NationStates Jolt Archive

Which economic system do you prefer over the others?

Just for the sake of curiosity and exchange of ideas.
*puts on bullet-proof vest and flame retardant clothing*

Capitalism and Socialism are pretty well known. Communal systems (though there are many variations) are extremely socialist within the immediate community (the tribe) but very capitalist between communities.

I'm prefer a communal system, but I favor capitalism, especially in the West. It's too hard to distinguish between communites (especailly here in SW PA) that I think there would be too much confusion for a communal system to be in place in the developed nations.

Socialism with moderated capitalism :D

Moderated Capitalism.

You should have split capitalism into laissez-faire and regulated. I vote for regulated personally.

You should have split capitalism into laissez-faire and regulated. I vote for regulated personally.

I didn't think of that. I ought to have included that difference.

Then we get into issues of what degree of regulation. For example, the regulation I favour is likely very different from the regulation you favour.

Why doesn't the poll include "Pie" ?

This is a pretty narrow poll - there's lots of other economic principles and philosophies.

Loosely I'm a lafarguian techno-environmental-skeptic, which means I think the human race should maximally exploit animals, robots and the environment so that we don't ever have to do any work.

I mean literally not even pushing the buttons or whipping the animals - just sitting back while our quadruped and automaton slaves and bring us food, drugs and entertainment without any form of remuneration or reward.

I picked "socialist", though I, too, have to register my complaints with this poll.

Capitalism.

The Invisible Hand will provide.

capitalism. And i mean f'real capitalism here. not the semicapitalist economies of today.

Why doesn't the poll include "Pie" ?
cuz it was started by a noob who does not know about the oligatory joke option/myrth oprion/option that has nothing to do with the question.

Capitalism because:

Once you have their money, you never give it back.
The best deal is the one that makes the most profit.
Never pay more for an acquisition than you have to.
A woman wearing clothes is like a man in the kitchen.
Never allow family to stand in the way of opportunity.
Greed is eternal.
Even if it's free, you can always buy it cheaper.
Anything worth selling is worth selling twice.
Anything worth doing is worth doing for money.
A deal is a deal... until a better one comes along.
A man without profit is no man at all.
Satisfaction is not guaranteed.
Never place friendship above profit.
A wise man can hear profit in the wind.
Nothing is more important than your health... except for your money.
There is nothing more dangerous than an honest businessman.
War is good for business.
Peace is good for business.
Profit is its own reward.
Never confuse wisdom with luck.
Never trust a man wearing a better suit than your own.
The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife.
Never ask when you can take.
Good customers are as rare as gold. Treasure them.
There is no substitute for success.
Free advice is seldom cheap.
Keep your lies consistent.
The riskier the road, the greater the profit.
Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.
The flimsier the product, the higher the price.
Ask not what your profits can do for you, but what you can do for your profits.
Females and finances don't mix.
Enough is never enough.
Every man has his price.
Trust is the biggest liability of all.
Faith moves mountains...of inventory.
There is no honor in poverty.
Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
Treat people in your debt like family...exploit them.
Everything is for sale, even friendship.
Wives serve, brothers inherit.
There's nothing wrong with charity... as long as it winds up in your pocket.
Even in the worst of times, someone turns a profit.
Know your enemies... but do business with them always.
Not even dishonesty can tarnish the shine of profit.
Let others keep their reputation. You keep their money.
Hear all, trust nothing.
Never cheat someone...unless you can get away with it.
It's always good to know about new customers before they walk in your door.
The justification for profit is profit.
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer.
Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them.
No good deed ever goes unpunished.

Capitalism because:
<snip!>

Ferengi Rules of Acquisition?

I prefer regulated capitalism, but it depends. I think it's a mistake to think that one economic system will work everywhere, all the time, under all circumstances.

Social Democracy
http://www.spd.de/prj-spdwkportal05/images/spd_logo.gif
with
social market economy!

Nonsense! Capitalism all the way! Let your word be your bond...until you decide to break it!

*snip*
Amen to all that, except the anti-female crap.

Capitalist!

Long live big business!!! ;)

I am diehard laissez-faire capitalist.
I would agree with Dosuun's list, aside from the thourough dishonesty. In the short run that may be benefitial, but you will quickly alienate your allies, destroying some through overexploitation and turing the others against you, as well as turning future allies against you. The best case is where you both profit . . . just you profit more.

(I tend to see business as war, thus my use of the word "allies")

I like to look at things through the view of natural selection: survival of the fittest advancing circumstances; those with inefficient and/or otherwise obsolete characteristics fall to those who have better; and thus, the system is strengthened by the downfall of the weak, and the strong rule. That is, they rule until they are overrun by someone newer or better (assuming they don't adapt fast enough). I genrally apply this to politics and economics (politics including war).

