USSR collapsed, North Korea and Cuba are poor. China is de facto capitalist country with socialist ideology. i guess that pretty much sums it up, wich economy type is superior
Link to the debate.
Printable View
USSR collapsed, North Korea and Cuba are poor. China is de facto capitalist country with socialist ideology. i guess that pretty much sums it up, wich economy type is superior
Link to the debate.
Commentary thread opened.
Ok, but how are we defining socialism and capitalism in here? The "socialism" addressed seems to be a synonym of "State Planned Economy and State Owned Factors of Production", something that time and again has proved to be quite economically inefficient.
On the other hand there are characteristics in many Productive Systems that can be branded Capitalist(there's private property and monetary systems, 2 basic indicators of a Capitalist System) where the same problems of a planned economy might arise: Oligopolies, Regional or National Monopolies and Cartels have been proved to be economically contrary for the adequate development of innovative practices, social equality and competitive markets... factors that have time and again been directly associated to a society's order, the communities welfare and companies efficiency.
Socialism as I defined it was a synonym for a mixed market economy. Capitalism as legio defined it was also a mixed market economy, thus our debate was one of judging which policies were inherently better within the mixed market economy, at least that was the attempt. Unfortunately the debate fizzled out. The debate kept being hijacked back towards the definition ideologies of both words which neither party was using in a pure sense confusing things further.
My goal was to establish a balance between social and economic policies being the ideal rather than biasing society towards socialist or capitalist ideologies a natural middle line was the ideal. Legio seemed to agree with this.
My next goal was to establish that many policies that we had discussed were actually given proper consideration. Legio seemed to offhandedly reject many policies as dead ends or not worthwhile. I was never really able to establish why to debate those factors except in the vagueist of senses.
Case in point because after tarp there were fewer small businesses Legio has claimed that the federal reserve is [insert something negative] but I'm not sure what he's getting at. Tarp was a bailout program initiated by congress in response to the federal reserves suggestion. It's stated goal was to prevent a collapse of the economy into a depression which it succeeded in doing. If the banks had been allowed to collapse their holdings total trillions of dollars which means that the economy would take eons to recover, not simply years. This is where the debate ended.
Regarding de whole "The Federal Reserve and Central Banks are harmful to the optimal exchange of goods and the setting of their prices in the Market" argument we can conclude it's reckless, not to say stupid, to hold it without having properly understood a grasp of the Currency Market, or Gresham's Law or at least Jean Bodin's writings lol.
Two things: 1) Read debate thread- head now hurts. 2) elf dude, I'm pretty sure this commentary threads for eveyrone else to you know, comment on your debate.
Ideological discussion is mostly uninteresting anyway. It should come down to policies that directly increase the wealth of a nation... We can decide what moral points to spend or not spend our money on afterwards. I think you would have been better off focusing the discussion on one policy, like healthcare or education, instead of approaching it so broadly.
Seems very much like you want to have your cake and eat it with your definitions Elfdude.
"Which is the better economy": what really matters is the average subjective well-being of the citizens.
The time is ripe for our measurement system to shift emphasis from measuring economic production to measure people´s well being.(Stiglitz, 2009)
I know it's a commentary thread, I can make my own comments right? Anyways the vast majority of definitional debate really is trivial the few things we touch that can actually be debated are far more interesting imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Zoidberg
I'm not sure what you mean entirely, although it might be key to point out my definitions aren't correct and I've admitted as such, hence my attempt to reframe the debate (which mostly failed). I don't accept the idea that anything with a market component is capitalism as proper, the way I was taught was anything with a social component is socialism. But I think now both definitions are simplifications which are utterly impossible in their purist form.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny Crane!
ARrrgh ... for the love of God (and I`m an atheist) please don`t mix political doctrines (like Socialism) with economical systems (capitalism).Why didn`t you point this out Danny ? :hmm:
Mixed market economy isn`t some kinky description it`s one of the 3 economical systems known to mankind along side planned economy and free market (capitalism).
I`m glad to see TWC hearing about something asoldnew as mixed market economy.In a few years it might be considered an actual economical system.
Capitalism is capitalism and mixed market is mixed market.
And Socialism like the political doctrine that is can make use of planned market or mixed market economy.
Capitalism wouldn`t go well with Socialism since it`s a doctrine that emphasizes equality so the donations it would receive are way too low.
Well yes that was rather my point. If you'd already gone so far as to point that last sentence out then my comment was redundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by elfdude
Seems like you want to make my comment mean a lot more than it did. Don't do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShockBlast
Neah, I know for a fact that you know the difference between the two of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny Crane!
It`s like having two guys arguing what sex is better vaginal or handjob. :laughter:
I feel liker there is a third way :D
i put my money on capitalism, it already prove by history. Socialism is good for control people but realy bad to control economy.
Capitalism vs planned economy is stereotyped thinking. Both systems are limited, far from perfect and they have failed. The Hegelian dialectic suggest the following:
Thesis: Capitalism (the winner gets everything and the rest shall suffer and die)
Antithesis: Socialism (everyone the same regardless of talent/merit)
-> Synthesis: Social Capitalism
- Minimum and maximum wage (some suggest 1:12 or 1:20) to stop limitless greed while acknowledging that hard work deserves more money.
- No stock exchanges. Our daily bread is not a gambling toy for the rich. If companies need money, they should go to a bank.
- Nationalization of banks/electricity/water. These companies belong into the hand of the people.
- More smaller companies run by their proprietors instead of international monsters that are only good at tax evasion.
- 100% inheritance tax. Your merits should take you to the top and not your parent's money.
I love the phrase "nationalise" and "hands of the people" in the same sentence. Much like "power to the people" is call for a revolutionto put one single man in power and get a bunch of people shot.
Planned economies only worked somewhat consistently during the times of Ancient Egypt and, to a lesser extent, in Mesopotamia cultures. Roman, Medieval and eventually Soviet intents to suppress individually directed capital flows or intense planning of most productive areas eventually failed; technological progress and social rationalization is too much for a single political entity to handle without incurring in major cracks.
Central planning works better when there's or there has to be a natural monopoly (transportation services or political monopoly on force) or private entities won't invest in a certain service due to lack of potential profits (certain educational areas, public health or social security); but social ownership of the means of production as in "central planning by a specialized bureaucracy of every aspect of production" is doomed to create several problems: administrative tasks out-growing productive ones, lack of collective organizational stimulus, sluggish innovation processes and departmentalized struggle between different areas of the same productive units. All of these problems plague large corporations as well but competition with smaller or larger entities forces them to try to correct them faster.