcases have the interest of the community at heart, and simply believe (falsely) that they would improve the life of the people with their policies.

It does if the government's legal code is viewed as a living document that changes with the views of the people. The more a government respects property rights, the less it is subject to whims of culture.
Some things aren't meant to be changed easily. And the German constitution is one of those things. I will especially direct you to Article 14, Point 2.
Remember, this is the best we have done so far, after 2000 years of killing each other, trying stuff out and seeing what works and what doesn't.
That Americans should claim they knew better for no other reason than that they were geographically favoured is erroneous.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html

And do have a good read of this. I reckon it does better in many places than the US constitution.

Capitalism rewards people based upon the amount of effort they put in, and generally allows people greater economic opportunity, higher income, and the opportunity for higher living standards than socialism. (Sweden is an exception).

There is no reason why I should have to pay a huge amount of taxes to pay for someone else to do nothing and live off unemployment or welfare. Socialism simply hands people money without any accountability and doesn't encourage them to improve themselves.
Pure Capitalism equals the strong over the weak, remember ''Atlas Shrugged''.Pure Socialism punishes the strong by forcing him to give to those who will not work.

well i guess in the US it must be called regulated capitalism we'd rather go bankrupt than be called socialist.

Actually, it's because there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between the two. To help, I've constructed a series of compare-and-contrast sentences. See if you can spot the difference:

Regulated Capitalism: A progressive income tax is instituted.
Socialism: After shooting all the capitalists in the head, a progressive income tax is instituted in order to shift the nation over to a communist mode of production.

Regulated Capitalism: The government places limits on the free enterprise system.
Socialism: After shooting all the capitalists in the head, the proletariat destroys the free enterprise system to ensure that all people get what they need.

Regulated Capitalism: The government regulates but allows the existence of labor unions.
Socialism: After shooting all the capitalists in the head, government is replaced by labor unions, who form the basis of new soviets at the local level.

Could you spot the difference?

Heh, I love how all us socialists are depicted as wanting to shoot the capitalists in the head. :rolleyes:

Okay, something good about capitalism. Well, I guess it does allow those with initiative/good ideas/etc to improve their lot. I'm actually very much in favour of responsibly-run small business, for that reason. It's soulless multinationals, monopolies and mass exploitation of the workers that I have a problem with.

And I suppose it does give us more choice. I'm not quite sure we need as much as we have today, and it irritates me that 'choice' and 'flexibility' are tossed around as words when the bigwigs are really talking about worker exploitation (new IR laws, any other Australians out there!) but it's nice not to have, well, rationing.

There. I said something nice about capitalism. Quick, shoot me in the head. :D

Heh, I love how all us socialists are depicted as wanting to shoot the capitalists in the head. :rolleyes:

Okay, something good about capitalism. Well, I guess it does allow those with initiative/good ideas/etc to improve their lot. I'm actually very much in favour of responsibly-run small business, for that reason. It's soulless multinationals, monopolies and mass exploitation of the workers that I have a problem with.

And I suppose it does give us more choice. I'm not quite sure we need as much as we have today, and it irritates me that 'choice' and 'flexibility' are tossed around as words when the bigwigs are really talking about worker exploitation (new IR laws, any other Australians out there!) but it's nice not to have, well, rationing.

There. I said something nice about capitalism. Quick, shoot me in the head. :D

I didn't say that socialists have a problem with capitalism (although they do). I said they have a problem with capitalists.

Marx said on the one hand that capitalism was a system that could do almost unimaginable things in very short time because of its ability to concentrate a great deal of labor and capital on a problem. So in that sense, he complimented capitalism as well. No socialists I know of have really ever claimed that Marx should have been shot.

But he nevertheless also said that the only way to overthrow the bourgeois is by violent revolution. You can't have a violent revolution against the bourgeouisie where bourgeois aren't killed, my friend. Hence the point about shooting capitalists in the head.