I like to look at things through the view of natural selection: survival of the fittest advancing circumstances; those with inefficient and/or otherwise obsolete characteristics fall to those who have better; and thus, the system is strengthened by the downfall of the weak, and the strong rule. That is, they rule until they are overrun by someone newer or better (assuming they don't adapt fast enough). I genrally apply this to politics and economics (politics including war).

Otherwise known as Social Darwinism. What do you think would happen to vampire bats if the followed that philosophy?

Ohh, and I'm a socialist.

Otherwise known as Social Darwinism. What do you think would happen to vampire bats if the followed that philosophy?

I try to avoid using the term "Social Darminism," as it is most often associated with racism, which I abhor.

I am unclear on your meaning in the vampire bats question.

Libertarian Socialism/Communism.

I don't know. I have somewhat ceased to care.

I don't know. I have somewhat ceased to care.
Aw, why? :)

Capitalism. It's simply the most efficient means of distributing scarce resources, so that makes it the best. But since "best" implies a moralistic judgement, it's most accurate to say capitalism is the most efficient system of all.

Aw, why? :)

Because I don't like most arguments for economic systems, and other topics have caught my interest.

Because I don't like most arguments for economic systems, and other topics have caught my interest.
True, I am getting bored of most of these arguments myself. In the end, your choice of system depends on your morals, so it's a matter of taste.

True, I am getting bored of most of these arguments myself. In the end, your choice of system depends on your morals, so it's a matter of taste.

I can't find any solid reason to support any economic system. It doesn't seem my ethics are reflected in any of them.

I can't find any solid reason to support any economic system. It doesn't seem my ethics are reflected in any of them.
My ethics are still reflected in minarchist capitalism. If people choose to disagree with them, this largely stems from a difference in moral viewpoints. What ethics do you refer to in particular anyway?

Welfare State! w00t! w00t!

My ethics are still reflected in minarchist capitalism. If people choose to disagree with them, this largely stems from a difference in moral viewpoints. What ethics do you refer to in particular anyway?

I still base my ethical stance on the value of self-determination, which does lead me to be a minarchist, as I think that people should be free of coersion but will ultimately install their own government.

However, it places me somewhere just left of capitalism, just right of socialism, and generally opposed to all economic systems.

I also do not think that differences stem so much from moral viewpoints, but different understandings of reality. Most people on each side have the same desires for humanity, they only identify different obstacles.

Which economic system do you prefer over the others?


Whichever is based on free, peaceful, and voluntary interaction of individuals or groups/collectives thereof. Whatever "-ist" is applied is a secondary concern, if even that.

edit:


However, it places me somewhere just left of capitalism, just right of socialism, and generally opposed to all economic systems.


Exactly.

I still base my ethical stance on the value of self-determination, which does lead me to be a minarchist, as I think that people should be free of coersion but will ultimately install their own government.

However, it places me somewhere just left of capitalism, just right of socialism, and generally opposed to all economic systems.
I assume you mean pure capitalism?

I also do not think that differences stem so much from moral viewpoints, but different understandings of reality. Most people on each side have the same desires for humanity, they only identify different obstacles.
True. Very astute. I believe in some cases morality does affect one's preferences though, alongside other factors.

I assume you mean pure capitalism?

I mean the recognition of private capital ownership. It can be coercive, to say otherwise, you have to take the economic assumptions of the free market model to represent reality. But no economy, no matter how free will fit the ideal conditions.

True. Very astute. I believe in some cases morality does affect one's preferences though, alongside other factors.

I would say that preferences are more responsible for morality than vice versa, but yes, I certainly agree that morality is a large factor in this issue.

I mean the recognition of private capital ownership. It can be coercive, to say otherwise, you have to take the economic assumptions of the free market model to represent reality. But no economy, no matter how free will fit the ideal conditions.
Private property anarchism then (essentially unregulated capitalism)? I thought private capital ownership always applies in a free market. I don't think ideal (ie unregulated) capitalism can manifest itself in reality, no more so than can ideal socialism, without a significant change in human nature.

Private property anarchism then (essentially unregulated capitalism)? I thought private capital ownership always applies in a free market. I don't think ideal (ie unregulated) capitalism can manifest itself in reality, no more so than can ideal socialism, without a significant change in human nature.
But who knows, as if we start a continuous drift towards either, human nature may change to better agree with the system.

But who knows, as if we start a continuous drift towards either, human nature may change to better agree with the system.
Indeed, perhaps as humans evolve. Or maybe even artificially, via advances in science. Who knows.

