NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been taught that capitalism always leads too economic salvation. And I beleive this, but certainly, not everyone does. Does anyone belive any other system of ecomonic policy would be more efficeint than good ol' capitalism?

Social Market Economy.

Commufascicapitarxism.

real capitalism.

there is no one economy fits all some work better than others in certain situations and so there is no right and wrong just different ways of doing things :)

That being said I think a free market with a huge dose of socialism aka very high income taxes to look after the poor would be for the best of course with a good pinch of planned economics in certain areas like police would be a novel idea

Commufascicapitarxism.

Well, that's a double contradiction in terms in a single world. Nice job.

Capitalism. And by that I don't mean the watered-down "capitalism" of the United States. I mean capitalism with no regulations other than to punish force and fraud, a 100% gold standard, no income, payroll or property taxes, and no subsidies. Extreme laissez-faire is my dream.

economic salvation

more efficeint than good ol' capitalism

define your terms

Capitalism. And by that I don't mean the watered-down "capitalism" of the United States. I mean capitalism with...a 100% gold standard
...
Extreme laissez-faire is my dream.

and how is this not directly contradictory?

Posiism

and how is this not directly contradictory?

Because fiat money is a creature of the state and intervention, whereas gold is chosen by the voluntary actions of individuals as a medium of exchange. I would also eliminate legal tender laws and allow for private minting.

define your terms
By "economic" he means "Large", and by "Salvation" he means "Creme Pies." When he said "more efficeint" he meant "tastier", and the easiest translation of "capitalism" would be "hunks of dirt scraped off the bottom of my shoe."
And, I must say, truer words were never spoken.

There is no one universal best economic system. It varies from community to community depending on what the community's goals are and what they see as appropriate mechanisms for achieving those goals. The best economic system will be the one that fits the local culture and conditions best.

I'd say capitalism is far from perfect system. It's just the best we've made.

The Sendallyourmoneytoiztatepopotlaism.

I think one major factor for what system works is what stage a society is in demographic transition.

In that I think something like the Nordic Model of a generous welfare state and job security would be ideal for Stage 4 (low birth rate and low death rate). There's a lot less economic disparity. Although I'm starting to lean toward Denmark's Flexicurity Model a bit more...

However, I cannot say what the best system would be for other stages of demographic transition...

almost 100% laissez-faire.

even though that's not guaranteed the best social outcome.

Because fiat money is a creature of the state and intervention, whereas gold is chosen by the voluntary actions of individuals as a medium of exchange. I would also eliminate legal tender laws and allow for private minting.

and if i wish to offer notes backed by nothing more than my own good name, what do you intend to do about it?

By "economic" he means "Large", and by "Salvation" he means "Creme Pies." When he said "more efficeint" he meant "tastier", and the easiest translation of "capitalism" would be "hunks of dirt scraped off the bottom of my shoe."
And, I must say, truer words were never spoken.

...You have succeeded in making me laugh, in actuality, to the point where I feel compeled to congratulate you... and considering how rarely I post compared to how often I read, that is quite the achievement.

Congratulations.

Laissez-faire, of course.

and if i wish to offer notes backed by nothing more than my own good name, what do you intend to do about it?

Laugh at you?

define your terms

Yeah. Judging from the poll, the OP appears to believe that centrally-planned economies or modern capitalism are the only ones that are worthy of acknowledgement. And then there's the definitions of "efficient" and "prosperity" that ought to be called into question.

I think that the best economic system is one based on file sharing.

Laugh at you?

so the gold standard is a mere personal preference and really shouldn't have been mentioned at all?

Pure Gold, Silver, and other precious metal coins should replace all currency. That way money would have real arbitrary value.

And then there's the definitions of "efficient" and "prosperity" that ought to be called into question.

at the very least, there are issues of 'at what' and 'for whom' that seem rather vital to even attempt to answer the question

so the gold standard is a mere personal preference and really shouldn't have been mentioned at all?

How do you mean? If you mean that people should decide what kind of medium of exchange they want, then sure, it is a personal preference. But I mention it because it's the currency that has been chosen by people in their personal relations and actions, due to various reasons (chemical inertness, malleability, relative scarcity, ease of recognition, high value to weight, etc.) If you want me to say that government shouldn't make money but rather leave it up to the people, then alright then. But I thought it would make it a lot clearer by my predicting what kind of medium of exchange should be used.

Pure Gold, Silver, and other precious metal coins should replace all currency. That way money would have real arbitrary value.

You're damn right.

Pure Gold, Silver, and other precious metal coins should replace all currency. That way money would have real arbitrary value.

as opposed to fake arbitrary value?

at the very least, there are issues of 'at what' and 'for whom' that seem rather vital to even attempt to answer the question

Yep.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11711038&postcount=48

almost 100% laissez-faire.

even though that's not guaranteed the best social outcome.

so what is the point of economics?

