16-03-2004, 20:16
Why in the nations, whenever you make a decision that involves Socialisation of your nation, or Government planning of any kind (As opposed to Corperate "Lez Faire" Free Market decisions) does your economy get weaker?
I know that this is the popular idea that whenever a Economy is controlled and moderated, then the Economy gets weakers, but this is very wrong.
In the past when Nations economies have been controlled (i.e. Socialised/Nationalised) the economy has been incredibly efficient. Some examples are Hitlers germany (The most efficient economy that ever existed in history, and had no Capitalism at all), and the Soviet Union (Which although many believe was very poor due to Socialisation, was weakened mainly because of the war, and interfereance from the americans).
The truth is, contrary to popular thinking Socialism is very inefficient, is far, far more efficient than wastefull Capitalism (Which propomtes Competion, Divison, and production of things that are unneeded).
Therefore, I think that instead of having issues that involve the choice between Socialism (Planned economy) and Capitalism (Corperate "Lez Faire" Economy), you should have three choices on how your economy is governed:
1. Socialism (Strengthens Economy drastically, however, reduced Civil Rights, and increases Taxation and equality of wealth)
2. Capitalism (Strenthens Economy slightly, Increases Civil Rights, reduces taxation, but makes great inequality within wealth distribution)
3. Reduction, or "Lez Faire" Economy (Weakens economy, Increases Civil rights, reduces taxation, no change in wealth distribution)
I think that this system of working out the economy in a Nation is far more acurate, and would like to see it to be implemented in the issues in the future.
I could give an example of an issue that would exist if this system was used, if anyone does not understand fully what I mean by this.
I know that this is the popular idea that whenever a Economy is controlled and moderated, then the Economy gets weakers, but this is very wrong.
In the past when Nations economies have been controlled (i.e. Socialised/Nationalised) the economy has been incredibly efficient. Some examples are Hitlers germany (The most efficient economy that ever existed in history, and had no Capitalism at all), and the Soviet Union (Which although many believe was very poor due to Socialisation, was weakened mainly because of the war, and interfereance from the americans).
The truth is, contrary to popular thinking Socialism is very inefficient, is far, far more efficient than wastefull Capitalism (Which propomtes Competion, Divison, and production of things that are unneeded).
Therefore, I think that instead of having issues that involve the choice between Socialism (Planned economy) and Capitalism (Corperate "Lez Faire" Economy), you should have three choices on how your economy is governed:
1. Socialism (Strengthens Economy drastically, however, reduced Civil Rights, and increases Taxation and equality of wealth)
2. Capitalism (Strenthens Economy slightly, Increases Civil Rights, reduces taxation, but makes great inequality within wealth distribution)
3. Reduction, or "Lez Faire" Economy (Weakens economy, Increases Civil rights, reduces taxation, no change in wealth distribution)
I think that this system of working out the economy in a Nation is far more acurate, and would like to see it to be implemented in the issues in the future.
I could give an example of an issue that would exist if this system was used, if anyone does not understand fully what I mean by this.