Private property anarchism then (essentially unregulated capitalism)? I thought private capital ownership always applies in a free market. I don't think ideal (ie unregulated) capitalism can manifest itself in reality, no more so than can ideal socialism, without a significant change in human nature.

I am not committed to abandoning private capital or government altogether, as I cannot see a better distribution occuring without some government regulation. I also think that anarcho-communism is far more likely than anarcho-capitalism.

Basically I want a system that doesn't have the end justification of socialism, has market pricing, does not undervalue labor, and allows profit.

Indeed, perhaps as humans evolve. Or maybe even artificially, via advances in science. Who knows.
Or perhaps having the values rammed down our throught our entire life would make us more accepting of them. Basically, if you are raised to be happy with Socialism by people who are genuinely happy with socialism, you are significantly more likely to like socialism than someone raised in a mixed-capitalism. The same can be said for pure capitalism. The trick is getting the parents that genuinely happy with socialism (or pure capitalism).

I don't think that pure capitalism or pure socialism can work on the large scale. The trick, I think, is to find a happy medium - which means I can't really vote on your poll.

Basically I want a system that doesn't have the end justification of socialism, has market pricing, does not undervalue labor, and allows profit.This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but what you describe seems to me to be similar to Mutualism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but what you describe seems to me to be similar to Mutualism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

The labor theory of value doesn't allow profit, often undervalues labor, and is certainly not a system with market pricing.

The Labor Theory of Value is bad economics and the principle reason I remain closer to capitalism than socialism.

In my view the only economic discusions worth having is how mixed do you wish the economy to be. Anything else is nonsense.

The labor theory of value doesn't allow profit, My interpretation of the labor theory of value as that article explained it to me as it is the quantity of labor would be the determining factor in how much someone makes - someone working more making more. Or did you mean profit in the sense of a business being owned by an individual as opposed to the employees of that business?

often undervalues labor, Only if you view the value of labor from a market perspective.

and is certainly not a system with market pricing.Well, it views labor as being something outside of the market, it would allow market prices for other things.

The Labor Theory of Value is bad economics and the principle reason I remain closer to capitalism than socialism.Hm, how interesting, I didn't realize you were so far to the left. I wonder if there is a socialist system that doesn't use the labor theory of value.

Social Democracy
http://www.spd.de/prj-spdwkportal05/images/spd_logo.gif
with
social market economy!
Seconded.
http://hem.passagen.se/vsf/Ros_transp.gif

Otherwise known as Social Darwinism. What do you think would happen to vampire bats if the followed that philosophy?

They'd have more money per bat than any other species of bat. Which isnt really hard to do as bats dont use any money yet.Times change I suppose.

My interpretation of the labor theory of value as that article explained it to me as it is the quantity of labor would be the determining factor in how much someone makes - someone working more making more. Or did you mean profit in the sense of a business being owned by an individual as opposed to the employees of that business?

While it is far more complex than that, in the end it states that all economic value is determined by the labor put into it. The value of labor is determined (very poorly) by the idea of socially-necessary labor time, the amount of labor it takes to support a person.

The results of the LTV are demonstrably false, Marx himself could not offer mathematical backing for socially-necessary labor time, and the LTV has been completely rejected by mainstream economics.

Only if you view the value of labor from a market perspective.

No, I have already said that the market can undervalue labor as well.

However, the subjective system of the market is at least adequate in determining value, whereas the Labor theory of value is completely worthless. If you look up the word "impractical" the labor theory of value will fit every definition.

Hm, how interesting, I didn't realize you were so far to the left. I wonder if there is a socialist system that doesn't use the labor theory of value.

Market socialism does, unfortunately it eliminates profits through government ownership of businesses.

I would support private co-op ownership, but it could maintain the same problems as other capitalist systems, where workers would be excluded to maintain higher profits.

Ultimately, I think the problems of society aren't going to be fixed by any economic system, and as I judge the system by the process and not the result, I support capitalism.

While it is far more complex than that, in the end it states that all economic value is determined by the labor put into it. The value of labor is determined (very poorly) by the idea of socially-necessary labor time, the amount of labor it takes to support a person.

The results of the LTV are demonstrably false, Marx himself could not offer mathematical backing for socially-necessary labor time, and the LTV has been completely rejected by mainstream economics.Ah, I see.

No, I have already said that the market can undervalue labor as well.That's true (I also remember you saying this), though how do you determine the true value of labor?

However, the subjective system of the market is at least adequate in determining value, whereas the Labor theory of value is completely worthless. If you look up the word "impractical" the labor theory of value will fit every definition.Ah, perhaps.

Market socialism does, unfortunately it eliminates profits through government ownership of businesses.

