Poll: Capitalism VS Communism VS Socialism

[Dele]

Sorry Dele, but

1) Is an utter lie. Canada, the UK, Europe and Australia have standards of living far ahead of the United States, or for the matter any sizeable capitalist nation. Sorry, but you're so wrong that there should be a monument put up to mark this spot.

2) Not quite getting your point here....but I would guess you are saying that resultant inflation from governmental policies will result in a lowering of the currency until it becomes valueless? Hmmm....point, but I'm not a big fan of that kind of government intervention. I'm in favour of big, vicious taxes on stocks and shares (which are an inflationary preassure in a growing market), lowered taxes on saving gains. Which is neither here nor there. But there are very few government policies, beyond that, that can curb income inequaility. (I mainly object to wealth gathered from stock trading, as it creates nothing)

3. Well, because if it is not, one winds up with an inherently inefficent workforce, and a deepening of inequality. Also, because the education system is a fairly low-profit, high-cost field, the market would never be able to supply satisfactory education to ensure a plentiful supply of qualified labour for itself.

(Edited a bit)

1) Finland as in part of Europe has only 77% of the living standard of US, work productivity is only 83% out of theirs and we only do 93% of the work they do calculated by OECD PPP 2007.

2) No, I am saying that even 1% less growth in 2000 will make a hell of a difference in 2050 or 2100. As for your claims, you owe me one cup of coffee and a new set of underwear. Seriously, I almost jumped through the roof here. Stocks and shares have nothing to do with inflation (Long term, only supply of money does. Short term, supply and demand a little) and unlike you claim, stocks are savings. There is only saving and spending, nothing inbetween so if you want to lower taxes of savings, you cant raise taxes for stocks.

Income inequalities are a natural thing and are explained through level of technology (most important), amount of capital and amount of mental capital (least important) in the business. More of these and you have more income, less of these and you have less income, it's quite simple and reasonable.

I really, really hope you are referring to short term stock trading for the sake of your studies and my mental health. Quite the contrary without short term traders, there is no stock markets. Traders keep the prices at equilibrium so that stocks are always as much worth as the market feels they are. Since you live in the financial capital of Africa, you propably dont have first hand experiance what a lack of traders can do to a market. I live in a country where stock market is dying due lack of traders (thanks for the taxes), it takes weeks to sell smaller companies so nobody wants to buy them which lowers their value even futher. New stock markets established thanks to EU competion laws are currently competing for our last traders so it doesn't look really bright for us. Besides the whole short term trading is bloody hard and only around 10% beat the index after taxes paid so it's not really a pot of gold for the majority of us.

3)Please expand this one. I fail to see how there is more inequality and ineffiency if middle class and rich have to pay for their schools while the poor get their education free.

Here you go.
http://mises.org/story/2935

You deserve a cookie for reading the right sites!

 

[Horticulture]

I understand that, I don't understand what you are saying is insured.
Because my money I borrow on interest, sure as hell isn't, and the banks who charge me bleed me dry with no help from the government.

Bank deposits are insured under the FDIC, and there's a certain amount of explicit insurance for 'systemically vital' institutions-recently, this means major banks who are receiving massive infusions of cash from the federal government. It could be argued that incorporation itself produces a moral hazard, as executives handle the assets of investors and may understand the incentive to manage them for gain during their own tenure rather than maximizing long-term return.

Moral Hazard (though not insurance-related) contributed significantly to the depth of the subprime loan crisis because the ability of mortgages to be securitized (bundled into assets and traded) allowed lenders to sell these loans to others quickly after making them. Because the loans had been sold, the original lenders had less incentive to make loans that they knew could be repaid over the long term-once the security was sold, they had made their profit. Of course, this was no longer effective when the practice became widespread...

Edit: the relevant part of Nutcase's link is the "Fiat Money" section in the bottom quarter or so. I should note that the essay as a whole belongs to the so-called Austrian School of economics. While I encourage you to keep an open mind while reading it, it does not represent mainstream economic analysis or opinion.

 

[Elim Garak]

You need to add combo's. Communism + socialism, communism + capitalism, socialism + capitalism.

Personally I like socialism + capitalism.

 

[littlelacysurprisepageant]

My answer: It depends on the situation. Except for anarchy, that's generally bad.

 

[Horticulture]

Here you go.
http://mises.org/story/2935

I have several problems with that essay, though the section on fiat money contains a reasonable explanation of moral hazard re: government bailouts.

Mainly: it makes several logical leaps and has the Austrian School problem: no evidence and little consideration of the political context in which government economic regulations operate.

First consider the reaction of the citizens to taxation, regulation, and prohibition. From the very fact that intervention entails forced co-ownership, it follows that the citizens have an incentive to evade the intervention. They can to some extent evade it because they have some control of their property. To avoid taxation...they can choose to invest capital in a country with low taxes rather than in a country with high taxes...To evade regulations, they can choose not to buy or sell commodities subject to price controls, or they can choose to buy and sell them on the black market. To evade prohibitions, they can buy and sell prohibited items on the black market. However, operating on the black market is risky and thus very costly, and evasion to other countries is costly too. Thus it follows that there is an incentive for the citizens to use a greater part of their property for personal consumption rather than invest it.