Moreover the point was more for the libertarians of the board, who can't seem to discriminate between regulated capitalism and full-blown communism.

I didn't say that socialists have a problem with capitalism (although they do). I said they have a problem with capitalists. .

Some of them, definitely not all of them. Some of my best friends are capitalists, as the saying goes.

Marx said on the one hand that capitalism was a system that could do almost unimaginable things in very short time because of its ability to concentrate a great deal of labor and capital on a problem. So in that sense, he complimented capitalism as well. No socialists I know of have really ever claimed that Marx should have been shot.

But he nevertheless also said that the only way to overthrow the bourgeois is by violent revolution. You can't have a violent revolution against the bourgeouisie where bourgeois aren't killed, my friend. Hence the point about shooting capitalists in the head.

I'm not a Marxist. I'm a socialist in favour of a heavily regulated corporate policy where by law, corporations act responsibly in regard to the environment, their workers and the community (among other things). I don't want a violent revolution against the bourgeousie; they'd shoot me! These ends could perfectly well be achieved by legislation. The only person they might have to shoot is Rupert Murdoch. And I'm pretty anti-violence, so I wouldn't be in favour of that, either.

Moreover the point was more for the libertarians of the board, who can't seem to discriminate between regulated capitalism and full-blown communism.

Sorry, I didn't see the bit where you told the rest of us not to bother with our unwanted opinions.

Edited to add: though you're right about some people's odd belief that regulating capitalism constitutes communism. I don't get that, either. :confused:

I'm not a Marxist. I'm a socialist in favour of a heavily regulated corporate policy where by law, corporations act responsibly in regard to the environment, their workers and the community (among other things). I don't want a violent revolution against the bourgeousie; they'd shoot me! These ends could perfectly well be achieved by legislation. The only person they might have to shoot is Rupert Murdoch. And I'm pretty anti-violence, so I wouldn't be in favour of that, either.
Do you see the problem?
I'm on your side with this, but you have the "wrong" definition of Socialism. You're not a socialist, you're a social democrat. You're in favour of regulated capitalism, not what was practiced in the USSR.
The Soviets were socialists.
By Marx's definition Socialism is indeed about abolishing private property and more or less shooting Capitalists in the head on the way to communism.

The fact is, regulations are needed. You cannot simply rely on businesses to have a conscious. Conversly you cannot expect a socialist model to cure all your problems.
IMO what causes the most problems is too much red-tape. Example: Germany. A wealthy country that has a good industrial base, yet they cannot make the changes that are needed now (albeit potentially painful) because of over bureaucrisation (sp?).

Capitalism rewards people based upon the amount of effort they put in, and generally allows people greater economic opportunity, higher income, and the opportunity for higher living standards than socialism. (Sweden is an exception).

There is no reason why I should have to pay a huge amount of taxes to pay for someone else to do nothing and live off unemployment or welfare. Socialism simply hands people money without any accountability and doesn't encourage them to improve themselves.

Ahh, but well thought out socialisim doesnt give your money to dood-for-nothings. Brown's 'New Deal' (A bit like LBJ) makes sure that there are conditions to recieving benefits, and you can only get them if you prove you are actively seeking work.

Example: Germany.
One of these days, I'm gonna start a big German Election Thread. Because it is just a little more complicated than that...

I liked how it was put in easy rider 'How can you claim to be free when your bought and sold on the market place?'.

I have big problems with capitalism, but I don't think a straight shift to socialism would exactly be good. I don't think socialism is against our nature (it's been proven that it isn't), but you will get people who are power hungry, so whether you have a dicatorship or you propose some sort of anarcho-commune, you're gonna have people trying to take power. Marx said capatalism is a nessacry evil before a shift to socialism, so maybe the capitalist phase isn't over yet?

I just think we should worry more about the poeple who live in genuine poverty for now, and try and give everyone an equal chance.

Small scale and regulated Capitalism is fine, anything else leads to chaos.

bump for Lokiaa