I would support private co-op ownership, but it could maintain the same problems as other capitalist systems, where workers would be excluded to maintain higher profits.Ah, I see your conundrum. You want profit to exist, and everyone to have the opportunity to work. These are mutually exclusive.

Ultimately, I think the problems of society aren't going to be fixed by any economic system, and as I judge the system by the process and not the result, I support capitalism.How odd, I've only found market systems to be justifiable on the grounds that they produce more efficient results. I find the process abhorrent.

Interesting what differences of opinion can lead to, eh?

That's true (I also remember you saying this), though how do you determine the true value of labor?

The true value of labor is determined by the subjective value of the commodity (the complete opposite idea of Marx, Locke, and Ricardo), but I believe that there are hindrances to the effective negotiation by workers.

I think that the answer could be in the lack of economic implementation, but I don't know.

Ah, perhaps.

No "perhaps" about it.

Ah, I see your conundrum. You want profit to exist, and everyone to have the opportunity to work. These are mutually exclusive.

I don't believe that they are mutually exclusive. Profit is not the unearned exploitation that you see.

I just don't know how to bring the two about, like I said before, the answer is somewhere between capitalism and socialism.

To use the Hegel I have been reading up on, I am searching for a synthesis of philosophies. I don't think I will find it myself, but I hope I recognize it when someone else does.

How odd, I've only found market systems to be justifiable on the grounds that they produce more efficient results. I find the process abhorrent.

Interesting what differences of opinion can lead to, eh?

Efficiency is a horrible justification which I also consider an end justification.

It is the contractual process of capitalism that is its redeeming value in my eyes.

The true value of labor is determined by the subjective value of the commodity (the complete opposite idea of Marx, Locke, and Ricardo), but I believe that there are hindrances to the effective negotiation by workers.

I think that the answer could be in the lack of economic implementation, but I don't know.Could you further explain the term "lack of economic implementation?"

I don't believe that they are mutually exclusive. Profit is not the unearned exploitation that you see.Oh, I can seethat it's possible to make a profit without exploiting people, (I don't necessarily hold to the labor theory of value, myself) but it brings us back to the whole required unemployment thing. Do you still agree with me that profit is impossible with full employment?

I just don't know how to bring the two about, like I said before, the answer is somewhere between capitalism and socialism.

To use the Hegel I have been reading up on, I am searching for a synthesis of philosophies. I don't think I will find it myself, but I hope I recognize it when someone else does.Good luck with your search. :)

Efficiency is a horrible justification which I also consider an end justification.Ah, okay, I see what you mean by process and end justification now.

It is the contractual process of capitalism that is its redeeming value in my eyes.Do you mean simply voluntary trade between individuals?

Could you further explain the term "lack of economic implementation?"

Government economic policy. Proudhon may have been on to something.

Oh, I can seethat it's possible to make a profit without exploiting people, (I don't necessarily hold to the labor theory of value, myself) but it brings us back to the whole required unemployment thing. Do you still agree with me that profit is impossible with full employment?

I don't think that everyone can be employed and profit, but I think that everyone can be employed and some will profit.

But when we allow profit, people tend to choose profit over full employment.

Do you mean simply voluntary trade between individuals?

Yes, voluntary is the best word. Wealth inequalities are totally justified when they are brought about through voluntary contracts.

*snip*
I guess we're pretty alike in our economic ideals then. I'm still a little more to the right than you economically, but we agree for the most part of it.

Government economic policy. Proudhon may have been on to something.Ah. Well, if you're becoming a supporter of Proudhon, that's certainly something to admire, although I'm concerned about the long term viability of his ideas.

I don't think that everyone can be employed and profit, but I think that everyone can be employed and some will profit.Well, certainly it's possible that everyone can be employed and make some amount of money, but profit for some people can happen only if these people don't ask for more money.

But when we allow profit, people tend to choose profit over full employment.Do you believe this is an inevitability of a capitalist system?

Yes, voluntary is the best word. Wealth inequalities are totally justified when they are brought about through voluntary contracts.Do you believe that it's possible that wealth inequalities can be brought about entirely through voluntary contracts and not partially as a result of a person's starting point in life?

Government economic policy. Proudhon may have been on to something.


I've been interested in Proudhon because of his rejection of both capitalism and communism as being dangerous to individual liberty. His rejection of opposite extremes, calls for finding the good (as well as the bad) in both traditional "left" and "right" economic politics, is refreshing; in what I have read, I think I have seen reflections of John Stuart Mills' arguments in favor of freedom of thought and speech. Specifically, the quest to find the elements of truth in all positions and ideas so that the greater and complete truth can be constructed and known.

All that said, the labor theory of value and anarchism ("no rulers") are simply silly. :D