How do you mean?

at best i just see no connection at all between a gold standard and "capitalism with no regulations". and it seems to me that making such a connection as more than a mere statement of personal preferences requires at least some regulation beyond ye olde' force and fraud.

so what is the point of economics?
I was under the impression that the purpose of economics was to explain and predict the methods by which goods or servies were produced, distributed, and consumed, but maybe that was what panda bears were for . . .

I was under the impression that the purpose of economics was to explain and predict the methods by which goods or servies were produced, distributed, and consumed, but maybe that was what panda bears were for . . .

change 'economics' to 'an economy' if you so desire

and, of course, economics as a field of study is one of those things that seems to have a hell of a time sticking to purely descriptive work. there is a significant normative aspect to the whole thing.

change 'economics' to 'an economy' if you so desire
I don't know, what is an economy? Is it just the sum total of all the transactions that happen in a particular nation or area?
And, if it is, then why would something that isn't really something, but just a whole lot of little somethings totaled together for convenience, have a purpose?

Or, to quit dicking around and get to something near the point, why have an "economic system" if that system would just be an attempt to regulate a thing that doesn't exist in the first place?
You can't regulate each individual transaction, because to do so would involve assigning an auditor to every Snickers bar purchased out of every vending machine at 3 AM, and you can't effectively regulate on a general level, because that just gives you the mess that we have now, with black markets, corporate corruption and organized crime runninng rampant all over the place.

Viva la capitalista!

But seriously, analyzed from any perspective you care to consider - computer science, classical economics, political philosophy, utilitarianism/consequentialism - capitalism outperforms collectivist systems such as communism and socialism with ease.

It isn't the absolute most efficient economic system that could exist, and it of course is only as good as it is under conditions of scarcity - but given the problem statement of resource allocation under conditions of scarcity, there isn't anything better we can easily work out. The biggest problem with finding a better way to run the economy is that mathematical economics is an NP-complete problem, which very basically means it's impossible to solve algorithmically in a given timeframe. It basically has to be stumbled upon, unless and until computer scientists work out how to solve that kind of problem.

why would something that isn't really something, but just a whole lot of little somethings totaled together for convenience, have a purpose?

because humans are teleological beings, and we can and do actively shape our institutions and customs towards various ends.

the fact that some thing is an abstraction of numerous distinct concrete events has no impact on the existence of an ascribed purpose for the whole thing and the social rules governing the particulars.

Parecon FTW!

because humans are teleological beings, and we can and do actively shape our institutions and customs towards various ends.
Yeah, you tell me how that shaping is working out, because I'm not seeing much varying among the ends.
the fact that some thing is an abstraction of numerous distinct concrete events has no impact on the existence of purpose for the whole thing and the social rules governing it.
No, but the fact that these "concrete events" have only the most tenuous connection to one another does. How do we define this "economy"?
If two children trade Halloween candy, was that exchange part of the economy? What about this conversation? Its an exchange between two people, in which each gives the other a portion of their time.
And, once you've clarified what's in the "economy", where does it end? Do "economies" stop at national boundries? Or should there only be one "global economy"? And if the "economy" is global, then who regulates it?
Ultimately, there is no reason why my buying a copy of the New York Times should have anything to do with someone in Ohio buying a Chicken Sandwich, a man in California buying a bottle of cheap vodka, and a man in Alaska hiring a high class prostitute. These things aren't the same and aren't connected, yet you could still total them all up and create an "economy."
People are sense-making creatures, but the Universe and human interaction have little or no sense involved in them.

As yet a fully workable economic system that provides for economic and social security of all those involved in the system has yet to used.
Currently, the West operates a version of capitalism with a limited social standard attached to it. Pure laissez-faire capitalism is a great economic theory, as would be the purely planned Communist style economy, however both systems do not consider the biggest problem, that of the people who use it. People are inherently damaging to any economic system as they tend not to follow the meticulous rules that are required for any such system to work.
As the old economic joke goes; "Economists have predicted 10 of the last 2 economic crashes".
The human element makes any economic system a failure.

Real communism, and before it is possible, real socialism.

Socialist Democratic system. Combines money for the companies with rights for the workers.

Capitalism is the true communal system - everyone is doing their part in the economy ;)

Government needs to exist in order to enforce laws against fraud, but other than that a laissez-faire system would be ideal. Everyone may make their own choices and choose what they think is best for themselves. Government should not treat people like little children – centrally planned socialist systems are promoted by self-centered arrogant idiots who thing that they know what is best for everyone (of course, so long as you do exactly what they think is right and ignore everyone else’s opinions).