Emphasis mine. This case is defeated by the article's own observation: that regulation and taxation have a tendency to pervade unregulated sectors of an economy. Specifically, it ignores the fact that taxes on consumption exist. Even in the relatively freewheeling US, these aren't insignificant: in my home state of North Carolina we pay 7.5% on most goods (exc. food, gas and vice taxes on cigs and alcohol). The UKs VAT is 15%, spitting distance from its capital gains tax rate of 18%. The US difference varies more widely because our consumptive taxes vary by state, but to use myself as an example, I pay 7.5% on purchased goods and 15% on capital gains. While there is some distortion of incentives here, it's extremely unlikely that such interventions significantly dissuade investment, as it's unlikely that most personal income taxes significantly dissuade people from working. This charge is made especially dubious given the lack of any econometrics or even raw data to back it up.

You deserve a cookie for reading the right sites!

Am I on the cookie list, as well?

 

[Simalacrum]

can we have the option of despotism as well? oh, and monarchy... and an oligarchy...

 

[Captain Picard]

I've read the first few pages of this thread, and a thought came to my mind.

The debate in this thread seems to be fueled in part(if not entirely) by unreconciled and often unstated fundamental differences in what is believed by each person to be the highest good. Some of the most vocal(textual) supporters of capitalism seem to view personal freedom as the highest good. That is to say, the freedom to succeed admirably, freedom to fail miserably, or freedom to simply get by. In the instance that a person cannot be successful enough to meet their basic needs through chance, circumstance, or choice, proponents of capitalism are not concerned that others may not choose to help them by giving of the products of their own success. They either have faith that human nature is generous enough to offer recourse to these folks through charitable organizations, or they simply do not care about the plight of others.

Many proponents of other systems believe that collectively attending to the basic needs of every person is the highest good. Additionally(possibly), they believe every individual has the RIGHT to have their basic needs met either through their own means, or the resources of others. To them, it does not matter so much how the labor or wealth of others is reallocated to achieve this goal, they simply care that it is.

Since human civilization does not have the technological capacity to guarantee an existence for everyone that is free from the struggle to meet one's basic needs, people have a choice of belief before them. Capitalism is the economic system produced from the former belief, and communism was likely the product of the latter. I do not believe however, that the stain of attempted communism should invalidate the latter world-view. I understand the general compassion that those of the latter might feel. They may hold to the idea of the "golden rule" and may dislike the thought of leaving someone's well-being, or having their own, left to chance. Unfortunately, human nature is such that some people will never take responsibility for their own well-being, and will be content to live of the success of others if they are allowed to.

I hope that someday, human technology will be able to guarantee an existence where basic needs for everyone are met. At that point, I hope people will also realize the only avenue left for progress is interstellar travel and colonization.

For now though, I suppose one should seek out the society, economic system, and government that best fits their world-view. For now, the freedom to choose may be the highest good.

Apologies if all this was actually covered earlier in the thread. Also, I did some proof-reading before posting, but if you notice some errors please be kind when pointing them out.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

I'm just saying that I'm not going to get into this. I already said everything I have to say in the Socialism/Capitalism mega-poll that lasted over 20 pages.

 

[Suikun]

I'm for socialism 'ere. Sure, it's not the most fair of things in terms of "my job is harder" or whatnot, but at least it entitles people to something.

However, I agree with Fondant, free market with a load of socialism thrown in would probably be the best mix up of ideals. That way we can have good ol' competition stirring up the pot and keeping things interesting, but keep boundaries so we don't get monopolies or... the USA today. There's nothing wrong with a little governmental nudging here and there to make sure things are in check and not tail-spinning wildly into chaos (or depression *COUGH COUGH*)

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

i loke the idea of socialism because its based around helping one another. capitalism on the other hand because it plays on our greatest weakness....greed.

 

[XzarTheMad]

I am a liberal socialist. That's all I think is necessary to say.

 

[Ekit]

Socialism has worked pretty well here in Sweden so...

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Communism is a great government in theory, but human nature tends to bugger it all up.

Capitalism is a great government in theory, but human nature tends to bugger it all up.

indeed.

Let's face it, people tend to become dicks whenever they're givin power....

 

[TheLaofKazi]

Anyway, *laissez-faire* capitalism is the best system because it's the only one consonant with the above-mentioned human nature. It is the only system that respects individual rights and leaves people free to think and thus, to survive.

Because as we all know, privately owned businesses have never obstructed our freedoms or our pursuit of happiness in any way.

I think, in a way, from capitalisms embracing what is only one part of human nature (humans are greedy and selfish, and that is what motivates them), that it's sort of brought out that aspect of our nature, it's brought out the worst in us. It's forced us to abandon the part of our nature that is caring and altruistic, because acting as such isn't compatible with a society based on selfishness. If you go through life only giving to others in our capitalistic society, you will most likely end up at the bottom of the food chain, because in order to get to the top, you are going to have to screw some people over. Capitalism, in my opinion, not only encourages this sort of selfish behavior, but forces people to resort to it in order to survive and make it.

And in the process of all of this, people's freedom is limited.

 

[Samcanuck]

I like the idea of Socialism.

Group pot to help those in need. Public departments that effect citizens are government run (I trust the gov't more at that level...closer to home for voters; therefore keeps voters interested in my opinion).

Btw, happy Canada day from this Patriot back to my fellow countrymen, and fellow commonwealther's.