Information is the key to freedom. The free flow of information makes free market systems the ideal economy. When everyone can look around and see what is on offer and for how much, producers will cater to the demands of the customer and the customer can find the products that would benefit them the most. Some communist bureaucrat in an office in party headquarters does not know how much I do or do not value items nor what makes me happy.

If people have free access to information (for example the previous behavior of someone with whom they are considering trading with) the need for government intrusion is negligible. They can find opportunities to be productive, and then spend that productivity to gain what basket of goods they think would benefit them the most.

Some unfortunate individuals will make mistakes or have poor decision-making skills, but should we punish everyone collectively because of that? Most people, if called upon, will be fully capable of taking care of themselves. Those that cannot take care of themselves have no right to steal from those who can. People with excess are free to do whatever charity they wish, but the government should not steal and enslave people in the name of charity.

Free markets allow people to choose their own destiny, rather than having some idiotic bureaucrat deciding for them.

Capitalism works in many cases, however it does not fix all:

How do you solve the problems with collective goods
how do you solve monopolies
how do you solve the problems of products that induce cost on all or some (environmental problems for example), but which is not included in the price; freeriding and collective action problems...

Capitalism works in many cases, however it does not fix all:

How do you solve the problems with collective goods
how do you solve monopolies
how do you solve the problems of products that induce cost on all or some (environmental problems for example), but which is not included in the price; freeriding and collective action problems...

Monopolies:
No problem – monopolies arise from government intervention. Free markets would prevent monopolies from occurring unless that monopoly was to the benefit of the people.

Now for your other concern about collective goods and externalizing costs:
Let us look at pollution. This is, once again, an example of information and basic free markets can alleviate problems. Companies that pollute gain the reputation of being damaging to the environment. Environmentally conscious consumers then boycott the product. In response to loosing market share to competitors, the highly polluting company cuts its pollution in the hopes of regaining sales.

‘Organic’ foods are, generally speaking, far more expensive than non-organic foods. Why do people buy them? Consumer choice maximizes utility. Consumers who have a little extra money (and can thus afford what is effectively a tax on a having a better environment) are willing to pay the much higher cost of environmentally friendly goods. Consumers on the verge of starvation can still have access to cheaper goods (though at the slight cost of more pollution to the environment). Thus basic market forces bring about a balance between concern for supplying the basic needs of people as well as protecting the environment.

Responsible capitalism. - all the fun of capitalism without the downside of robber barons. Thank God for Teddy Roosevelt!

Capitalism. And by that I don't mean the watered-down "capitalism" of the United States. I mean capitalism with no regulations other than to punish force and fraud, a 100% gold standard, no income, payroll or property taxes, and no subsidies. Extreme laissez-faire is my dream.
That ideology is as stupid as communism, because both have been tried and failed.

Pure Gold, Silver, and other precious metal coins should replace all currency. That way money would have real arbitrary value.
The reason that was phased out was because a lot of misers caused inflation by grinding down the edges of their coins to gold dust in order to artificially create more money for themselves.

Monopolies:
No problem – monopolies arise from government intervention. Free markets would prevent monopolies from occurring unless that monopoly was to the benefit of the people.

Monopolies arise as often from lack of government intervention as they do from government intervention. Governments can intervene to prevent competitors from merging but often fail to do so because they are not acting in the public interest (see ExxonMobil merger). Our reliance on the corporate model is a big factor ... as Adam Smith predicted, corporations are able to accumulate capital to the point that enables them to gain a monopoly position.


Now for your other concern about collective goods and externalizing costs:
Let us look at pollution. This is, once again, an example of information and basic free markets can alleviate problems. Companies that pollute gain the reputation of being damaging to the environment. Environmentally conscious consumers then boycott the product. In response to loosing market share to competitors, the highly polluting company cuts its pollution in the hopes of regaining sales.


Only if environmentally conscious consumers are a large enough group to actually carry that kind of clout.


‘Organic’ foods are, generally speaking, far more expensive than non-organic foods. Why do people buy them? Consumer choice maximizes utility. Consumers who have a little extra money (and can thus afford what is effectively a tax on a having a better environment) are willing to pay the much higher cost of environmentally friendly goods. Consumers on the verge of starvation can still have access to cheaper goods (though at the slight cost of more pollution to the environment). Thus basic market forces bring about a balance between concern for supplying the basic needs of people as well as protecting the environment.

But those that buy the cheaper goods are still externalizing the cost of their conduct onto others; they are effectively receiving a subsidy from everyone else. And it is not always those in need that receive it. If we want to ensure a balance between meeting people's basic needs and protecting the environment, we should internalize all of the environmental costs, and then provide direct financial aid to those who need it, rather than merely subsidizing the behaviour of those who choose to buy the environmentally destructive goods.